Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/GiantSnowman/Workshop

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

Case clerk: TBD Drafting arbitrator: TBD

Purpose of the workshop

Arbitration case pages exist to assist the Arbitration Committee in arriving at fair, well-informed decisions. The case Workshop exists so that parties to the case, other interested members of the community, and members of the Arbitration Committee can post possible components of the final decision for review and comment by others. Components proposed here may be general principles of site policy and procedure, findings of fact about the dispute, remedies to resolve the dispute, and arrangements for remedy enforcement. These are the four types of proposals that can be included in committee final decisions. There are also sections for analysis of /Evidence, and for general discussion of the case. Any user may edit this workshop page; please sign all posts and proposals. Arbitrators will place components they wish to propose be adopted into the final decision on the /Proposed decision page. Only Arbitrators and clerks may edit that page, for voting, clarification as well as implementation purposes.

Expected standards of behavior

• 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 incivil or engaging in personal attacks, 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).

Consequences of inappropriate behavior

• Editors who conduct themselves inappropriately during a case may be sanctioned by an arbitrator or clerk, without warning.
• Sanctions issued by arbitrators or clerks may include being banned from particular case pages or from further participation in the case.
• Editors who ignore sanctions issued by arbitrators or clerks may be blocked from editing.
• Behavior during a case may also be considered by the committee in arriving at a final decision.

Questions to the parties

Arbitrators may ask questions of the parties in this section.

Analysis of evidence

Place here items of evidence (with diffs) and detailed analysis

GiantSnowman use of rollback

GiantSnowman used the rollback tool to revert edits that should not have been reverted: verbatim # Date Instances User reverted Notes 1A 03 December 2018 25 Jamieroot11 (talk · contribs) 1B 27 November 2018 41 Cipow (talk · contribs) 1C 29 November 2018 26 Davidstockholm (talk · contribs) 1D 04 December 2018 416 Veryproicelandic (talk · contribs) The conduct exhibited in 1) breached our Editing policy: verbatim Instead of removing article content that is poorly presented, consider cleaning up the writing, formatting or sourcing on the spot, or tagging it as necessary — WP:EDIT#Try to fix problems Users are not expected to undo edits without being sure they are problematic. Sports biographies are plagued by hoax updates (see evidence by Iridescent). Administrators are justified in paying increased attention to these topic areas, and indeed regarding unverified information with a healthy degree of skepticism. No misconduct was exhibited in the below evidence submissions: verbatim # Evidence by User reverted Notes 4A Fram Footballinbelgium (talk · contribs) I have stopped reviewing specific instances of rollback (or mass rollback) by GiantSnowman, because the pattern seems clear enough to be getting on with. I may update further beyond 1D and 4A at a later time. AGK ■ 13:54, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Analysis posted; comments welcome. AGK ■ 13:54, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

I am pondering Point 3. I don't think we have evidence beyond anecdotal commentary that sports biographies suffer from more or more damaging hoax edits than other biographies. Also anecdotally, it appears more to be that statistics updates do not follow WP:Football's guidance on how to format an update (that the date of the update needs to be given - the source is generally already present in the article). I am also aware from discussion at WP:Football that not everyone who monitors football biographies has a "revert first and don't act questions at all" attitude, but will check themselves the veracity of an edit before either removing it, correcting it, or leaving it. However, in general, I do agree that monitoring of sports (indeed all) biographies by admins (and other users) is justified, and that dubious edits should be examined and removed if concerns remain. SilkTork (talk) 10:47, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

After looking at RFPP [1] I agree that football bios are one of the highest groups to receive page protection for disruptive editing. SilkTork (talk) 13:12, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Any reason you don't put the name of whoever provided the evidence with the bits of evidence you believe to be correct, but you do put the name of the person adding the evidence with the one bit you believe to be incorrect (without providing any justification to either?). Seems a bit strange. The vast majority of edits by Fotballinbelgium in that rollbacked streak were correct and sourced, a few seem to have been mistakes though. Are one or two mistakes amnog many correct edits justification for rollback? Fram (talk) 09:59, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

Part of me thinks we are getting hung up on statistics updates - that's just one part of it. There's also changes to height, changing of teams etc. GiantSnowman 10:54, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

@AGK:, you haven't responded to my previous question yet, but additionally; while it looks impressive to see a drafting arb (for now) use Latin in a case, it seems that your use of "verbatim" here is, well, wrong or meaningless. You are not copying anything word-for-word, the bits you hide under "verbatim" are your own summaries, put into a table. Perhaps change your headers to something less impressive but more accurate? Fram (talk) 11:02, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

Comment by others:

@AGK: Do not forget GS rollback against WR227 Hhkohh (talk) 14:02, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

As Fram says, the hatted information in points 1 and 3/4 is not "verbatim". Fish+Karate 16:28, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

GiantSnowman comprehension of conduct concerns

Initially, GiantSnowman's position was that reverting valid additions to the encyclopedia is acceptable in the course of reverting unacceptable edits: verbatim I acknowledge that I have previously used the massrollback script to revert editors, and that has sometimes caught up good faith edits and editors. However my use of rollback is allowed by #5 of WP:ROLLBACKUSE — User:GiantSnowman — Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/GiantSnowman/Evidence#Rollback Later, GiantSnowman departed from that position and accepted the concerns: verbatim I've already acknowledged that my use of mass rollback was inappropriate in relation to a few users, although (again) at the time I thought it was all kosher and inline with WP:ROLLBACKUSE — User:GiantSnowman — Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/GiantSnowman/Evidence#Proving a negative Elaborating on this departure, GiantSnowman demonstrated a misunderstanding of the concerns as being about mass rollbacking – rather than rollbacking as such: verbatim Yes, there will be many examples of me using mass rollback and reverting good faith edits […] such as addition of unsourced content about BLPs which turned out to be correct or good-faith removals of infoboxes […] I thought that such use was allowed per #5 of WP:ROLLBACKUSE. I was told at ANI it was not, I apologised and self-reverted, I stopped using it, and I uninstalled the script. Are there ongoing problems? No. — User:GiantSnowman — Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/GiantSnowman/Evidence#Response to UninvitedCompany GiantSnowman has consequently addressed concerns about rollbacking strictly as assisted by the massRollback.js script. However, the concerns more broadly related to all use by GiantSnowman of the rollback permission. I will deal with the "regular" rollback tool in a further section. AGK ■ 16:12, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Analysis posted; comments welcome. AGK ■ 16:12, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

There have been concerns raised, for example by Dweller [2], that it is not so much the tool that is the concern but the actual reverts - that due care and diligence appears to be lacking when GiantSnowman reverts (regardless of how he reverts), such as this revert of me [3] while I was still actively editing, and when the source for the reverted information was present in the article and was supporting the same information in the infobox (that the player had appeared 27 times and scored one goal for a club). SilkTork (talk) 10:27, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

His conduct concerns are also about vandalism warnings and blocks for good faith, constructive edits. Fram (talk) 10:00, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

And, as can be seen in my evidence, your second point is inaccurate, he even blocked an editor for a good edit during this case, and his comments about other blocks show no change in approach or understanding for most of the problems, only for the mass rollback when a formal sanction seemed imminent. Fram (talk) 10:42, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

Comment by others:

If an admin is repeatedly lack of comprehension, he cannot become an excellent admin Hhkohh (talk) 07:10, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

GiantSnowman motivation for reverts

(A) Since this case opened Since the commencement of this case, GiantSnowman has constrained his reverting to edits about a sports personality, team, or club. GiantSnowman tends to revert changes or updates to a point of fact, usually in an {{infobox}}. Edits reverted by GiantSnowman include unverified changes to: number of appearances whether they are signed or a free agent number of goals scored In most cases, the user failed to provide a citation or allow for verification. On Wikipedia, readers must be able to check the information in an article is not falsified, misremembered, or estimated. Any statement "whose verifiability is challenged or likely to be challenged" must reference a reliable, published source (WP:V#Responsibility for providing citations). (B) Prior to this case opening Prior to the commencement of this case, GiantSnowman frequently reverted edits to topics other than sports. Reverting unverified changes about a sports personality is defendable conduct. Wikipedia policy is clear: encyclopedia content must be verifiably accurate. However, GiantSnowman's edits have not been confined to reverting unverified edits to sports pages. GiantSnowman has also reverted edits to non-sports pages. Many, but not all, of these reverts were collateral damage from the mass rollback script. It does not escape the committee's notice that users remain on "best behaviour" while at arbitration. Several essays in the userspace, indeed, recommend doing so. The committee will not necessarily give less weight to GiantSnowman's conduct prior to this case (versus conduct after the case was opened). Regarding the last sentence in B6 – how many reverts were "deliberate" rollbacks, rather than collateral damage from massRollback.js? AGK ■ 17:00, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Analysis prepared; comments welcome. AGK ■ 17:00, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

@GS, I've edited this analysis section for clarity (it was unclearly worded). The point was that you've reverted on non-sports pages; eg [4]. AGK ■ 19:45, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

@AGK: - 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 19:02, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

Yes, I have - though the edit you highlighted was part of a mass rollback revert (hence why I have suggested use of the script and use of 'normal' rollback are considered separately). I noticed the editor in question removing infoboxes from footballer articles. GiantSnowman 20:45, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

@AGK and UninvitedCompany: and, as I have already explained on the Evidence page (and talk page!), that was the reversion of a sock per WP:BLOCKEVASION/WP:DENY. Rollback is allowed for that per #4 of WP:ROLLBACKUSE. GiantSnowman 17:20, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

Comment by others:

@AGK: - I had placed this example in evidence where, after the commencement of the case, GiantSnowman reverted a change that included an inline citation to a valid source that, upon review, appeared to support the edit that was reverted. This was a manual revert, not one using the mass rollback tool. GiantSnowman claimed it is justified, post hoc, on the case pages, based on WP:SOCK, but I don't believe there's any material evidence that suggests that the reverted content was anything other than a good-faith edit. Please consider updating your analysis. UninvitedCompany 17:14, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

GiantSnowman use of blocks

In the last three months (since 1 October), GS has blocked about 29 editors (excluding sock blocks, which I haven't looked at). While a fair number of those were justified and uncontroversial, at least 6 of those were incorrect blocks. This includes one block made during this case (User:107.77.173.7). Fram (talk) 10:55, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

GS continues to defend these blocks, e.g. his 3 month block of User:WR227, who added sourced facts to 25 articles, but forgot to include the source (named in the edit summary) to the article in one instance. For the block of User:121.212.176.113, they stated "In the edit highlighted by Fram, the IP was seemingly changing sourced content. It was fair to revert and view as vandalism." This was the edit in question, which changed an incorrect statement and thus improved the article. For the block made during the case, they stated " 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)". As I already explained, they didn't continue to edit in that way, they continued to edit, but now in a constructive manner, but were blocked anyway. Fram (talk) 11:07, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Do you want to define 'incorrect' blocks please? GiantSnowman 11:03, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

WR227 was overturned. User:107.77.173.7 made one edit, which was correct and constructive, between the final warning and your block. User:121.212.176.113 made a correction, but you blindly considered it to be vandalism and blockworthy without checking. The others were similar, with you focusing on minor formatting errors instead of appreciating the constructive, factual nature of their efforts. Fram (talk) 11:10, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

WR227 was initially upheld; but were any of the others overturned? You still have not defined 'incorrect'. 107.77.173.7 was warned multiple times by numerous editors and continued to edit disruptively. It was not a 'correction', it was the addition of unsourced content (after many warnings for vandalism) that appeared to be vandalism but later turned out to be factual. GiantSnowman 11:18, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

This is not "the addition of unsourced content", the source is directly behind the figure. The number in the infobox was wrong (didn't match the source given), he changed it to the number from the source immediately following it, so it is very strange to hear you describe this as "not a 'correction', it was the addition of unsourced content". They could hardly have added the same source twice after the same fact? Anyway, an "incorrect" block is a block which should never have been made, a block where the edits you blocked for didn't warrant a block. Fram (talk) 11:52, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

Apologies, getting the IPs mixed up. 121.212.176.113 changed what appeared to be sourced content with no explanation. Yes, on the face of it, it looked like vandalism. I am sure any other editor patrolling the change, seeing that, would have done the same. GiantSnowman 13:08, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

Comment by others:

GiantSnowman response to concerns

In a number of documented cases leading up to 4 December 2018, GiantSnowman wrongly reverted other editors. On 4 December 2018, GiantSnowman reverted ≈ 500 edits by Veryproicelandic. GiantSnowman's reasons for reverting were incorrect; and because massRollback.js was used, many edits unrelated to the stated basis for reverting were also reverted (eg vote in a PM at Talk:Animal bite). A number of editors expressed concerns in the community ANI thread about these reverts. On 5 December, GiantSnowman accepted those concerns, saying I'll be more careful in future. On 6 December, GiantSnowman mass-reverted more edits by another user that should not have been reverted. Concerns were then raised by several more users. On 9 December, GiantSnowman accepted these further concerns. Around three hours later on 9 December, GiantSnowman mass-reverted more edits that should not have been reverted. Further concerns were raised about GiantSnowman's actions. On 10 December, GiantSnowman uninstalled the massRollback.js user script. On 20 December, GiantSnowman incorrectly reverted an edit by 107.77.173.7. A non-IP editor later re-added the content, which stuck.

Posted: AGK ■ 11:50, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Analysis drafted; comments welcome. AGK ■ 11:50, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

@GiantSnowman: Based on evidence so far, you have a higher incidence of out-of-process reverting than a typical administrator or rollbacker. Looking past your past use of the rollback function, the evidence seems also to raise questions about WP:ADMINACCT. I do not know if the committee could be reassured or convinced that you are sufficiently responsive to community concerns. Editing out of step with policy and not solving concerns may mean you no longer meet the requirements imposed by the Wikipedia community on its administrators. That you've uninstalled the massRollback.js script might not allay this problem, because it is fundamental. Could we hear your comments? AGK ■ 12:04, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

(Decisions have assuredly not already been made. This is just an analysis of evidence section – where we try to understand what the evidence is telling us.) My question was about reacting/responding/remedying community concerns – rather than just replying. And it had already been established that these rollbacks weren't permissible, right? Why did it appear to take 3 tries before you fully took on board the community's concerns? AGK ■ 13:17, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

To be as succint as possible - yes I used mass rollback on editors who I thought were being disruptive. Some were repeatedly adding unsourced content; some were remoing infoboxes; some had a history of incorrect stats updates. I thought those rollbacks were in-line with #5 of WP:ROLLBACKUSE. I now know they were not (though nobody has yet explained what #5 of ROLLBACKUSE is therefore actually for). Those mass rollbacks included inappropriate rollback of good edits, including talk page posts - such is the nature of the script. Everything I did/have done has been, I thought at the time, in line with policy. Will it happen again? No. Has it happened since? Not that I'm aware of (other than the 20 December on-off anomaly, which is debatable).

Saying I have not responded to community concerns is grossly unfair. I engaged with the ANI thread fully, and am engaging fully with this case. I have responded to questions, queries, and concerns. I don't know what else you want/need me to do. It seems like a decision has already been made and nothing I say or do can change that. What a wonderful process. GiantSnowman 13:05, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

There was the spate of reverts that were rollbacked on 4 December, after which I said I'll be more careful. The 4 Dec edits, in hindsight, were clear good faith edits, even if not fully constructive, supported by edit summaries. I was wrong to roll them back; I self-reverted and apologised (the editor accepted by apology btw). The ones on 6th edit I still think were OK, and at the ANI thread other admins supported them. It was only after the rollbacks on 9 December (an IP adding unsourced content to hundreds of BLPs with no explanation) were criticised that it clicked. That's when I uninstalled the script, and have not enggaged in that type of editing since (so saying I have not listened/taken on board is unfair. I have, even if it took a bit longer than it perhaps should have). But as I said, nobody has yet explained when #5 of ROLLBACKUSE actually applies, that's what caused confusion for me. "To revert widespread edits (by a misguided editor or malfunctioning bot) unhelpful to the encyclopedia" - I view(ed) mass addition of unsourced content about BLPs as unhelful to Wikipedia. Is that wrong as well? If so, you need to change/clarify WP:BLP and WP:BURDEN. GiantSnowman 13:27, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

Response to Valenciano - yes, fair point, and that is why (as I've said in my evidence) I am now making more of an effort to verify information if I can. However, that doesn't mean that the obligation is on the person adding information to adequately source it, and in my long experience here it is very rare for editors to do that in a separate edit. How long are we expected to wait for a source to be added? GiantSnowman 17:59, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

Comment by others:

GS, you've repeatedly cited WP:BURDEN as justification for your edits and now say it should be clarified. I did just that for you ([5]) but you ignored me. This is the relevant part: "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. If you think the material is verifiable, you are encouraged to provide an inline citation yourself before considering whether to remove or tag it."

That makes it clear that BURDEN is not a sledgehammer with which to bludgeon new editors who are likely to be unfamiliar with our ways. So contrary to what you believe, you are only following part of BURDEN, while ignoring the latter part, which strongly encourages a less adversarial approach than you've taken. You haven't followed that part of burden at all despite users asking you for years why you don't. If you had, a lot of this drama would've been avoided. Valenciano (talk) 17:48, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

Template

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed final decision

Proposals by Robert McClenon

Proposed Principles

Purpose of Wikipedia

The purpose of Wikipedia is to create a high-quality, free-content online encyclopedia. This is best achieved in an atmosphere of collegiality, camaraderie, and mutual respect among contributors. Use of the site for other purposes, such as advocacy or propaganda, the furtherance of outside conflicts, publishing or promoting original research, and political or ideological struggle, is prohibited.

Comment by Arbitrators:

@MrX: That's a common question. The answer, at least from my point of view, is that arbitration decisions are often read by less experienced editors, or outsides, who may be interested in the topic-area involved with the case, but aren't as familiar with Wikipedia and its arbitration procedures as all of us are. For the benefit of those readers, it's sometimes helpful to lead off the decision with some basics such as reminder of what our project is all about. In a case like this one, where most people interested in the case are experienced editors with tens of thousands of edits, it may be less needful to open the decision this way. Newyorkbrad (talk) 22:48, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

Where a case involves the community's concerns regarding a user's "collegiality, camaraderie, and mutual respect", then it seems appropriate to note that such things are regarded as important. Part of the discussion is that the hectic nature of the football topic is such that editors in that field may consider it more important to revert fast and disregard being collegiate and respectful. At the heart of this case is a dilemma: is it more important that football stats are seen to be right or that editors and articles are treated with respect? This case can be considered to be about the fine tuning of such a dilemma. When are users/admins allowed to act without regard to "collegiality, camaraderie, and mutual respect"? Part of the justification for reverting quickly and without due diligence is that WP:BLPSOURCE allows such behaviour. SilkTork (talk) 02:41, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

I've never understood the need to restate such fundamental principles in every Arbcom case. - MrX 🖋 23:17, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

Vigilante Administration

It is undesirable for an administrator repeatedly to take action against the same editor, especially if that editor is not a focus of other administrators or of attention at a conduct forum. For an administrator to repeatedly act against an editor, rather than asking the opinions of other administrators at WP:AN, WP:ANI, or Arbitration Enforcement, gives the appearance of acting as prosecutor and judge, vigilante administration. It the appearance of justice is not present, justice is not present. The Wikipedia community expects administrators not only to act reasonably but for their actions to be visibly reasonable and free of involvement.

Comment by Arbitrators:

There is a point here, but the heading and wording are unnecessarily inflammatory. Newyorkbrad (talk) 09:10, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

Indeed. Administrators aren't policemen (or judges or executioners) and "justice" is not relevant to encyclopaedia-writing. @Robert I see what you're getting at but if you want this to be taken constructively I suggest you reword it with reference to established community norms. – Joe (talk) 15:06, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

This is so inappropriately worded that it cannot be used. Any point being made is lost in the inflammatory language. SilkTork (talk) 02:45, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

The sort of behavior by administrators that I am describing, which is the way some editors perceive the behavior of Giant Snowman, really is perceived as vigilante administration, and so really does violate the established norms of the community. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Robert McClenon (talk • contribs) 21:06, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

Administrators and Non-Admin Privileges

Any privilege that is given to non-administrators on a trust basis and to administrators automatically may be restricted from use by an administrator by topic-banning the administrator from using the capability. Misuse of such a privilege by an administrator can be dealt with by a warning, by topic-banning the use of the privilege, or by removal of administrator status.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Is there actually any consensus or precedent for such a topic ban? The opposing argument would be that if an admin can't be trusted with one part of the admin tools, they can't be trusted with any of it. – Joe (talk) 15:08, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

I agree with Joe's point. If we are at the point of removing any Admin tool, even one that non-Administrators can be given, we're should be considering removing all of them. Admins have to be fully trusted, not partly trusted, and an Admin who has been forbidden to use a tool is only partly trust. Doug Weller talk 15:23, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

Admins certainly get topic- and interaction-banned from time to time. I'm not sure why we'd automatically think about it differently if the "topic" is a technical mechanism rather than a social behavior. As for the idea of "fully trusted", I don't know how many admins I'd trust to edit a module... Opabinia regalis (talk) 09:33, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

I agree with O.r. Trust is a matter of degree, and it can vary with different functions. I, for example, have relative little experience with the more complicated questions of NFCC; if I did use it and made mistakes, it would be reasonable that I might be asked to refrain until I had learned it more thoroughly. DGG ( talk ) 03:01, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

As topic bans typically exclude vandalistic edits there seems little point in imposing such a topic ban as the issue here it seems is in GS's willingness/ability to judge when an edit is vandalistic. If at the end of this case we are not satisfied that GS will take more care in future, then I think we'll need something a bit stronger than imposing a ban which amounts to little more than the current restrictions in place on use of the reverting tool anyway. It's worth noting that GS has said that he will not use mass revert in future, so it really is just the vandalistic use of rollback that we'd be restricting him from. But he'd be allowed to rollback vandalistic edits anyway as part of the usual exceptions to bans. At the core of this is the consideration that if we can't trust an admin to know the difference between a good faith and a vandalistic edit, then we simply can't trust them. SilkTork (talk) 09:58, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

One benefit of a principle along these lines is that it would give the community some measures that they could implement, outside of arbcom. Topic bans are regularly issued at administrator noticeboards, and if there was a statement that an admin could be topic banned from part of their tools, it would allow the community to consider that option in the future. Worm^TT(talk) 13:01, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Theoretically, but in my observation, just about every time the community tries to resolve an WP:ADMIN issue, the discussion is shut down, often with the circular reasoning that the community is not able to resolve the WP:ADMIN issue. The result is that the issues are either escalated to Arbcom, or unresolved.

I disagree that individual admin tools should not be removed or restricted. If a regular editor misuses rollback, we remove that permission. We don't demote them all the way back to unconfirmed. I see no reason why it should be different for admins. If anything, the trust instilled in admins means that they should be more likely to honor any such restriction. - MrX 🖋 23:29, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

I believe there have historically been some examples of admins under restrictions or mentorship. Wasn't Everyking trying to get some restriction lifted for like, forever (eventually succeeding)? I don't have any problem with the idea in principle, if the admin is generally good but has problems in a specific area. I don't know if that describes GS though. 173.228.123.166 (talk) 08:17, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

Rollback

While the Rollback capability is a privilege that is automatically given to administrators, it is also given to non-administrators on a trust basis.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

It might be worth emphasising that both administrators and non-administrators receive their tools—of whatever quality—on the basis of trust, whether at RfA or PERM. ——SerialNumber54129 14:07, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

​Particularly in the case of the admin toolset (the others don't have so many different functions bundled), it's not so much a matter of trust that the editor can use the tool, it's a matter of trust that the editor knows their limits. I have the technical ability to perform all kind of weird shit, but I've never once clicked on Special:ChangeContentModel as no matter how often people explain it to me, I've never quite understood what Special:ChangeContentModel does and I've no doubt I'd mess it up if I tried. The question one needs to be asking—and the question we ask ourselves at WP:PERM every time someone applies—isn't "can this editor be trusted with rollback?" but "can this editor be trusted not to use rollback inappropriately provided it's made clear what is and isn't acceptable?". ‑ Iridescent 21:44, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

As a supplement to Iridescent's point, I'd say we're also asking "can this editor be trusted to take on board feedback about their use of the tool and adjust their behaviour if required. Thryduulf (talk) 20:53, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

Administrators and Admin-Only Privileges

Any privilege that is never given to non-administrators and is always given to administrators, such as the block privilege, is considered an inseparable part of the administrative functionality. Misuse of any such privilege by an administrator can be dealt with by a warning or by removal of administrator status.

Comment by Arbitrators:

I'm not sure I follow the distinction. I'm not generally a fan of an all or nothing approach and prefer a granular one if possible. If an admin has lost the trust of the community, they should have their administrator status revoked, however if they are generally trusted, but use of one tool is problematic, I do not have an issue with a topic ban on just that one tool - and the status of the tool (admin only, or available to non-admins) is irrelevant to me. I'm sure someone would correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't Jimbo swear off the block tool a few years back? I consider that to be similar. Worm^TT(talk) 13:13, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

No I don't believe this, there's no technical way to turn off a function but nothing is wrong with restricting an admin from using it. Admins were technically able to self-unblock til recently even though they were prohibited by policy from doing so. 173.228.123.166 (talk) 08:20, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

Just note we have disabled self-unblock fiction. So I disagree with IP Hhkohh (talk) 09:04, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

What I mean is that until very recently, all admins had the technical capability to unblock themselves. The only thing stopping them was a policy-based prohibition, which worked perfectly well (well enough that the software change wasn't really needed imo). There is similarly nothing unworkable about prohibiting an admin from using some technical capability that they have (rollback, blocking, or whatever), without actually removing the ability. 173.228.123.166 (talk) 07:55, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

Note the wording here is can be dealt with by desysoping, not has to be dealt with by desysoping. – Joe (talk) 07:59, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

I agree with this, what it basically says is that if you misuse one tool in the admin toolkit then you can have the entire toolkit taken away, even if you never did anything wrong with any of the other tools. Thryduulf (talk) 09:26, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

Sure, that's fine. I'm disagreeing with the stronger statement stated elsewhere, that if there's any single tool we can't trust an admin with, then we can't trust them with any of the tools. 173.228.123.166 (talk) 10:05, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

Alternate Remedies

When existing remedies are not effective at maintaining the integrity of the encyclopedia against disruption, the Arbitration Committee may devise new remedies to maintain the integrity of the encyclopedia.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Unregistered Editing

Wikipedia has always been an encyclopedia that anyone can edit, with or without registering an account. However, the maintenance of the integrity of the encyclopedia is even more important than the preservation of the privilege of unregistered editors to edit. The privilege of unregistered editors to edit may be abridged or suspended when necessary to prevent disruption.

Comment by Arbitrators:

No, this is not true, otherwise we'd build a wall and keep out everyone except those already inside. We have always accepted that Wikipedia will get a proportion of inappropriate edits, but we accept those because the bulk of edits from unregistered editors is helpful; and if so inclined such editors may become long term productive participants in the project, either as registered or ongoing unregistered editors. Isolationist tactics may result in self-preservation, but they can also lead to stagnation and decline. SilkTork (talk) 10:14, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

I'm not happy with this statement. We do stop unregistered editors in limited circumstances through semi-protection and blocks, however, if we believed that integrity was more important, we would stop unregistered editing all together. That's not something that should come from Arbcom, and I would not agree with it. Worm^TT(talk) 13:15, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Yes and no, but mostly no. Articles may be (semi-)protected as a result of vandalism or editing dispute, but that is very different to the blanket or near-blanket reversion of unregistered editors. For starters a unregistered editor attempting to edit a protected page gets shown a page that clearly states they cannot edit it, why they cannot edit it (e.g. it's semi-protected), how to find out why it was protected, and lists what the intending editor can do. When rollback is used, the edit is successful and then it is undone without notification or explanation - if they know about page history and how to access it they work out they were reverted, but not why or what to do next. Thryduulf (talk) 21:11, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

Proposed Findings of Fact

Association Football

Association football, the most widely played and most publicized sport in the world, has been the subject of contentious and disruptive editing including the insertion and reverting of unsourced data. This contentious editing in turn has resulted in vigilante administration.

Comment by Arbitrators:

There is ongoing discussion regarding this matter on the Evidence pages. I don't think convincing evidence has yet been put forward to establish that the football topic receives so much more disruptive editing in comparison to other areas of Wikipedia that it justifies a more aggressive stance. However, if there is sufficient evidence to indicate that the football topic does get disproportionately more serious disruptive edits than average, then that would be a mitigating factor to consider. I'm not convinced yet that stats on a player's height or number of appearances is a serious matter for BLP concerns. SilkTork (talk) 03:03, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

After looking at RFPP [6] I agree that football bios are one of the highest groups to receive page protection for disruptive editing. I think the use of the word "vigilante" is inappropriate. SilkTork (talk) 13:15, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

My preference would be to leave football out of the equation. Any admin should demonstrate competency and trust, regardless of the topic area. If an admin is heavily involved in editing a topic area, best practice would seem to be to avoid admining in that topic area.- MrX 🖋 23:33, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

I agree with MrX. If you feel passionately about a topic area and/or if you are heavily involved with editing in the area it is best practice to leave admining it to others except in cases that are truly uncontroversial. If something is clearly bad but not necessarily obviously so to someone who is not familiar with the topic then flag up somewhere (talk page, AN, etc) what you have done and why - if posting the details would violate privacy and/or WP:BEANS then email the functionaries. Thryduulf (talk) 21:19, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

If a high level of editing hooliganism is a peculiar characteristic of football articles, then football should not be left out of the equation. Compare Schrocat's comment about movie awards:[7] "[a]s one of the only people in this thread who actively develops such lists to a higher standard, I have always found the unsourced lists to ... tend to have very few errors and those that are not harmful. It's difficult for normal editors like me to keep an eye on every award ceremony, or every award received by an actor, so all those good faith additions—even unsourced—which go to make up the list are actually helpful to us, not harmful." That sounds like the editing environment for movie awards is unlike the one for soccer statistics. If that's true, it's perfectly ok to weigh such info into a decision. 173.228.123.166 (talk) 07:38, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

Association Football and Unregistered Editors

The disruption of articles on association football and association football players has been largely by unregistered editors and has been characterized as drive-by disruption.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

This needs quantitative evidence. I thought about trying to collect some but haven't had the energy, and anyway /Evidence is about to close, and the page is protected so I can't submit anything. 173.228.123.166 (talk) 07:40, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

Giant Snowman and WRL227

Giant Snowman employed vigilante administration against some aggressive editors in the area of association football, including but not limited to WRL227.

Comment by Arbitrators:

I agree with Thryduulf - a vigilante is a civilian acting in a law enforcement capacity without legal authority. Leaving aside the idea that we're a website and there isn't a legal issue - either all admins are vigilantes or none are. Worm^TT(talk) 13:19, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

I think "vigilante administration" is an inappropriate term that is best avoided completely. Thryduulf (talk) 21:33, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

The traditional term for what Robert is getting at was WP:ROUGE and it was seen as a good thing when done with good judgment. The problem in this case has been persistently bad judgment. 173.228.123.166 (talk) 17:53, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

Disruption by Unregistered Editors

ArbCom discretionary sanctions, as currently applied, are not likely to be an effective remedy to prevent disruption of the encyclopedia by unregistered editors. A modified protection regime is needed for the purpose.

Comment by Arbitrators:

I'm coming around to the idea that a major contributing factor to this case is that people are spread too thin over a topic area that is difficult to maintain, and have developed bad habits or resorted to extreme measures in trying to keep up. I agree that DS is unlikely to be of much practical use given the pattern of problem edits. However, I'm not seeing what kind of "modified protection regime" would be more effective. What did you have in mind? Never mind, I missed that you had a separate proposal defining your idea. That doesn't seem likely to be of much use either, at least from the sampling of the editing patterns we've seen here - if the topic area needs frequent updates, and those updates are often performed by inexperienced editors, then semiprotection seems likely to make the articles rapidly out of date. Pending-changes seems like a better fit, and yet even more prone to encouraging reverts/rejected edits. Opabinia regalis (talk) 09:50, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

I'm still pondering on that issue. I'm not yet convinced we have adequate evidence that bios are more numerous in football than in other areas such as politics. Nor that that there are fewer active interested editors to monitor the situation, given that WP:Football appears to have one of the largest active groups of members. I'm also aware that much disruption that spills over into dispute resolution arenas concerns politics, ethnicity, religion, and countries rather than football. While I'm hearing the arguments about how hectic it can be in the football topic, this seems to be mainly about the orderly manner in which minor statistics are updated rather than anything serious enough to invoke BLP. WP:Football members themselves seem a bit divided on this issue, with a number that feel that reverts shouldn't be made without first checking if the edit is accurate. In short, while there may be more than one WP:Footy member who behaves as GS does, this is not a widespread pattern, so I'm not yet convinced that the topic area itself is a sufficient rationale for abandoning due diligence. SilkTork (talk) 03:22, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

After looking at RFPP [8] I have now accepted that football bios are one of the highest groups in need of protection from disruptive editing. SilkTork (talk) 13:18, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

I do not think it is the lack of people. There are hundreds of active editors in that project. It would seem more likely that most of the enforcement is done by the few who choose to concentrate on it, as is the case with many WP functions. DGG ( talk ) 03:05, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

I don't think there should be a modified protection regime. A modified deletion regime might be better if you get my drift. Looking at the football player article categories, the member counts add up to something like 150,000, though that's possibly not the actual article count since there may be overlap between those. Either way it's an awful lot, and most of the articles appear to be content-free stubs and about players who come nowhere near meeting GNG.

I don't mind marginal-notability articles in principle (as long as they're not promotional), but if we've got a situation where the football wikiproject can't maintain them while still living up Wikipedia's usual AGF and civility standards, then maybe we shouldn't have those articles. Wikidata might be a better home for the info in them. 173.228.123.166 (talk) 05:16, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

Just for the record, the total number of football biographies as of yesterday was 112,994. The full list isn't uploadable as it's over the page size limit, but I can mail it to anyone who wants to verify the number. ‑ Iridescent 09:01, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

The number of articles with {{Infobox football biography}} is 158,811 so I'm thinking that's an underestimate. Galobtter (pingó mió) 09:16, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

My number is the total of all the subcategories of Category:Association football players by nationality with duplicates omitted, which is probably more accurate. The transclusion count for {{infobox football biography}} includes user pages and drafts. The basic point—that the number is too high for Wikipedia's 3300 active editors to monitor in any great detail—is the same either way. ‑ Iridescent 09:23, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

Yeah, I know the transclusion count includes drafts and sandbox, which is why I used a hastemplate search of articles (linked in my comment). I think not every footballer has been categorized by nationality yet, which is why that is an underestimate (though I get that the point is the same either way). Galobtter (pingó mió) 09:38, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

Thanks Iridescent. Do you have a way to check how many of the 112,994 soccer biographies are BLP? It sounds like possibly 5% of all the BLP's on Wikipedia are basically data pages about otherwise non-notable soccer players. That doesn't seem healthy. Re the 3300 active editors: I get that this is a collaborative project and we all help each other out by editing outside our primary areas at times, but it's supposed to be somewhat reciprocal. If the football project members are outsourcing their maintenance workload on everyone else while not taking on similar maintenance work on non-football articles, that imbalance needs addressing. 173.228.123.166 (talk) 00:28, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

hastemplate:"Infobox football biography" incategory:"Living people" won't be entirely accurate, but it gives a count of 137,912. ‑ Iridescent 09:02, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

Thanks. I don't understand how that can be larger than 112,997, but if we're around the right order of magnitude I guess that's good enough. I just don't see how there can be that many notable soccer players in the world. 173.228.123.166 (talk) 07:16, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

DGG, re lack of people: I haven't had the energy to research it, but there are a hell of a lot of football articles per active football editor, likely more than in other topics, and most of them have no content to speak of and frankly look like WP:KITTENS. So it's likely that they aren't being monitored. That's different than (say) articles about rock bands, which have followers who pick up on any new edits right away. 173.228.123.166 (talk) 09:00, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

Ok, I'm starting to investigate this now, but it will take a few days because of the amount of data involved, my RL schedule, etc. 173.228.123.166 (talk) 01:50, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

Proposed Remedies

Discretionary Sanctions

ArbCom discretionary sanctions are ordered for the subject area of association football, narrowly defined (sensu stricto).

Comment by Arbitrators:

Will this be of use against drive-by IP editing in the area? DS is good for keeping invested contributors in line, because it sets behavioral expectations and allows for immediate consequences. I'm not sure it'll have the same effect on an IP editor who doesn't plan on sticking around and doesn't care that they've been topic-banned from footy for a month. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 06:26, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

I'm not saying this would necessarily be helpful either, but discretionary sanctions can be applied on a by-page as well as by-editor basis (e.g. placing a given page or topic under 1RR). But if we decide to consider this type of approach—again, I'm not saying we should—I think we would first want to make the football (soccer) editing community aware that it's under discussion. Newyorkbrad (talk) 15:38, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

This seems to specific an issue to warrant DS. If we do consider it we should certainly notify any relevant wikiprojects, and soon. Doug Weller talk 15:26, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

Do we have evidence of significant disruption in the topic? What's been brought before us is one admin who edits without due diligence and a rationale that this is because appearance and goal statistics are updated so frequently that he doesn't have time to check the veracity of the edits, so prefers to revert. Other WP:Footy members may also do this, but not all. Indeed, in discussion with WP:Football, there are a number who disagree with GiantSnowman's approach. I don't think we are getting edit wars between established editors so much as established editors reverting IP and newbie editors, some of whom never return, while others return and get blocked for being disruptive. SilkTork (talk) 03:32, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Seems strange in this case. The case is about an admin who has been overeager in applying the existing tools. How would giving admins an additional, stronger tool resolve the problem raised here? This would seem to make the problem potentially worse, not better. The issue that brought us here is rollback, vandal warnings, and blocks of good faith editors for good faith, constructive edits. How do DS apply? Fram (talk) 16:53, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Question: Would any of the following be a violation of DS? 1) Changing an infobox or table parameter (like incrementing "games played") without providing an inline source, if a source (like Soccerway) is already cited elsewhere in the article; 2) Same without providing a link to Soccerway in the edit summary or any edit summary at all; 3) Not updating the "last updated" time stamp. Levivich (talk) 05:12, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

This would be quite useless. DS is useful when there are disputes between established contributors. It is essentially impossible to enforce DS against IPs and drive by editors. Galobtter (pingó mió) 14:22, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

I don't think it is really possible to enforce 1RR against IPs (by the time you give DS alerts and warnings and take them to AE, they would already have stopped editing), so that 1RR and page restrictions can be applied to articles would not make DS useful here in my view. Galobtter (pingó mió) 17:01, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

Agreed that DS would not be helpful here. TonyBallioni (talk) 14:41, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

To User:Fram - The DS were/are proposed to permit other admins to deal with the disruption without the need for vigilante administration. In response to comments, I have proposed an alternate remedy regime. The objective is to provide a disciplined approach to the drive-by editors so that the excuse for vigilante administration is removed. Discussion of how to do this can continue. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:35, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

God, please no more labyrinthine discretionary sanctions. There is a single admin involved here, who may or may not possess the will or skill to continue in an admin role; or who may simply struggle with judgement in a specific topic area; or who may have an attitudinal issue concerning the use of rollback (or any of a number of other possibilities). The solution is not to turn a huge topic area into a bureaucracy that hinders our mission. - MrX 🖋 23:40, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

Not serious and only one person so no need Hhkohh (talk) 08:55, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

If you have to wikilink a latin term, you are not doing this right. Plain English, please. Fish+Karate 14:21, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

Special Protection Regime

When ordered by the Arbitration Committee or by the Wikipedia community, semi-protection may be applied indefinitely, on a page-by-page basis, to pages that have been subject to disruption by unregistered or new editors.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Bad idea. This is supposed to be an encyclopedia that anyone can edit. We protect pages that are under serious edit warring or vandal attack but shouldn't give special protection to huge swaths of articles that aren't individually under attack. It would be interesting to check into the origin and history of the articles and I might try to do that. 173.228.123.166 (talk) 05:21, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

Disagree with this idea. Just normal WP:RPP is OK to me Hhkohh (talk) 08:59, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

Semi-Protection of Association Football Pages

Article pages on association football and association football players may, as needed, be indefinitely semi-protected to prevent disruption by disruption by unregistered editors (drive-by disruption).

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

GS and Rollback

Giant Snowman has repeatedly misused the rollback privilege, and is topic-banned from use of rollback.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Why not proposed admin rights removal?

Could be more specific duration? Hhkohh (talk) 04:55, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

Comment about duration is correct. As to removal of admin rights, I think that unless there are relevant issues other than rollback, we should first give the user a chance with just the rollback ban; explicitly allow removal of admin rights without discussion if the user violates this rule. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 14:56, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

Proposals by User:Hhkohh

Proposed principles

Rollback

1.1) Administrators who persistently misuse rollback may have their administrator access revoked

1.2) The rollback tool should not usually be used to perform any revert which ought ordinarily to be explained, such as a revert of a good-faith content edit, nor should it be used in content disputes

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

BLP

2) We must get the article right. Be very firm about the use of high-quality sources. All quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be supported by an inline citation to a reliable, published source. Contentious material about living persons (or, in some cases, recently deceased) that is unsourced or poorly sourced—whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable—should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion. Users who persistently or egregiously violate this policy may be blocked from editing.

Comment by Arbitrators:

I disagree with 173.228.123.166 that insisting on high-quality sources is a violation of NPOV. NPOV is about the presentation of information in an unbiased manner, it isn't a mandate that we must "use all the sources that aren't completely crap". High standards can help maintain NPOV by ensuring that what we present is an accurate reflection of the accepted information in a given area. WP:MEDRS is a good example of a WikiProject/topic area with a strict standard for sources that helps maintain NPOV by excluding biased or unreliable sources that could be used to tilt articles towards POV. Maybe it's time to develop WP:FOOTYRS? ♠PMC♠ (talk) 14:18, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

"Be firm about the use of high-quality sources" is imho contrary to Wikipedia's fundamental NPOV principle, which says use all the sources that aren't completely crap. Per WP:WEIGHT the high quality sources get more extensive coverage than the lower quality ones, but we're supposed to give an overview of everything. For this soccer stuff it's almost irrelevant anyway since the articles are almost content-free. By the way is there a known significant pattern of Transfermarkt being wrong? 173.228.123.166 (talk) 08:25, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

For why is Transfermarkt unreliable? See these discussions Hhkohh (talk) 08:51, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

GiantSnowman mostly revert soccer articles so I disagree with you Hhkohh (talk) 08:53, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

PMC, I think you're using a novel sense of "neutrality" compared to Wikipedia's original idea that all relevant points of view should be represented in the article. That means readers should leave the article with reasonable confidence that they found out everything they were likely to consider relevant. The tension between BLP and NPOV has been known and acknowledged for as long as we've had a BLP policy. MEDRS is similar though of narrower impact than BLP (User:Wnt sometimes addresses it though). They tilt our articles away from neutrality, not towards it. We tolerate this under the idea that we shouldn't let our internal gyrations and debates let people come to real harm through spreading reputation-damaging false info (BLP) or damage their health through (like Steve Jobs) pursuing quack medical remedies instead of more conventional treatment. But it means we omit relevant stuff (as measured by notability, e.g. this reverted info that had gotten quite a lot of secondary press coverage at the time). Over-doing that is not good for our viability or reputation as a knowledge resource.

For the most part, people have to make probabilistic judgments all the time in life, which means weighing uncertainty. They want all the potentially usable info that's out there. So we have to present the uncertain as well as the certain, which is what WP:WEIGHT as I see it tells us to do. I.e. we prioritize the most reliable info, but we also round up what is in the lower tiers (tempered by harm potential per BLP etc). The idea that we should privilege football articles the same way as medical articles because someone might add an erroneous jersey number is ridiculous. 173.228.123.166 (talk) 06:40, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

I haven't followed this case, but I was pinged above. It looks like the text at the beginning of this section is written in a way that tries to minimize the biasing tendency of BLP enforcement, and in any case closely resembles the policy which I'm not going to have overturned here, so I don't have a comment about that part. MEDRS has more serious issues: even as written, it imposes an arbitrary time frame and explicitly recommends Cochrane Reviews, an organization which had half of its board depart after it expelled its cofounder over a paper which claimed that one of its reviews had been biased by commercial pharmaceutical interests. [9] By continuing to enshrine that specific source in the policy, Wikipedia is now taking a side in that political dispute, but even before it was inappropriate to tell editors which source is 'best' as policy. Besides MEDRS, we find ourselves being pushed around in other ways: we have editors claiming that the site disclaimer somehow forces them to prohibit various questions about medicine and broader aspects of human biology, we've had repeated efforts to redefine medical advice far beyond what that page would say, we have an ongoing effort to shut down the Refdesk altogether, we have another ongoing RFC to claim that all editors employed in "alternative medicine" inherently have a COI, the latest of a long line of "rationalist" crusades and so on. External opinion columns have not concealed a widespread desire in the industry to "improve" medical information on the internet in ways that may or may not match an encyclopedia's purpose. So I am not sure if bias is an effect of MEDRS or MEDRS is an effect of bias. Wnt (talk) 18:32, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

The comment about "Contentious material" is right and fine. But it misses the point of my evidence. If all GS had done was revert contentious material, we wouldn't be here. You need a balancing FoF that policy discourages editors and admins from removing uncontentious material. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 11:06, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

CIR

3) A person should be able to collaborate with other editors, defend their editing when asked to do so, and be willing to abide by consensus

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Meatbot

4) No matter the method, the disruptive editing must stop or the user may end up blocked or desysopped

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Unblock request

5) A declined unblock request is not regarded as an endorsed block

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

This proposal is pointed to block WR227 issue Hhkohh (talk) 06:32, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

Except it kinda is... TonyBallioni (talk) 14:42, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

When you decline an unblock request you are either a) endorsing the block, or b) rejecting the rationale provided by the blocked editor as to why they ought to be unblocked. For example, if I was reviewing an unblock request from a user blocked for a personal attack and their unblocking rationale was "I know what I did wrong, I lost my temper. I apologise and will not do it again", then I'd be more inclined to unblock them than if their unblock rationale was "I demand to be unblocked because so-and-so is an idiot and Wikipedia is biased against me". Declining that second unblock request does not *necessarily* mean I endorse the block, it means the unblock request fails to address the reason(s) the block was imposed. For that reason I would say this could be tweaked to "A declined unblock request is not necessarily regarded as an endorsed block". Fish+Karate 11:45, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

Involved admin

6) Editors should not act as administrators in disputed cases in which they have been involved

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed findings of fact

Misunderstandings

1) GiantSnowman admitted misunderstanding other editors. (See his own evidence section)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Warning templates abused

2)Although Transfermarkt is unreliable per WP:RS discussion outcome. GiantSnowman seems not tell IP about transfermarkt. Instead he rollback then just placed a warning template on IP talk page.(See:Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/GiantSnowman/Evidence#GiantSnowman uses vandal warnings for non-vandal edits)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

NAK? Robert McClenon (talk) 21:55, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

Adjusted Hhkohh (talk) 06:24, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

Mass rollback script

3) GiantSnowman installed mass rollback script before December 10.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed remedies

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

Admin right removal

1) For conduct unbecoming an administrator, GiantSnowman is desysopped. They may regain administrator tools at any time via a successful RfA.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

1.1) GiantSnowman topic ban from rollback. (only if his admin rights is remained)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

1.2) GiantSnowman warn that he should use rollback correctly. (only if his admin rights is remained)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Rollback permission

2) GiantSnowman may request rollback via community consensus. (only if his admin rights is removed)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Since this case rests upon the claim that admins are treated better than non-admins, this would certainly be deeply ironic...requiring an admin to have a community consensus to gain a right that a non-admin merely has to ask for. ——SerialNumber54129 17:07, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

Thanks. Adjusted. Hhkohh (talk) 17:18, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

3) GiantSnowman cannot request rollback permission in 6 months. (only if his admin rights is removed)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

GiantSnowman is warned

4) GiantSnowman is warned that he blindly reverted good-faith edits

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

1RR restriction

5a) GiantSnowman is restricted 1RR in article namespace indefinitely except the normal exception due to repeated clueless revert.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

This remedy would normally apply to incorrigible edit warriors. The evidence doesn't support such a restriction. - MrX 🖋 13:43, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

MrX, I do not think so. Although GiantSnowman sometimes revert obvious vandalism, but per enough evidence, I think we should 1RR Hhkohh (talk) 14:17, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

Needleslly aggressively worded, but in any case I disagree with the thrust of it too, per MrX --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 13:43, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

5b) GiantSnowman is restricted 1RR except user namespace indefinitely except the normal exception due to repeated clueless revert.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

This remedy would normally apply to incorrigible edit warriors. The evidence doesn't support such a restriction. - MrX 🖋 13:43, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

5c) GiantSnowman is restricted 1RR in related footy article indefinitely except the normal exception due to repeated clueless revert.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

5d) GiantSnowman is restricted 1RR in all related footy edits indefinitely except the normal exception due to repeated clueless revert.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Block for one week

6) GiantSnowman block 1 week for his disruptive rollback and CIR issue

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Not helpful. Fram (talk) 16:48, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

Comment by others:

What problem is this supposed to solve? This is Wikipedia, not Vindictopedia. Or are you thinking that somehow something fundamental will change in seven days? ‑ Iridescent 21:50, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

Iridescent, per WP:MEATBOT: No matter the method, the disruptive editing must stop or the user may end up blocked. GiantSnowman use mass rollback script and result in disruptive editing. Hhkohh (talk) 00:57, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

No, that's not how it works and not what that line of the bot policy means. Blocks are preventative, not punitive; the only circumstance where blocking is ever appropriate it to prevent continued disruption. Since GS no longer has access to the script in question, then by definition a block isn't going to prevent it being used again. ‑ Iridescent 16:01, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

This might have been useful as some point, but certainly not now. - MrX 🖋 13:35, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

Blocks are never punitive. This proposal demeans the person who proposed it. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 13:44, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

Topic-ban from editing footy articles or discussion

7) Due to GiantSnowman cluelessly reverting, GiantSnowman is topic-banned from editing footy articles or discussion for one month

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

I don't believe the evidence supports such a sanction and I'm pretty sure this would be a net loss for Wikipedia.- MrX 🖋 13:37, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

I do not recommend but... Hhkohh (talk) 14:08, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

I have added duration now Hhkohh (talk) 14:13, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

Editors are reminded

8) We should remove unsourced content from articles especially BLP with a good reason.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

I seldom edited BLP articles, cheers Hhkohh (talk) 18:00, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

9) Any questions about footy are welcomed to ask/discuss in WT:FOOTY

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

I usually work on football articles Hhkohh (talk) 18:16, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

10) WikiProjects cannot override community policy

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposals by User:Galobtter

Proposed principles

Tool misuse

1) Administrators are expected to use their tools responsibly. Misuse of even parts of the toolset may be grounds for removal of the whole because it damages the trust of the community in the ability of an administrator to use their tools responsibly.

Comment by Arbitrators:

This seems an important fundamental principle. Doug Weller talk 15:29, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

Yes. SilkTork (talk) 03:35, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

This is fine as a principle or a restatement of policy, but as I've said elsewhere, misusing one tool should not necessarily result in desysopping if a less harsh solution will work. Trust of the community is also damaged when the efforts of the community to resolve WP:ADMIN issues are thwarted by admins shutting down discussions or making chilling threats of sanctions. (I have not yet presented the evidence but most of it is know by the participants anyway).- MrX 🖋 12:49, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

There is an unwritten assumption here that "misuse" is clearly defined and everyone knows what it means. Is it? Do they? I always assume it means "using the tools in any way other than that proscribed by policy", but it would be helpful to know which policy(s) - is it WP:TOOLMISUSE (a subsection of WP:ADMIN), which doesn't explicitly talk about when rollback should and should not be used, for example, is it WP:ROLLBACK, is it the general conditions in WP:ADMINCOND, is it all of these and more, and so on. Fish+Karate 10:08, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

Administrators and rollback

2) As rollback is part of the administrative toolset, misuse of rollback can be grounds for desysopping.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Yes, misuse of any of the tools can be grounds for desysopping. Though, as always, degree of misuse and mitigating factors are taken into consideration. SilkTork (talk) 03:37, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

A logical outcome of (1). Doug Weller talk 12:11, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Involved

3) Administrators are expected to not generally use their tools in disputes in which they are involved. This includes not blocking editors with which they have a dispute.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

I think this would be clearer with the addition ", including content disputes". Fish+Karate 14:23, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

Non-obvious reversions

4) Reverting edits that are unsourced but are not vandalism or otherwise clearly violating policy constitutes involvement in a dispute.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

I think this needs to be a "can be" rather than "is" as there are scenarios where reverting such edits is not necessarily involvement - e.g. repeated additions by the same user of the same content without discussion, or where there is a consensus on the talk page that all additions need sources and/or against that particular content. It's also arguable whether a single revert that isn't challenged (for whatever reason) is a dispute. Thryduulf (talk) 20:12, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

Agree. Perhaps tweak to "usually constitutes involvement"? Or "may be construed as involvement". And again, it should specify "content dispute". Fish+Karate 10:11, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

BLP policy

5) What constitutes a violation of BLP policy can be controversial. The BLP policy mandates removal of contentious material about living persons that is unsourced. However, it does not mandate removal of all unsourced material about living persons.

Comment by Arbitrators:

I understand it to be contentious or reasonably likely to be contentious. That does not mean all unsourced edits are reasonably likely to be contentious, just because someone might contend about them. They might, and sometimes do, contend about them unreasonably. Considering all unsourced edits as inherently consensus is in my opinion an overly legalistic and rigid interpretation. DGG ( talk ) 03:11, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

It's the use of the BLP card to discourage examination of the appropriateness of a revert or to justify aggressive reverting of minor and potentially accurate and up to date adjustments to statistics that concerns me. And also, inappropriately using the BLP card in an attempt to trump other polices. SilkTork (talk) 10:26, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

I'm not sure this is entirely the right wording, but a principle regarding what kind of action BLP does and doesn't justify should be part of this case. – Joe (talk) 10:55, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

There is, at best, an ambiguous consensus on what exactly "contentious" means: can it only be judged after the fact (where eg., people vote their feelings, 'contentious/not contentious') , or is any edit that is contended (eg., reverted), contentious. This probably goes back to an unclear consensus on what exactly "challenged" means (ie. does a revert mean it is challenged under WP:V). And WP:V does, of course, strongly come down on the side of sourced content (not unsourced content). As a matter of process, V is relatively clear, if unsourced content is removed, it should not be returned without an inline cite. --Alanscottwalker (talk) 13:47, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

Anything that could possibly be read as a loosening of the latitude we give users to remove content from BLPs should not be adopted as a principle. Additionally, this seems to be at odds with WP:V, which requires that everything be verifiable Yes, we don't enforce it as much as we should, but adopting a principle that basically says "some unsourced content in BLPs is okay!" isn't a good idea on either ground. This also seems to run foul of WP:ONUS and Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Editing_of_Biographies_of_Living_Persons#Biographies_of_living_persons: once content has been challenged it should stay removed until there is a source and consensus. I know a literal reading of this isn't technically in violation of any of this, but it is borderline enough on enough key areas that I don't think passing it is a good idea. TonyBallioni (talk) 14:50, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

TonyBallioni, per the first sentence of WP:V, "In Wikipedia, verifiability means that other people using the encyclopedia can check that the information comes from a reliable source." It's nice if a citation is right there in the article, but if (say) I can check it using Google, it is verifiable. 173.228.123.166 (talk) 08:34, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

DGG, by "inherently consensus" I think you meant "inherently contentious". 173.228.123.166 (talk) 08:56, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

"What constitutes a violation of BLP policy can be controversial" > "What constitutes a violation of BLP policy is not always clearly defined, which can lead to disagreements between editors". Fish+Karate 10:13, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

My current understanding of BLP policy is that unsourced, contentious BLP material is not allowed on Wikipedia in any namespace. Examples:

1. I see Ronaldo in a game on TV and he seems to be wearing jersey number 27, not his usual one. Did it change? Without a source I can't put the in the article, so I write on the talk page instead, and maybe someone replies "yes it changed[source]" or maybe they write "that wasn't Ronaldo, it was his similar-looking cousin Rudolfo who wears #27" or something like that. This is fine, it's part of why we *have* talk pages, to chase down sources for stuff that we think is true and want to put in the article.
2. I write on the talk page "someone on reddit claims that player XYZ raped several minors after the Real Madrid game last week--should we put that in the article?".

#2 has to be reverted right away. It is not allowed anywhere, including on the talk page. That is the definition of contentious info. If it is allowed on the talk page (like the thing about the jersey number), then it is not contentious, or anyway not enough to trigger mandatory BLP reversions in the article. If you would not revert it from the talk page, you shouldn't claim BLP exemptions regarding reverting it in the article.

Reverting uncontentious info as a normal editorial choice is still an option, but if someone exercises that choice and the person is an admin, they are now editorially involved with the article and should not later do any admin actions regarding it. Also, someone who can't tell the difference between #1 and #2 is not competent to be editing. There might be occasional difficult edge cases but that's not what we're discussing here. 173.228.123.166 (talk) 10:53, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

I think a good way to look at it is to think "if this was incorrect, would it be harmful to the subject?" if the answer is "no" then reverting it is a content decision not a BLP one. Thryduulf (talk) 14:07, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

• Circling back around, I like User:Fish and karate’s wording here. I also agree with the need to clarify that not every revert on a BLP is in enforcement of the BLP policy. My concerns above (which I still have) are that the current wording here is too broad. This really is a case about one specific user and their actions in judgement call situations, and I feel that the principles here are best kept limited in scope so as not to be pointed to in other judgement call situations as prohibiting certain actions. ArbCom doesn’t work on precedent, but people do point to the decisions in understanding policy, which is why I think we need to be careful here. TonyBallioni (talk) 15:48, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

Mass rollback

6) Rollback, whether used through a script or not, should not be used to indiscriminately or en masse revert edits that may be a mixture of constructive and unconstructive. It should only be used to revert edits that are clearly unhelpful.

Comment by Arbitrators:

@Tony, Yes, mass rollback is to be avoided outside of an exceptional situation. I have personally never encountered a situation where I even considered using it. DGG ( talk ) 03:15, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

The problem of dealing with those edits made by sockpupetts that happen to be useful is a difficult one. I could certainly construct an argument for sorting out the good ones; I could equally construct one for not sorting. It is open to someone who can see the deleted edits to restore what they think beneficial, but that raises problems of attribution. I agree with others that it depends on the circumstances. But I recall that when we used the X1 an X2 speedy deletion criteria, which is in many ways the equivalent, a very large number of articles were in practice rescued from the deletion. And although WP:BANREVERT says that " If editors other than the banned editor have made good-faith contributions to the page or its talk page, it is courteous to inform them that the page was created by a banned editor, and then decide on a case-by-case basis what to do.", WP:CSD, which is equally policy, says "This applies to pages created by banned or blocked users in violation of their ban or block, and that have no substantial edits by others", (my italics) so we have a partial contradiction. DGG ( talk ) 17:14, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

This would basically ban all use of mass rollback outside of a INeverCry type vandal adding the same thing to multiple articles. There are cases of LTAs and sockmasters where this would be less than ideal. TonyBallioni (talk) 14:52, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

I think edits that are violations of a ban would be counted as "unconstructive" though I do see that it could be clearer (certainly, the intention here isn't to prevent mass reversions of banned users evading a block, but to rather to be a principle that expresses that GiantSnowman's mass rollback's were inapproppiate because they caught up both constructive and nonconstructive edits) Galobtter (pingó mió) 15:09, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

Yeah, but people already get pissy when a clerk or CU mass rollbacks a sock with an SPI a mile long because we didn't catch that they corrected a typo in an article. I think stating the principles around the use of mass rollback as a positive rather than a negative would be ideal. TonyBallioni (talk) 15:12, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

If this principle is adopted into the final decision, it should incorporate an exception for edits from blocked and banned users, so that it synchronizes with policy.- MrX 🖋 12:57, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

"That are all clearly unhelpful". Fish+Karate 14:28, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

I agree with DGG and Fish and Karate: mass rollback is only suitable for use in exceptional situations where all the edits are clearly unhelpful. Thryduulf (talk) 20:17, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

Editors that have been site banned have had their Wikipedia privileges revoked, including the privilege to edit. Although no one is compelled to revert their edits, it should not be required to sort edits from a site-banned user into helpful/unhelpful categories before reverting. Otherwise, there is an incentive to evade the site ban. isaacl (talk) 22:19, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

If an edit is helpful (i.e. it improves the encyclopaedia) why do we care who made it? Thryduulf (talk) 22:40, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

To help maintain English Wikipedia's collaborative environment, there must be incentives to follow community norms. Individual editors are free to ignore who made a given edit, and so they can choose not to revert helpful edits. But by the same token, editors should not be compelled to evaluate individual edits by site-banned users, which would vitiate the site ban. isaacl (talk) 23:11, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

If nothing else, it might give the unfortunate intimation to "net-positive" editors that their edits are considered on a par with those that the community has decided are a net-negative. I'm not sure that this impression would wholly improve the aforementioned atmosphere of collegiality. ——SerialNumber54129 23:18, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

WP:BANREVERT is policy, one I agree with, and certainly nothing in this proposed principle is really meant to deal with when and how we should rollback editors reverting evading their ban. I don't think using mass rollback is that exceptional - it does happen reasonably often when a vandal gets numerous edits in before being blocked (does happen more if you're a non-admin), and even if you don't want to revert banned users doing constructive editing, banned users doing lots of nonconstructive editing happens pretty often. Galobtter (pingó mió) 06:27, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

• @DGG and Thryduulf: I’d actually agree with the exceptional circumstances language, and wording it like that would actually be a positive way of wording the principle rather than a negative. I consider prolific socking to be one of those exceptional circumstances where it may be appropriate, but it is by no means something I’d advocate for in even every one of those cases. It depends on the case and the history there, and really should only be done by someone familiar with the context. That being said, I agree with User:isaacl here that having to sort contributions into “helpful” and “unhelpful” in these cases often isn’t practical. TonyBallioni (talk) 15:08, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

Proposed findings of fact

Use of rollback by GiantSnowman

1) GiantSnowman repeatedly used rollback inappropriately even after assurances that they would use it more carefully. (GiantSnowman misused rollback, GiantSnowman paid lip service to concerns, Evidence presented by UninvitedCompany, GiantSnowman use of rollback)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Use of the block tool by GiantSnowman

2) GiantSnowman both reverted edits on the grounds of lack of sourcing and blocked the editors responsible for the edits. The edits may have had problems with sourcing, but were not vandalism, and the editors were clearly acting in good faith. (WR227, GiantSnowman blocks constructive editors)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

I do not yet have an opinion on whether the rollback/blocks were appropriate, but the logic here should be that the rollback and the block are just one administrative action. If we follow the logic of your proposed decision, it follows that if GS first blocked the user and then rolled back their edits, the whole sequence of action were fine, and now, since they first rolled back the edits and then blocked the editor, it is not fine. It can be fine or not fine, but it should not depend on the sequence in which the block and the rollback were executed, as soon as both have been made within a reasonable timespan (not a month apart).--Ymblanter (talk) 15:51, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Ymblanter, that's definitely true. I reworded it to be closer to my intended meaning. TBH, I expect in the actual proposed decision if there is anything like this that the finding be for specific instances (like WR227). Galobtter (pingó mió) 16:00, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

Proposed remedies

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

GiantSnowman is desysopped

1) For misuse of rollback and the blocking tool, GiantSnowman is desysopped. They may regain the administrative tools after a successful request for adminship.

Comment by Arbitrators:

@TonyBallioni: You know, sometimes someone links to something I said ages ago and I look at it and think "now what exactly was I smoking when I posted that?" But this time I still agree with myself, sorry :) Removing someone's user rights is an exercise of power - pretty much by definition. That doesn't mean no one should do it; it means they should be careful about it, much more so than in that linked case. (In any event, I'm just one member of a big group, I don't think I have the power to kill a wiki-process with one comment - and let's face it, if I did have that power I wouldn't be wasting it on PERM. I'm coming for you, ANI..... ) Opabinia regalis (talk) 10:19, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

Because of the chilling effect GS's behaviour will have had on inexperienced users, and because he's been operating, like Dirty Harry, just on or outside normal expectations, and because his approach (rather than his specific use of rollback) has been challenged over a period of years, this is a solution that's going to be in a number of people's minds, and it's not one to rule out. To balance it though is that he's had one mega-warning (and this ArbCom case is an extension of the AN thread, so it's the same warning), and he's increasingly showing signs of understanding that it's not just the use of the tools that is the concern, but that he has been reverting without enough due thought and attention. If I thought that after this case GS would continue to lead WP:Football by inappropriate example and revert without first checking that the edit was valid - or at least contact the editor for clarity, and would use admin tools to assist them, then I would likely vote for a dysysop. If I felt that GS had fully taken on board the concerns, and was going to modify their behaviour such that they would be more collegiate and thoughtful in their approach, then I would think a caution/admonishment would be sufficient. SilkTork (talk) 10:45, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

84.219.252.47 - I have not blocked any editors for adding sourced content, and no evidence has been presented that shows me doing that. GiantSnowman 10:10, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

2A02:C7F:9E12:8F00:6C51:14D8:1B23:F46C (talk · contribs · WHOIS) is a sock and was reverted and blocked per WP:BLOCKEVASION/WP:DENY. Let me re-phrase - have I blocked any constructive/good faith editors for adding sourced content? GiantSnowman 10:25, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

You've obviously not seen/ignored the clear evidence of DUCK. SPI wouldn't work as CUs "will not publicly connect an account with an IP address per the privacy policy except in extremely rare circumstances." It's all behavioural evidence. Feel free to ask a Clerk to review if you have doubts. GiantSnowman 10:36, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

@Dweller:: I haven't seen any indication that they would no longer make blocks like the ones I listed at the evidence page. His "reflection and summary" has the following to say about his blocks:

" I can also see why some of my blocks have raised concerns of being INVOLVED. " (good, but not my real concern)

" I did not block editors because I was in dispute with them; I blocked them whilst acting (in my mind at least) "purely in an administrative role", because they continued to, for example, edit disruptively by repeatedly adding content to BLPs without adequate sourcing, despite multiple warnings. I am a long-term and very active editor; I have been in many disputes with many editors. Nobody has (nor will) be able to find me blocking another editor in a content dispute, for example. " No, the listed blocks were of editors who did not edit disruptively, but constructively.

"I made a conscious effort to try and verify unsourced material rather than reverting it straight away." Not according to evidence I provided, and something like this from yesterday evening makes me wonder how they tried to verify it, as the removed fact (Thomas Lemar gets the Legion d'Honneur) is very, very easily verified with at least 5 Google News sources from last week[10].

"I have already said (should I retain the tools) that I will raise seeming good-faith editors who persist in adding unsourced content at ANI, rather than blocking them myself, to avoid any possible suggestion of being INVOLVED." This is essential, but not in line with what they actually did before and during the case, and they maintain e.g. wrt the block of User:121.212.176.113 that " It was fair to revert and view as vandalism.": so it reads to me as if they would not treat this one as a "seeming good-faith editor" and would still block them. It was less than a week ago that they stated (on this very page) "107.77.173.7 was warned multiple times by numerous editors and continued to edit disruptively. " while it has been explained time and again that no, they did not continue to edit disruptively, they made one constructive edit and got blocked by GS. GS didn't saw and apparently doesn't see these as good-faith editors... Fram (talk) 14:18, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

Basically, I see some declarations of good intentions (which we already had a few times in the past), but with enough caveats and disclaimers that the problematic behaviour can easily continue; and this would be in line with most comments made about the blocks. Fram (talk) 14:18, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

I searched 'Thomas Lemar Chelavlier' (IIRC), nothing came up - but I love (love, LOVE!) how you (deliberately? maliciously?) ignore edits like this (where I sourced an unsourced edit added by the same user at the same time as I was dealing with the Lemar page). GiantSnowman 14:31, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

If you searched "'Thomas Lemar Chelavlier'" I'm not surprised that nothing showed up... Speaking of bad faith, perhaps I didn't notice that one because I checked for edits where you undid someone else's addition? I don't check all your edits, I don't even check most of your edits, I already have been accused that my "scrutiny" was "disproportionate in its quantity" as it is. Fram (talk) 14:42, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Same as mine Hhkohh (talk) 16:52, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

I’m sure I’m going to get flack for saying this or accused of protecting an admin when I’d have yanked rollback from a non-admin, but I don’t think this is appropriate in this case. 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. Before yanking rollback from a non-admin we at least give them a warning, and if it’s possible they misunderstood, multiple. In large part because of statements from current members of this committee (I’m calling out Opabinia regalis for this comment which essentially killed “easy come easy go” as a standard for PERM by making it clear ArbCom did not view it that way.)

In short, what we are seeing here is the exact opposite of the Super Mario problem: admins are exceptionally unlikely to yank PERMS without a user all but creating enough disruption to be verging on a lengthy block, and even then only after sufficient handholding as to why it shouldn’t be used that way. Now we are talking about desysoping someone for what amounts to abuse of one of the lowest admin rights? It’s not like everyone else where he can just reapply at PERM.

Re: blocking, I’ve looked at the blocks here. I agree most of them are dumb. At the same time, they are not nearly as bad as blocks that regularly occur at AIV that this committee will never review because no one is going to file a case over a 6 month block of an IP for adding poop to an article or the like. TonyBallioni (talk) 14:17, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

GiantSnowman was indeed repeatedly warned about their rollback usage yet persisted (even after assurances that they would change their use of mass rollback they continued misusing it), though indeed that was over a week or so rather than years. I'm certain their rollback rights would've been removed by now had they been a non-admin and that it is among the "lowest admin rights" does not make it better; that would make it worse in my view - as I said before during the case request, if you can't trust someone to rollback, you can't trust them to block, because deciding what does or does not merit reversion is a very similar question to whether an editor is being unconstructive enough to be blocked.

I agree that had issues been raised in the past, that would strengthen the case for removal of adminship. But I don't think there needs to be an "other admins are worse" sort of comparison here (and at-least that 6 month IP block would not drive away a constructive editor); I think it is important to make it easier for admins to be held accountable for good faith issues that simply demonstrate that they shouldn't be an admin. IMO, if GiantSnowman is simply "admonished", we will be back here relatively soon if they do continue to use their tools, and I don't see any other solution beyond either an admonishment or desysopping - all a rollback ban would do is slow their ability to revert things, and preventing them from reverting would be pretty unworkable (plus cause them to retire anyhow per their comments) and would be such a statement on their ability that it'd be clear that they shouldn't have the tools. Galobtter (pingó mió) 14:50, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

Honestly, if they had their rollback rights removed it would likely be the admin removing them facing an ArbCom case or an AN thread because of how hard it is to remove unbundled rights. Easy come easy go is not at all reality. Removing rollback from an established non-admin editor who is a major force on a wikiproject is all but impossible socially, and the rights would likely have been restored either via consensus or unilateral admin action at PERM. TonyBallioni (talk) 14:54, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

The question is: why should it be that way? Your comment is a reflection of the deeply ingrained culture in which we expect admins to be treated differently that other editors. It would be interesting to see if anyone could point to a similar case as this, where an admin's use of a tool was restricted, and then restored as in one of the scenarios in your comment. - MrX 🖋 13:58, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

MrX, I think the point I was trying to make was that thanks to ArbCom having views similar to the ones I linked to by Opabinia regalis, what is being said here is that admins should be held to a significantly higher standard than basically any other user with regards to rollback. There’s obviously good reasons to hold admins to a higher standard, but desysoping for something that would be socially impossible to revoke as a non-admin seems a bit odd to me. At the same time, I’m very sympathetic to the trust issues raised by some arbs.

OR: I pretty much disagree with you as a rule (see your support in my RfA :p) but I think that FoF in the Rubin case plus your comment were especially harmful to the way PEEM operates. It basically ratified a culture where the unbundled rights were seen as a Big Deal (tm), and contributed to a very negative trend where PERM has become stricter in granting because removing user rights is so difficult. The relationship to this case being, you and other arbs have helped to create a culture where the minor rights can basically be abused with impunity, and while I would love to see that changed and have ArbCom walk back from your position, doing it by desysoping seem over the top. TonyBallioni (talk) 16:04, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

I don't really feel OR is to blame for that shift in culture; to me, she was describing the situation as it already existed in practice, rather than making policy by fiat. I can testify that the "you removed my relatively trivial userright, this is a breach of my Wikipedia Human Rights and I'm immediately going to go to IRC to try to round up an angry mob!" mentality was around long before 2017. Someone can probably plot a nice little chart showing how the rise and subsequent levelling-off of "sense of entitlement among editors" closely correlates with the decline and levelling off in "number of active editors". See also the shedloads of material written about the decline of "support per no big deal" at RFA once the perception that it was hard to desysop admins gained widespread currency. ‑ Iridescent 16:23, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

True, I’ll agree with that, I was just pointing out one of the most “official” comments that basically sanctioned that view of user rights as a fundamental human right never to be infringed upon. OR somewhat unfairly catches flak from me for it, well, because I’m sure as she’ll admit, she’s one of the more vocal arbs and is very diffable. Anyway, my larger point remains: if GS were a non-admin who did this and you or I were to have removed rollback, it likely would have caused a shitstorm with equally as loud cries of admin abuse as is happening in this case. TonyBallioni (talk) 16:32, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

These are all good points, including Opabinia regalis' comments from 2017. But isn't it far less socially stigmatizing to restrict an admin's use of a single tool than to desysop them entirely? I don't doubt that it could create more drama, but it shouldn't. We have somehow managed to elevate admins to a class of editors who are untouchable, unless it's Arbcom doing the touching.- MrX 🖋 17:04, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

If GS loses rights here, it will be with the agreement of at least ten arbitrators and input from numerous other editors over a period of weeks. Socially and functionally, that is a very different standard to an individual administrator removing a PERM right. There the outrage is fuelled by the perception that it is an arbitrary decision without "due process". If we want to return accountability to the unbundled rights, we should think about an XfD-like process whereby they can be reviewed and revoked by multiple editors.

The more pertinent point I took from TB's comment is that we don't want to jump on people for their "first offence". For me this case will hinge on how GS responded to criticism of his approach and whether there really was a pattern of repeated complaints and continued misuse. – Joe (talk) 17:56, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

My wiki-epitaph should be "very diffable" ;) Opabinia regalis (talk) 09:25, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

The only way this solves the problem is if it so offends GS that he leaves the project entirely - and if that's the goal, he should be banned explicitly. The blocks don't rise to the level of a desysopping, and to the IPs and new users he's been rolling back, rollback is entirely indistinguishable from undo-with-default-summary. He'll still be able to do that; even anons can. —Cryptic 09:47, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

I'm sorry but he's been blocking users for making correct and sourced edits, while defending doing so and showing absolutely no indication that he's going to stop blocking people for making correct and sourced edits. How does that NOT rise to the level where it's at the very least a consideration for you? And we're not even talking about collateral damage in mass rollback, but manual rollback and blocking, and claiming to have manually reviewed the edit in question and simply defending it with that it "appeared" to be vandalism, even though the source did certainly have that data... A source that it was GS himself that added I might add so couldn't possibly have been a case of claiming it was due to unreliable source. So the problem isn't so much reverting alone, the problem as I see it, is the reverting while claiming it being vandalism and the blocking that is the main issue. So while desysop would not solve his ability to undo edits, it would solve the blocks and would take the edge of his templating (even if it doesn't prevent them either) of users that are making correct edits. It would also send the message that the community doesn't accept that it's correct to revert edits that are correct, though that might be possible using lesser methods but to not even consider it seems baffling to me.84.219.252.47 (talk) 10:05, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

Sorry GS but you have. And it would be in evidence, if clerks had actually posted evidence mailed to them but they're seemingly as slow on that as they are in reposting legacypac's evidence from the clerks page, seeing as how that's what they're demanding from IP editors. You can however see the evidence talkpage discussion regarding 2A02:C7F:9E12:8F00:6C51:14D8:1B23:F46C which you blocked, and every single edit they made, was correct and properly sourced. And that's just one of many examples. (I've mailed in 8 different ones, all of which you've blocked after making only correct and sourced edits).84.219.252.47 (talk) 10:22, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

You say it's a sock... But you have provided no evidence for that and there's no SPI saying it. All there is is that you say it's a sock of someoneone, and that's it. But even if true, it doesn't change the fact that you have indeed blocked a user that has only made correct and sourced edits. I also find it especially interesting in this case because on your talkpage, you admitted your only reason for thinking they were a sock, was because they made the same edits as a sockmaster. That would suggest that the sockmaster did indeed edit correctly, but more importantly, it means that you've declared the article to be frozen because any correction, would by your standard become that they're now a sock and thus you'll revert and block, and thus, the page will forever be in an incorrect state... I'll also note that several of them are still in an incorrect state that does not at all reflect the source. For claiming to care so much about BLP for the stats, you're working quite hard to keep a lot of pages with incorrect stats. 84.219.252.47 (talk) 10:28, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

I think desyspopping is excessive given this is a 'first warning', and GiantSnowman has ackowledged that some of his actions have not been optimal. Wikipedia needs active admins and I am all for rehabilitation wherever possible. He will be under scrutiny, I'm sure, going forwards; a strongly-worded admonishment is likely, I think desysopping is a step too far. Fish+Karate 15:58, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

I think it is important that in any arbitration case about misuse of admin tools where there are findings that the admin in question has misused the tools, that a desysop should be actively voted on by arbs at the PD stage. Even if it gets unanimous opposition (and I haven't formed a view about how I would vote in this case) it needs to be there as an indicator that misusing admin tools is a serious issue that isn't taken lightly. Thryduulf (talk) 20:33, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

If I thought that this would improve Wikipedia, I'd support it. I can't see it as anything but punitive. His comments, especially recently, imply that he gets it. If events prove otherwise, Arbcom can act to take away the mop. But admins are precious. And I think this one should keep his cleaning kit, now that he's been 'corrected'. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 13:49, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

GiantSnowman is cautioned

2) GiantSnowman is cautioned not to indiscriminately revert edits or aggressively revert and warn good faith editors.

Comment by Arbitrators:

I'm likely to support something like this. Some form of formal redirecting of GS's attention to the community's understanding of Wikipedia:Reverting, that we prefer editors to "revert an edit made in good faith only with an explanation and after careful consideration". SilkTork (talk) 10:53, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

This proposal shows good intentions but it is probably useless. Some editors are simply unwilling to apply common sense to editing and the earlier DR for this case indicates we're probably in that situation now. 173.228.123.166 (talk) 07:48, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

In basic terms, what we have here is a guy who likes kicking over other people's sandcastles. A strange thing for some of us to get our head around perhaps, but not particularly unusual on Wikipedia - especially at admin level. The main point is whether or not he should have access to an industrial-scale sandcastle-wrecking tool. As can be seen he's been running about obliterating scores, if not hundreds, of good edits - for no other reason than his own gratification. Having said all that, his ridiculous misinterpretation of WP:BURDEN and the years of incredibly inappropriate reverting/blocking has somehow evaded proper scrutiny until now. If he's really sworn off the rollbacker tool then maybe there is grounds for issuing a yellow card - in football parlance - rather than the full "desysop". After all, it's not really his fault he was sworn in in the first place, if he was just not cut out for it. Yes, WP:FOOTBALL has severe systemic bias issues and is currently flooding the project with non-notable drivel, but GS isn't solely responsible for that. I recognise my preference for a final warning is perhaps a naive viewpoint, given that GS's input to this process has had a passive-aggressive flavour and much of it has been demonstrably false. It's also been his misfortune to cross swords with Fram, who very clearly has his number, resulting in something of an unedifying mismatch! Bring back Daz Sampson (talk) 23:20, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

Also, at risk of making the discussion too diffuse, the two admins found covering up for Giant Snowman at ANI should also get yellow cards. Unless either of them have previous indiscretions, in which case it should be the ol' 'early bath'. Bbb23 I remember as another high-volume blocker, often acting by rote rather than with due consideration. Vanjagenije I recall blindly deleting loads of valuable articles about Pakistani women footballers because he thought they'd been started by a "sock puppet", even though the fact that others had edited them too should have saved them from that fate. Again there was a high-handed refusal to engage in any dialogue, not helped, I think, by his poor grasp of English. Bring back Daz Sampson (talk) 23:27, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

@Bring back Daz Sampson: Gee, "covering up"? Such accusations. Perhaps you ought to bring your rhetoric down a few notches, to something you can actually support with evidence? As for my "high-volume" blocking, that includes blocking you on October 9, 2016, for socking, revoking your TPA three days later and unblocking you on May 16, 2017, "per unblock request and discussion and recommendations on Talk page" (according to my annotation in the block log). I don't remember any of this (I block a lot of socks and have been doing so for years), but it might be you're just a wee bit biased.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:11, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

Just calling it as I see it - as is my right as a neutral editor in good standing Bring back Daz Sampson (talk) 00:17, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

@Bring back Daz Sampson: You don't have right to lie. When you are accusing someone, you are expected to provide some evidence. I spent some time looking for those valuable articles about Pakistani women footballers. I guess you are talking about articles created by GeeAichhBee. It is not true that I thought they'd been started by a "sock puppet", GeeAichhBee was confirmed sockpuppet by a WP:checkuser and blocked by them. Also, I checked deleted edit-histories of those article, and none of them had any substantial edits by others (WP:G5). All edits performed by other users were minor edits, and marked so. And, I have no idea what you mean by high-handed refusal to engage in any dialogue. Do you have any evidence of that? Vanjagenije (talk) 00:19, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

Editors are reminded

3) Editors are reminded that what is considered reasonable removals or reversions under the BLP policy is often controversial. Editors are asked not to engage in significantly stricter enforcement of the BLP policy than what the consensus of the community deems acceptable.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

I'm not too big of fan of having a remedy essentially against people enforcing BLP; but I put this here because I think it is reasonable to remind editors that the BLP policy is not a cudgel to get one's way in any dispute nor is it an excuse to engage in whatever reversions one wants. This could just be a reminder for GiantSnowman. Galobtter (pingó mió) 15:41, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

Very problematic:

Importance and application of the BLP policy (2)

1.1) There is widespread agreement in the Wikipedia community regarding the importance of the biographies of living persons policy. The policy has been adopted and since its inception repeatedly expanded and strengthened by the community. In addition, the Arbitration Committee has previously reaffirmed the values expressed through that policy. Fundamental values and practices concerning biographical content has been emphasised in a resolution of the Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees and were also expanded and strengthened. If an editor wishes to restore content removed in good faith under the policy, the burden of proof is on those who wish to retain, restore, or undelete the disputed material. Restoring the original content without significant change requires consensus.[11]

-- Alanscottwalker (talk) 14:47, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

Yeah, actually I'll just scratch that. While in practice BLP is far less rigorously enforced (anyone who did try to remove lots of content from many pages for merely being unsourced would quickly be reverted and told not to) unless in the case of contentious content, and this is meant to be a narrow reminder, the implications here would probably send us in the wrong direction regarding BLP. Galobtter (pingó mió) 15:07, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

Proposals by User:UninvitedCompany

Proposed principles

WikiProjects cannot override community policy

1) Wikipedia:Consensus, a policy, states that "Consensus among a limited group of editors, at one place and time, cannot override community consensus on a wider scale. For instance, unless they can convince the broader community that such action is right, participants in a WikiProject cannot decide that some generally accepted policy or guideline does not apply to articles within its scope."

Comment by Arbitrators:

@UninvitedCompany: Has a WikiProject influenced this case? I only recall from the background material a couple of passing references to internal projects, and none seemed to indicate projects controlling article content in a relevant way. (I could have missed something.) AGK ■ 23:52, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

There have been assertions that WP:FOOTY defines certain edits (like updates to statistics without a simultaneous change to the as-of date) as vandalism and encourages the reversion of such edits. There has been the (possibly implicit) claim that the volume of anonymous low-quality edits to WP:FOOTY articles is so great that the only way it can be handled is through liberal use of reverts and blocks and economic use of WP:AGF, WP:BITE, etc. If this is true, I think the root of the matter is that the presumptive inclusion criteria in this subject area are too broad. In addition, I think that some information belongs in a place like WikiData that is better equipped to handle data that is inherently structured and inherently time-series. I would much rather see those changes than have WP:FOOTY become the thin end of a wedge that separates Wikipedia from its core values. UninvitedCompany 00:48, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

I'm understanding the comments here as some of these thoughts have popped into my mind. The arguments being put forward though are accompanied by BLP claims, so the issue gets fudged. BLP issues are so sensitive that invoking them can lead people to back off from a serious scrutiny of what is going on. We don't want a lessening of BLP, but on the other hand we don't want claims of BLP preventing us from examining and challenging what may be inappropriate behaviour. I'm not entirely sure that WP:Footy is operating outside the community; rather, that perhaps individuals within WP:Footy are using BLP to enforce WP:Footy's rules on how to present statistics. SilkTork (talk) 11:19, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

User:UninvitedCompany, can you explain the WikiData thing in more detail. Can WikiData handle the statistics that seem to be an issue here? If so, how would that work? And would that prevent tampering with the statistics? SilkTork (talk) 11:19, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

There is a general consensus not to use unverified Wikidata information in articles or even infoboxes in the enWP, though some other language WPs are doing so in some cases. It would not be within the scope of this case to overturn that without a much broader discussion. I have in another context suggested that WP articles might however refer or link to Wikidata for details. (such as lists of recordings in a long series) . I too do not know how this would work technically, because we would probably be linking to a Wikidata search rather than a specific Wikidata item. If this should be practical, it would need to be considered outside the context of this specific case. It might be a very good way forward, but it's not within the current scope. Similarly, a that the notable standards in this area be increased, which I personally tend to think might be a very good idea, is also outside of our scope or powers. DGG ( talk ) 06:07, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Technically true, although it's more nuanced than this and Arbcom almost certainly shouldn't be giving a black-and-white statement like this their imprimatur. Since the participants in WikiProject topic are generally the people best qualified to comment on that topic, a strong consensus from a project for or against a particular course of action shouldn't lightly be disregarded even if broader consensus is in the other direction. Some things, like naming conventions, can quite literally be the result of years of discussion to reach a consensus, and it's entirely understandable that people get irritated when a bunch of people with little interest in the topic in question declare that their consensus outweighs those of the people who actually edit the articles in question and are familiar with the subject and consequently the project just needs to suck it up. (I can give a near-limitless stack of real life examples should anyone doubt that this happens, although I'm sure you're all well aware of the most high profile cases.) ‑ Iridescent 22:44, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

Agree. The difference between WP:FOOTYN and WP:NFOOTY is an example Hhkohh (talk) 00:51, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

Closing discussions

2) Wikipedia:Closing discussions discourages editors from closing discussions too soon. Premature closure of discussions undermines the emergence of a genuine consensus.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Administrators

3) Wikipedia:Administrators, a policy, states: "Administrators are expected to lead by example and to behave in a respectful, civil manner in their interactions with others.... Administrators should strive to model appropriate standards of courtesy and civility to other editors."

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposals by 173.228.123.166

Proposed principles

TBD

Proposed remedies

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

GiantSnowman restricted (1RR)

1) GiantSnowman is prohibited from making more than one revert to any page in any 24-hour period, excluding pages in his own userspace. The usual exceptions do not apply.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

From Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Kww_and_The_Rambling_Man/Proposed_decision#Kww_restricted_(1RR). 173.228.123.166 (talk) 08:51, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

GiantSnowman restricted (3RR)

2) GiantSnowman is prohibited from making more than 3 total reverts to Wikipedia mainspace, project-wide, in any 24-hour period. The usual exceptions do not apply.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

I don't know if this has been done before but we should do it a lot. Overzealous reverters do immense harm to the project, and very little good. I left out the "own userspace" exemption since that's not mainspace anyway. 173.228.123.166 (talk) 08:51, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

Too serious. Major opposition to me Hhkohh (talk) 09:41, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

I like the idea behind this, but it's too harsh in detail. A topic ban along the lines of "GS is prohibited from making more than 3 unexplained reverts to association football-related articles in any 24-hour period, with the usual exceptions" coupled with a reminder that not every unsourced edit is vandalism might work (but would need wordsmithing). I'm sure that been at least one prior topic ban that only limited/prohibited reverts. Thryduulf (talk) 20:44, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

If unlimited reverts are allowed, then none should ever be unexplained. I'll make a new proposal. 173.228.123.166 (talk) 04:13, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

Thryduulf, I don't think "reminders" are likely to be of any help here. We've seen that before in other high-volume editors too many times. We've seen it from GS as well. And if one editor's vandal reverts are that indispensable to the project, the project is in big trouble either way. I'll still write an alternate proposal but I still think it's better to leave reverting to editors who make fewer bad reverts. 173.228.123.166 (talk) 05:15, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

GiantSnowman restricted (revert parole)

3) GiantSnowman is required to abide strictly by the section WP:FIXTHEPROBLEM of Wikipedia's WP:Editing policy. GS must not revert any mainspace edit based on unsatisfactory sourcing without first 1) making a good faith attempt to source the information himself, and 2) transferring the reverted info to the article talk page, along with an explanation of why the info was challenged and what sourcing attempts were tried. In the event that transferring the info to the talk page is prohibited (e.g. serious BLP or copyvio or offensive vandalism), the info can be left out but an explanation must still be provided.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Considering the comments by others below, I find it difficult to imagine any fixed wording that would cover all situations even within the limits of the relevant subject area. DGG ( talk ) 05:56, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

I think key to this case is seeing if GS himself can voluntarily find the right balance between reverting without much thought and addressing the perceived problem, or if some kind of restriction or process is imposed on him to ensure he edits more in line with community expectations. I think it's appropriate to look at various solutions. However, like DGG, I'm not sure this one is workable. SilkTork (talk) 10:59, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Alternate to 3RR in response to Thryduulf. In normal circumstances the WP:BURDEN of sourcing is on the other person, but once the burden has been met enough times (reverted info is shown to be verifiable), it has to shift to the reverter. Anyway, FIXTHEPROBLEM is supposedly policy and we should all always follow it. 173.228.123.166 (talk) 05:18, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

Comment by others:

I disagree with a blanket statement that the onus of providing sourcing should shift. English Wikipedia can only maintain its volume of edits if as many editors as possible do their part in following key norms, including sourcing. For something like statistics updates, I can agree that a given editor can build up a sufficient track record of providing sources and accurate updates that forgetting to provide sources on occasion can be forgiven. But for more substantive prose changes, it quickly becomes a significant burden on the rest of the community to fix up sourcing that should be included by the editor who had the source right at hand when adding some info. isaacl (talk) 16:25, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

I think it might be useful to make some sort of distinction here based on how easier it would be to check for verification - "Did player Z wear shirt 34 in match?" is a simple yes/no that shouldn't take long to check; "Player Y appeared for team A in 100 matches between 1990 and 2000" would take a little longer, but it's the sort of thing that should be pretty easy to check and given that, even if they are wrong, it won't cause significant real world harm if it's in the article for an hour, it's not unreasonable to ask someone to at least attempt to verify it before reverting the addition (assuming the new figure is plausible and there is no reason not to assume good faith) - e.g. if it was verified that last week a player had played in 13 matches this season and an anonymous user changes that to 14, then it's entirely plausible that the new figure is correct, and should not be reverted without checking - if it was changed to 4 then it's almost certainly incorrect but could be a good faith typo, changing it to 501 though would be grounds for reversion.
If the addition or changes are a long, complicated paragraph then that's a bit different but still the first reaction should not be revert without having first determined whether it's implausible and/or it is/would be harmful. If it's not harmful and plausible then add a {{citation needed}} tag, or move it to the talk page for discussion in preference to rollback. Thryduulf (talk) 17:55, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

Unless there is a site tracking sweater number usage, you'd have to track down video of the game in question and watch for the player; that's not always a straightforward task. There was an editor on ice hockey pages who liked to insert certain pet topics and verbose coverage details into articles. This also included changing the game log format in team season articles. Often the change that lacked consensus would be buried into a huge set of other changes. I'd do my best to unravel what seemed like productive changes from the unproductive ones, but it was enormously time-consuming. (The removal of an undesired table column, for example, can be very tedious and slow.) Other editors would just revert the whole thing. Once the editor was site banned, there would be similar edits from IP addresses. I'd open a discussion on the talk page for each, pointing out the problematic edits, and again try to only revert the ones with issues. I can't recall if afterwards I just started reverting the whole lot; other editors did as a matter of course. If someone wants to sort through edits, that's great, but codifying this as a fixed principle makes editing much more onerous for those following the rules versus those who aren't. isaacl (talk) 18:17, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

Regarding the addition of non-controversial, unsourced facts: when they pass the "it could possibly happen" test, I do invest effort in trying to find a source. But given that it can take five to ten times the effort to do this than it takes to drop in an unsourced fact, it's not a very scalable approach. Editors need to be given incentive to include appropriate sourcing from the start. isaacl (talk) 18:17, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

Isaacl, the burden shifts as a sanction against someone who does too many inappropriate reverts. Also, providing unsourced but accurate and uncontentious material doesn't need "forgiveness" since it's good editing (WP:V, material is verifiable if it can be checked; WP:NPOV if something is verifiable and significant, it should be included, therefore removing it is an error). It's even better when sources are provided, of course. But see Schrocat's comment about movie awards further up. Wikipedia historically has done fine with that. We have a site-wide principle, WP:AGF, saying we should not treat contributions as vandalism unless there is evidence of it (e.g. that the person is adding checkably bad info).

WP:BURDEN evokes the image of an accused bank robber. It is the prosecution's burden, not the defendant's, to show that the person actually robbed the bank. But once the burden has been met, it is time to talk about sentencing. The person can't just give back the money and go back to robbing more banks, keeping the proceeds in the instances where they don't get caught. Here on Wikipedia we get robbed of good edits all the time but we almost never do anything to the robbers. (I wrote something similar in the Kww/TRM workshop). That harms the project enormously imo.

Note also that this proposal is given as an alternative to the simpler suggestion of restricting reverts to 3 a day. I don't think I've made 3 reverts in the past year. 3 a day is plenty for someone with other contributions to make. Googling something before reverting isn't much harder than checking that a provided source verifies the info. And again, FIXTHEPROBLEM is supposedly policy.

It also seems to me, there have been some users in WP:RESTRICT limited to 0RR (no reverts at all) so that's an option with precedent. Yes reverts are sometimes needed but if someone does it a lot and is bad at it, they shouldn't do it and it should be left to other users. No editor's reverts are indispensible. 173.228.123.166 (talk) 18:08, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for your clarification; your comment in the "Comment by parties" section did not restrict the scope of the shift of burden to this specific remedy, thus I commented on the general case. Someone failing to provide a source is not an accusation; the editor has the responsibility of providing a source in order to relieve others of the task of providing the source, thereby acting collaboratively. You are fortunate if none of the pages you watch get vandalized; I see lots of test edits or deliberately destructive edits on pages. isaacl (talk) 18:25, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

Note when trying to double-check a fact, a quick search engine search may not be enough. It may be necessary to search relevant media, which typically means accessing an online library (or physical library) and doing a search in the appropriate databases. After that, if you do turn up something, you have to incorporate the citation into the text, filling in the details. The text may need to be re-written slightly—often facts that are just dropped in could use some copy editing. So what could take someone a minute to enter without a source might take me five to ten minutes or more to source. No, I wouldn't revert and block someone for doing this once, and I appreciate the concerns that have been expressed in this particular arbitration case. But it's impractical to say that everyone else is always responsible for fixing problems introduced by others. If the ratio of helpful editors to those unwilling to follow community norms drops below five to one, there's a problem. isaacl (talk) 18:32, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

@Isaacl: a column can easily be added or deleted from a table using VisualEditor. Thryduulf (talk) 19:51, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

Isaacl, thanks very much for the work you do sourcing stuff instead of reverting it. I'm not saying GS or anyone else should have to go on some huge quest to research a doubtful edit before reverting. I'd be delighted if prospective reverters would: 1) have a good faith doubt about the actual fact asserted rather than reverting purely bureaucratically. The threshold of doubt depends on the seriousness and subjective likelihood of the possible error. 2) Make some reasonable attempt to verify the info, e.g. quick google search, look in an appropriate specialty reference site or book if you have them handy, that sort of thing. 3) if you find something, add a cite and be happy. 4) If you don't find anything, revert or add {{cn}} based on amount of doubt toward the edit, and also 5) note on the talk page "I reverted a claim of X because I couldn't verify it with web searches and looking on site Y", with a diff if possible.

More generally, try to have the attitude of an encyclopedist rather than a mall cop. The article deletion process has WP:BEFORE which advises for notability issues: "The minimum search expected is a normal Google search, a Google Books search, a Google News search, and a Google News archive search; Google Scholar is suggested for academic subjects." I.e. basic due diligence, not turning the world upside down. I've done some more extensive searches on topics I've found interesting and found them satisfying, but I wouldn't ask that of others.

Anyway, the only way to ensure an error-free Wikipedia is delete all the articles, which we presumably don't want to do. For science articles (according to a famous Nature study) we were as accurate as Britannica's back in 2004[12] when we were nowhere near as bureaucratic or obsessive as now, and had far fewer citations. So I think we were doing fine even then. For this footy stuff, to meet reader expectations, IMO we want to be at about the same accuracy level as other sports stats references. If our error rate is too much higher than theirs we're publishing crap, but if it's too much lower, we're too bureaucratic, throwing out too much good info, etc. I know about Total Baseball for baseball, so maybe there's something similar for soccer. If we are at par with them then we are good to go. I'll mention again Schrocat's comment about incoming movie award info and am disappointed if the incoming soccer data isn't as good. 173.228.123.166 (talk) 08:17, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

According to [13] there were ~31,000 active editors on English Wikipedia in November 2018, compared with ~5,500 in November 2004. The popularity of Wikipedia brought in many editors with disparate goals and motivations, and different personal ideas on how to build an encyclopedia. For better or worse, to help enforce minimal standards in such a large editing population, the community wants to have cited info added now. I agree there needs to be flexibility, but it cuts both ways. Editors should be flexible in accommodating good-faith edits that are plausibly accurate but unsourced. On the other hand, editors should learn to assume the responsibility of sourcing their edits, appreciate the consequences of failing to cite sources, and be understanding if on occasion other editors do not interact with them in the most optimal ways. Like it or not, all of us will be summarily reverted at some point; in the interest of collaboration, we must try to move forward as productively as possible. isaacl (talk) 17:26, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

Proposals by Fram

Proposed findings of fact

Blocks

Too many of GiantSnowmans recent blocks were incorrect, and his replies show no understanding of why these blocks were problematic.

Assuming bad faith, but not acting in bad faith

(Please someone reword this in a more formal manner). Two things seem to have gotten mixed up in many comments. While there is ample evidence of GS assuming bad faith (in the sense that he too often assumes editors who have been warned before to continue with problematic edits without really checking the actual edit, or that when he sees one or two problematic edits in a long batch of edits, he assumes the others to be problematic as well), there has been no compelling evidence of GS acting in bad faith when making these edits. Their intentions always were to maintain (too) high standards and project rules and to (too) strictly apply their (sometimes selective) reading of our policies. The evidence provided about abusive AfDs towards specific groups is not compelling at all.

The only possible bad faith actions I see are their broken promises: promises to change their approach, and then continuing with the same actions; promises to undo their rollback and apologize, which they only did in some cases but not in many others; and a promise to unblock an editor is someone else but me looked at the situation and came to the same conclusion as me, but which they didn't do (see Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/GiantSnowman/Evidence#Lessons learned). Fram (talk) 08:41, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

Proposed remedies

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

GiantSnowman desysopped

1) The admin status of GS is revoked. They can reapply through RFA.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Procedural note: This proposal is already being proposed under Galobtter's proposals above. Let's keep the discussion in one place there just for simplicity. Newyorkbrad (talk) 16:55, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

General discussion

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

I am not sure where it should be, but some part of the decision should refer to WP:AGF and say Assuming good faith (AGF) is a fundamental principle on Wikipedia. Whatever the outcome of the case would be, there was a clear lack of good faith assumptions during the incident that led to the submission of the case. May be with a little more good faith assumptions the whole thing could run differently.--Ymblanter (talk) 15:28, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

Comment by others: