Wikipedia Arbitration
About arbitration Talk Arbitration policy (CU/OS) Guide to arbitration Noticeboard  Talk Search archived proceedings Ban appeals Report
Open proceedings All open requests Case requests Clarification and Amendment requests Arbitrator motion requests Enforcement requests
Active sanctions Contentious topics (Log) General sanctions Editor sanctions
Arbitration Committee Discuss Contact Members Procedures Elections Talk History Clerks  Talk Clerk procedures Conflict of interest reports
Audit Talk Statistics Talk Reports (pre-2016)
Track related changes

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

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

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

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

This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
I acknowledge that, in hindsight, I should have checked the edit which I thought was vandalism. Happy? PS I'm willing to accept criticism of my conduct - but not from you, given how you have acted towards me over the past 2 weeks. There is a way of going about stuff with people which you don't seem to grasp (the irony, given that is also what I am being accused of!) GiantSnowman 10:46, 19 December 2018 (UTC)[reply] You are free to ignore my criticism (probably not smart at an ArbCom case, but that's up to you). You are even free to reply to my criticism with personal attacks, nonsense, non sequiturs, or other prime examples of "when in a hole". It won't stop me from highlighting the many, many problems with your attitude and actions towards newbies (and even experienced editors), and the repeated abuse of admin tools. And I haven't really seen you "accepting criticism" from anyone else, all you have done is offering some crumbs to avoid formal sanctions, while at the same time repeating that your approach generally is the right one, your blocks were correct, and so on. Fram (talk) 11:00, 19 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

 Clerk note: Any evidence from this section should be brought to the evidence page. Bradv🍁 00:20, 22 December 2018 (UTC) [reply]

This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Thought I should bring attention to that while this is ongoing, GS is still biting newcomers and even straight up lying to their face. Not sure if this measures up to the evidence required here or if IP editors are even allowed to bring up evidence to begin with (not finding a policy about either). But latest example (as of posting this): IP editor adds info GS warns IP about unsourced, saying it's removed Rather than remove the info, GS adds further info If it was unsourced when the IP editor added it, well then it's unsourced when GS added to it since GS is just adding clarifying info to the location. If it's not unsourced, well then the warning wasn't warranted in the first place. Either way, GS warns a user saying it's removed, when adding more to the same, without adding any new references.84.219.252.47 (talk) 23:23, 19 December 2018 (UTC)[reply] GS *did* add a reference (to Soccerway), as can be seen in this edit, in the "Club career" section. Mattythewhite (talk) 23:41, 19 December 2018 (UTC)[reply] In that edit, GS added <ref name = "SW"/>, which means the source was already in the article. Meanwhile, just today, GS changed infoboxes without adding new sources here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, and here. I assume GS didn't add a source for those edits because one was already in the article. If that's OK for GS, why isn't it OK with another editor? There is nothing at WP:BLP or WP:FOOTBALL that says you need an inline citation for each and every fact. Levivich (talk) 00:03, 20 December 2018 (UTC)[reply] Probably because the statistics tables updated in those edits were *already* referenced. Next? Mattythewhite (talk) 00:18, 20 December 2018 (UTC)[reply] The IP editor’s edit was also already referenced. Why did that deserve a warning? Levivich (talk) 00:34, 20 December 2018 (UTC)[reply] erm, if it has an information icon at the beginning of the paragraph then that isn't a warning! Govvy (talk) 00:56, 20 December 2018 (UTC)[reply] That's a distinction that is lost on a new editor (such as myself). The message received by the IP is "I noticed that you added or changed content in an article, Emem Eduok, but you didn't provide a reliable source." However, the source was already in the article. The documentation on Wikipedia says an inline citation is only needed for "controversial" or "challenged" edits, but the messages from some admin is that an inline citation is needed for every edit. Yet, these same admin do not follow this supposed "rule" themselves. We new editors can recognize this; we're new but we're not stupid, we can RTFM just like anyone else. The message received, thus, is "don't touch this article." I'm telling you, as a new editor: this is confusing and discouraging. This is what many editors (both old and new, registered and unregistered) have been trying to communicate. Levivich (talk) 01:07, 20 December 2018 (UTC)[reply] Hi Levivich, your comments about BLP are not correct - "All quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be supported by an inline citation to a reliable, published source" (my emphasis). GiantSnowman 08:39, 20 December 2018 (UTC)[reply] You always seem to ignore the challenged or likely to be challenged part though. And the part about you imposing one rule for others, and another rule for yourself. Fram (talk) 08:51, 20 December 2018 (UTC)[reply] All unsourced content is likely to be challenged. And where have I said there is one rule for me and one one rule for others? GiantSnowman 08:54, 20 December 2018 (UTC)[reply] Then propose to change the BLP policy to read "everything" instead of "All quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged", if you believe those to be the same anyway. Fram (talk) 09:48, 20 December 2018 (UTC)[reply] Forgive me if I'm misunderstanding but, by asking for a source, is GS not meeting the challenged or likely to be challenged part by challenging the information himself? Kosack (talk) 09:57, 20 December 2018 (UTC)[reply] Technically, yes. In reality, he turns this into a self-fulfilling prophecy by challenging everything, and giving warnings and blocks for not having provided a source before it was even challenged. Fram (talk) 10:09, 20 December 2018 (UTC)[reply] A GS edit from today: [9]. If the change is not supported by the inline source, it is a BLP violation, right? Heck, even not updating a corresponding date is a BLP violation, right? One of these gets a warning, and after a few you get a block, right? Or do we assume good faith from our editors? To make a fuss about this "error" (can you spot it?) would be completely ridiculous, but this is the kind of "problem" edit which has caused much of the ArbCom case, leading to mass rollbacks, warnings, blocks, ... But only for others, of course, not for GS. Fram (talk) 10:21, 20 December 2018 (UTC)[reply] Or an edit from yesterday[10] about someone who died this week (recent deaths = BLP policy). GS added two sources, but the first is not about the subject at all, and the second contradicts information in the infobox (well, sometimes it does, sometimes it doesn't, it isn't even internally consistent). The problem with the first source is simply a typo, but that kind of excuse is not valid when others edit football BLPs, so... I guess we are, in their own twisted logic, now up to a second warning for BLP violations for GS? Fram (talk) 10:29, 20 December 2018 (UTC)[reply] These are not the same and you know it. GiantSnowman 10:49, 20 December 2018 (UTC)[reply] How is updating numbers of matches played, based on a source which isn't about that season, and where you don't update the "accessdate" of the source, any different to people updating the number of games played in an infobox but forgetting to update the timestamp in the infobox? Despite your claim, I really don't know how they are different (well, perhaps yours is worse, as you don't update the date and the source is for the wrong year, but I don't think that's what you mean). Fram (talk) 11:03, 20 December 2018 (UTC)[reply] In those edits I am making it clear why I am making the edit, and as Mattythewhite has already explained (but you've conveniently ignored), the stats are already sourced. That is completely different to an editor changing a number in an infobox with no source or indication why, particularly given (as Ymblanter said, and which again you have ignored) this is an area of Wikipedia with a particularly high instance of vandalism. GiantSnowman 11:12, 20 December 2018 (UTC)[reply] In all cases of thos editors you wrongfully blocked and which are listed in the evidence section, it was quite clear why they were making the edits; to improve the encyclopedia. Like you say, "the stats are already sourced", but that didn't stop you rollbacking and blocking e.g. User:Caitlinwebb3. But of course, if you change them, it is clear that they come from "the source", even if the source is incorrect (as in this example); and if you change them, you don't need to change the accessdate of the source, but if a lesser editor does the same, they are vandals. The only difference is that you consider yourself incapable of vandalism, while nearly every other editor gets treated as a vandal unless they follow your rules to the letter, even the ones you regularly ignore. Of course, if you chase away so many constructive editors, you are left with a handful of "accepted" editors and a lot of vandals. I have trouble feeling any sympathy for that situation which is largely your own creation. Fram (talk) 12:32, 20 December 2018 (UTC)[reply] Hi @GiantSnowman: you wrote, "All unsourced content is likely to be challenged." Where does it say that? Not at WP:BLP, not at WP:INLINE, not at WP:FOOTBALL, that I can find. Please provide a source for that statement. I want you to know in no uncertain terms that, as a new editor, your writing that just now is the first time in a month that I've ever heard anybody say "all unsourced content" is likely to be challenged or needs a citation, for a BLP or any other type of article. I believe that is not written anywhere, or at least not in a policy. @Kosack: One of the problems in my view is that GS has not challenged the information prior to reverting it and/or posting warnings and/or issuing blocks. So reversion alone with an edit summary, "I challenge this as factual; please provide source," would be fine, but that doesn't merit a talk page warning. That's the challenge. If the other editor then replaced the challenged content without a source, then that would merit a warning as violating our policies. But GS's pattern is to revert and template in the first instance. We wouldn't be here if, instead of revert/templating/blocking, GS had posted a message to editors' talk pages along the lines of, "Hi, I think what you added is factually incorrect, because..." or if GS had just edited the factually incorrect information and replaced it with correct information, or added a source to unsourced information, instead of revert/template/block. Second, a challenge has to be in good faith. You can't just blanket challenge everything. Third, is there anything more easily verified than what team a professional athlete plays for, or what position, or what number they wear? This sort of information is extremely well documented on the internet in multiple reliable sources. "Challenging" such "vanilla" facts is nonsense. Fourth, once an editor "challenges" an unsourced fact, in my view, the editor becomes WP:INVOLVED in a content dispute, and thus cannot and should not use their admin tools, such as by blocking a user. Fifth, and most importantly, GS has blocked users even when the information they add is sourced, and even when they add more sources in response to talk page templates, such as the incident I laid out in the evidence I posted. Levivich (talk) 17:02, 20 December 2018 (UTC)[reply] Again, please see WP:BLPSOURCES. How does one define 'challenged or likely to be challenged' or 'contentious'? It's difficult, and not done anywhere that I know of. But we err on the side of removing possibly problematic/unsourced/poorly sourced material - "Contentious material about living persons (or, in some cases, recently deceased) that is unsourced or poorly sourced—whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable—should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion". I have edited for 13 years, been an admin for 7 - my removals and request for explicit sourcing (which is aview held by others) has never been an issue until recently. GiantSnowman 17:59, 20 December 2018 (UTC)[reply] I define "challenged or likely to be challenged" or "contentious" as: (1) actually disputed, or (2) probably going to be disputed. "Barack Obama was born in Kenya" is a good example. "Donald Trump is a self-made billionaire" is another example. "Athlete X played for Team Y in Year Z" is not: that's easily verifiable, not likely to be disputed. Where does it say "all unsourced content is likely to be challenged"? Are you saying that all statements in a BLP must have an inline citation? Have you been enforcing this rule for 7 years as an admin? Finally, do you appreciate why, as a new editor, it is alarming to hear that there may be an unwritten rule that directly contradicts a written rule and can get me blocked? Levivich (talk) 18:13, 20 December 2018 (UTC)[reply] Have you read WP:BURDEN? "The burden to demonstrate verifiability lies with the editor who adds or restores material, and is satisfied by providing an inline citation to a reliable source that directly supports the contribution". So, yes, if something is added which is not supported by an inline citationfrom a reliable source, I remove it, in line with policy. GiantSnowman 18:18, 20 December 2018 (UTC)[reply] Well here's exactly what WP:BURDEN says, I've bolded the parts that you seem to be missing: "In some cases, editors may object if you remove material without giving them time to provide references; consider adding a citation needed tag as an interim step. When tagging or removing material for lacking an inline citation, please state your concern that it may not be possible to find a published reliable source for the content, and therefore it may not be verifiable. When tagging or removing such material, please keep in mind that such edits can be easily misunderstood. Some editors object to others making chronic, frequent, and large-scale deletions of unsourced information, especially if unaccompanied by other efforts to improve the material. Do not concentrate only on material of a particular POV, as that may result in accusations that you are in violation of WP:NPOV. Also check to see whether the material is sourced to a citation elsewhere on the page. For all of these reasons, it is advisable to communicate clearly that you have a considered reason to believe that the material in question cannot be verified. If you think the material is verifiable, you are encouraged to provide an inline citation yourself before considering whether to remove or tag it." Looking through your talk page archives I see recurring complaints from editors that you've reverted and templated them. In one case it seems to be because you reverted the addition of the fact that Basel had finished third in their UEFA Champions league group. Ignoring the fact that anyone who follows football would know that (and therefore it's not remotely contentious) is that seriously so hard to source yourself? Instead you end up in a back and forth talk page discussion with the editor(s) in question when all the drama could simply have been avoided by you just sourcing it yourself, as indeed many of those editors asked you to do. Valenciano (talk) 18:54, 20 December 2018 (UTC)[reply] Valenciano Thank you for the support. I did not know that I was the only one being attacked by GiantSnowman. You are correct in suggesting that these methods hinder good faith edits and prevent longtime and new users alike from wanting to make edits on wikipedia. I do not know where this hostility comes from but I do not think it is a good or endearing strategy and @GiantSnowman is creating more harm and enemies than good.Rupert1904 (talk) 19:28, 20 December 2018 (UTC)[reply] GS "vandalism" from yesterday: claiming that someone is born in "1.88m"[11]? Isn't that the kind of edit you find so terrible when an IP makes it? Isn't it perhaps time you realise that most editors (including IPs) are trying to help, and that a markup or technical error (not actual, intentional vandalism, but things like not updating a timestamp or not sourcing everything when adding things to a section where nothing was sourced to begin with, or even making a typo among a lot of good edits, or forgetting to add a source once between 25 sourced edits) is not a reason to rollback, warn, block, ... ? Following your own approach, this would have been your third vandalism warning in a row, and your next similar error would result in you being blocked (and no, this isn't a threat, I haven't issued any vandalism warnings and someone blocking you over this would deserve a desysop themselves). Fram (talk) 08:28, 21 December 2018 (UTC)[reply] Yawn. (You'll also note that in the edit you highlight, I was referencing this unsourced edit by another user! But you ignore that because all I do is remove unsourced material, isn't it?) Please find an edit where I have reverted/warned an editor for adding the height parameter into the birth parameter in error or similar? Not updating a timestamp is a problem; because another editor comes along, doesn't think it has been updated, and then changes the stats again - so the stats become incorrect. GiantSnowman 08:34, 21 December 2018 (UTC)[reply] Perhaps the one where you reverted and vandalism warned an editor for adding the age to a birthdate parameter on the birthday of the person[12]? You did this last week, and it was discussed yesterday on the evidence page... The stats should be updated based on what the source says, not on what the timestamp says. Simply adding 1 without checking if the new number is correct is the responsability of whoever updates this. Oh, and while there is nothing wrong with adding that ref, it is again typical of your mindset to call the previous edit "unsourced"; the source was already in the infobox, and used to source things like the date of birth and playing position (above and below the newly added height). Which you should now because that is how it was when you created the page[13]. There is nothing wrong with that, just like there is nothing wrong with adding another piece of information from that same source. That you check it, fine, but that you feel the need to call it "unsourced" when it is sourced exactly like your own additions just shows the problem. Fram (talk) 08:44, 21 December 2018 (UTC)[reply] My word, you think these editors are actually checking sources when adding stats? Ask at WT:FOOTBALL for people's experiences please, see who agrees with you! PS it was unsourced, WP:BURDEN requires an in-line citation, where was the in-line citation for height? Oh there wasn't one til I added it. GiantSnowman 08:54, 21 December 2018 (UTC)[reply] Burden requires an inline citation when challenged. You only challenge what everyone else adds, and their edits require an inline citation. You, on the other hand, are free to add anything you want to an infobox without inline citation. Like I just said, there were three fields in that infobox header, all three added by you, but only one with an inline source. This presumably means that all three are sourced to the same source. A good faith editor, who has alreday made countless edits to that article, adds one more bit of info from the same source. There is "no" BURDEN here to add that same source, unless you have the exact same BURDEN for the other two "unsourced" bits in that infobox header. Thank you for highlighting this prime example of your double standards. Fram (talk) 09:03, 21 December 2018 (UTC)[reply] I do seriously hope, whatever the outcome of this case, that ARBCOM look at your behaviour throughout. Others (include some of the Arbs themselves IIRC) raised concerns about 'pitchforks' etc against me and you are simply continuing with that conduct. It's deeply unpleasant. As I said before there is a way of going about things which you don't seem to grasp. GiantSnowman 09:12, 21 December 2018 (UTC)[reply] Because you took on board the criticism by others so well, and improved your problematic behaviour when it was raised by others? The original complaint was by User:UninvitedCompany, a new section was created by User:MrX, the section about your 480 edits on the 9th was created again by UninvitedCompany (ooh, pitchforks and harassment!), then User:Softlavender created the section "solution time", and User:Legacypac started the ArbCom case. I guess all of them also have that certain "way of going about things" you clearly have and I lack? Of course this is unpleasant for you: you have been misusing the tools and misinterpreting basci policies for way too long, and apply seriously double standards. I am gathering and publishing evidence of this (which is the purpose of these pages), to convince people "with facts" that you are not suited to remain an admin. If I would simply state that you are a poor admin, without any evidence, this would rightly be rejected out of hand. So I go through your recent edits (I'm not digging up dirt from long ago, I think everything I posted is from October to now, nothing older IIRC), and note different things I see as problematic, either because they are problems as such (e.g. the blocks I commented upon), or because they show your double standards: the edits like the one above (the height/birth thing) are not a problem as such, but they are good examples of the kind of edits you like to revert and warn for, while quoting policies like BLP and Burden. I'm not even using ethically dubious stuff like using your admin tools to get "credit" for an article someone else wrote from scratch, but where you had an outdated version lingering in your draft space, and where you then add their text into your version with the edit summary "add reference(s)"[14]. Fram (talk) 09:34, 21 December 2018 (UTC)[reply] Lol, you mean the Jonathan Panzo article which I created as a draft (can't believe 6 weeks old = outdated!), another user then created a suspiciously similar version in mainspace, and I merged the two to retain the history and then edited so it included all the sources present in both versions? That is not an abuse of tools. You really are grasping at straws. GiantSnowman 10:01, 21 December 2018 (UTC)[reply] No, I mean the Jonathan Panzo article which you had in your userspace which didn't include his spell with the England U19 (which dates to August), or his actual claim to notability, playing with Monaco. And the Jonathan Panzo article created by User:Cazza3012 which had not one bit of text similar to yours (but which your usual AGF describes as "suspiciously similar"???), and had 5 sources not used by you, and none of the sources you did include. Your unwarranted attempt to vilify another GF user is not surprising. There was no need to "retain" the history of your user space draft, it was never in the mainspace, never available to our readers, and not used to create the page by Cazza3012. You could simply have added your sources and information where needed, just like any other editor would have done. Fram (talk) 10:20, 21 December 2018 (UTC)[reply] I created the draft in user space rather than draft space, that's the only difference. I've struck my unwarranted 'suspiciously' comment, showing some GF - perhaps you should start doing the same. GiantSnowman 10:24, 21 December 2018 (UTC)[reply] It shouldn't be necessary for others to point out that your suspicions of other editors are again unwarranted, but thanks for striking it out. No idea why you think an article about a then not yet notable player in draft space would have been histmerged if meanwhile an independent article after they became notable had been created by someone else. I have just gone through Wikipedia:Proposed mergers, and this hasn't happened even once in 2018 as far as I can see. Fram (talk) 10:32, 21 December 2018 (UTC)[reply] Is it any different to a deleted page being restored in-line with WP:RESTORE? Not IMHO. "If a new page with the same name has been created since the deletion, the restored revisions will appear in the prior history, and the current revision of the live page will not be automatically replaced." GiantSnowman 10:37, 21 December 2018 (UTC)[reply] Er, yes? The text you quote doesn't seem to come from WP:RESTORE? Fram (talk) 10:47, 21 December 2018 (UTC)[reply] Wikipedia:Viewing and restoring deleted pages#Viewing and restoring deleted pages - the shortcut listed on that page is helpfully wrong... GiantSnowman 10:49, 21 December 2018 (UTC)[reply] Restoring deleted pages is (sometimes) needed or good to give credit where credit's due. But if people have pages in their userspace which become redundant because meanwhile someone else creates a mainspace page on the same subject (without using your actual edits of course), then there is little reason to grant you the credit of having been the first anyway. Doing this for your own userspace creation is a rather WP:INVOLVED use of the tools for no benefit to enwiki at all (you needed to merge the contents manually anyway, which could just as easily have happened without the histmerge, and would still credit you for the added sources and so on). Fram (talk) 11:03, 21 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

 Clerk note: Any evidence from this section should be brought to the evidence page. Bradv🍁 00:20, 22 December 2018 (UTC) [reply]

This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
User:107.77.173.7 makes some very poor edits, gets escalating warnings, the final warning on 13.15 today. At 13.16, they make one further edit, [15]. Result: one week block by GS. Problem; that edit was correct, the IP changed "is a professional soccer player who plays with Wigan" to "is a soccer player who played with Wigan". The Stoke Sentinel[16] makes it clear that the payer was released by Wigan this summer. His profile page at Wigan FC has been removed[17], he is not mentioned in any of their teams. Soccerbase lists him as having no club[18]. So yes, he isn't a professional player, and he doesn't play for Wigan. What's the point of a final warning if the editor gets blocked afterwards anyway for their next edit, no matter if it is correct or not? Once a vandal, always a vandal? Please unblock, apologize, and give them a friendly reminder of the need for sources. Fram (talk) 13:31, 20 December 2018 (UTC)[reply] I'm happy for an admin (obviously not involved with this ARBCOM case) to review and unblock if deemed necessary. I simply saw an editor making a large number of vandalism edits and warnings in a very short period of time continue to edit in that way. Would any other admin acted in any other way? I doubt it. GiantSnowman 13:34, 20 December 2018 (UTC)[reply] No, you saw "an editor making a large number of vandalism edits and warnings in a very short period of time continue to edit ", and you didn't bother to check if their edit was constructive or not. Worse, even now that it has been pointed out to you that the edit was constructive, you don't even consider unblocking them yourself. Why? Fram (talk) 13:42, 20 December 2018 (UTC)[reply] Because I would appreciate the input of somebody else on the matter, rather than being bullied by you. GiantSnowman 13:49, 20 December 2018 (UTC)[reply] FWIW, that IP made 6 deletion/obvious-vandalism edits in under 10 minutes which were reverted by other users who placed multiple talk page warnings. I would have fully supported a block at that point and thanked an admin for blocking this IP editor for those 6 edits. But the 7th edit was a correct edit. The IP updated Anthony Plant with correct information from SB (which was already cited as a source in the article). The reversion of that correct edit replaced correct information with incorrect information. (I have updated the article to put back the correct information.) If someone makes 6 bad edits and gets a final warning, and then their 7th edit is a good edit, that shouldn't lead to a block. That's a sign of a user correcting their behavior in response to a warning, which is exactly what we want. When a user corrects their behavior, it makes no sense to respond to that with a block. The IP should be unblocked in my opinion. Levivich (talk) 16:53, 20 December 2018 (UTC)[reply] I think this is one for the actual evidence page, rather than a chat about it here. Fish+Karate 10:19, 21 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

• I don't mind you going a bit over your 500 words Levivich, but I'm not one for dragging up 4 year old ANI threads in a scattergun approach. If it's directly relevant, fine, but otherwise do consider that 4 years is a long time on wiki Worm^TT(talk) 00:27, 23 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I hadn't considered the age of the evidence. I'm going to think about whether any of it is directly relevant or not before decide whether to post. Levivich (talk) 18:22, 24 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

That's me pretty much done for the holidays - I won't be back properly until 2/3 January. I'll be around for a few hours here & there, but I probably won't have time to provide any more sub stative evidence or respond to others etc. before the 31st. I hope the Arbs take that into consideration.

I hope everyone has a merry Christmas and a happy New Year. Thanks, GiantSnowman 14:51, 21 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi all, the committee has extended the timeframe for this case in order to accomodate. We hope that the added flexibility will be helpful for all editors; the updated timetable can be found at the top of the page, with the workshop opening on Jan 3. Best, Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 18:28, 24 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Legacypac: It's certainly hard to argue with your general point that ordinary editors and admins should be treated equally for equal offenses, but I do want to bring up one point. For a rank-and-file editor, rollback is a user right which can easily be removed as a sanction for misusing it. For admins, however, it's part of a bundled package of rights and can't be separated. Therefore, the only way to remove the rollback right is by way of a desysop. This, however, is unequal treatment in the other direction: the removal of an editor's rollback right is much less consequential than a desysop is.

There is an alternative, though, which is that the admin can be topic banned from using rollback. This puts the onus on the admin not to push the rollback button, and if they do so accidentally to immediately self-revert and report themselves for the accidental violation.

This, it seems to me, is equal treatment. I hope you'll keep it in mind when we move to the workshop phase. Beyond My Ken (talk) 15:23, 22 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Legacypac: - Fixing malformed ping. See my comment above. Beyond My Ken (talk) 15:25, 22 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

User:Legacypac User:Beyond My Ken - Yes, an admin can be topic-banned from using rollback. To the best of my knowledge, this has not been done, but there is no reason it could not be done. However, there are also issues about blocks by Giant Snowman, and they need to be considered separately from rollback. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:16, 22 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I believe topic bans have been mentioned, but as an Arb said roughly, if we can't trust an Amin to use a basic tool like rollback correctly how can we trust them to be an Admin? I don't know the answer here but I sure wish GS was not so tone deaf and incapable of assessing a good edit from a bad edit. Legacypac (talk) 18:48, 22 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The issue of the blocks aside -- I was only addressing the rollback issue -- I'm not sure I totally agree with Doug Weller that if we can't trust an admin to use rollback correctly we probably can't trust them in general. People have all sorts of strengths and weaknesses and foibles, and we really shouldn't expect an admin -- any more than any other human being --to be perfect in all respects. If the admin is otherwise a benefit to the community, but has shown a particular weakness (and there are no other issues), I do think we should consider dealing with that weakness specifically instead of applying an "all-or-nothing" standard. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:46, 22 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Why has the original compolainant in this case been allowed to post an evidence-free diatribe against Gisnt Snowman on this evidence page? It's outright defiance of the Committee's rules, and a privilege not afforded to other users. The rules for the page are quite clear: "Evidence must include links to the actual page diff in question, or to a short page section". Why wasn't that section summarily removed? The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. (talk) 14:23, 23 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I brought this to ArbComm because only ArbComm can deal with it. I'm an uninvolved non-Admin user who saw a thread at AN. The AN thread and other users submissions contain all the evidence. I'm unclear how to post diffs showing that regular users would have lost advanced permissions, but GS has not lost any permissions for behaviour that would have cost anyone else rollback PERM. Would you like me to provide another link to the AN discussion in case an Arb can't find it? Legacypac (talk) 20:42, 23 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

 Clerk note: Legacypac, please support your evidence with diffs in accordance with the expectations outlined at the top of the Evidence page. Statements that cannot be substantiated should be removed. Bradv🍁 20:59, 23 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Would you like me to dig up a list of diffs for non-Admins that have had WP:PERMs yanked? Would that really help the Arbs understand? Legacypac (talk) 21:06, 23 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Your thesis that any regular user who misused rollback in the way GiantSnowman is accused of doing would have had the rollback right revoked does seem intuitively obvious, but don't you think that making such a positive declarative statement rather burdens you with the responsibility of providing the evidence that this actually happened to at least one rank-and-file editor? And, obviously, the more instances that can be shown, the better to prove your point. Also, if there are other instances of admins similarly abusing rollback and not having the right removed, that would also bolster your case from the other side. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:43, 24 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, anyone know how to search PERM removals? The Arbs, as Admins, know what would prompt them to remove a perm. Based on the people that are declined ROLLBACK Wikipedia:Requests_for_permissions/Rollback I doubt GS could pass a PERM review. Legacypac (talk) 05:23, 24 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

 Clerk note: Legacypac, I have removed your statement and archived it here for now. This is inadmissible in its current form as it does not meet the requirements stated at the top of the evidence page. Please support your statements with diffs and resubmit. Statements that cannot be supported by diffs, such as general comments on policies and procedures, suggested remedies, or analysis of evidence, may be more suitable for the Workshop once it opens. Bradv🍁 05:58, 24 December 2018 (UTC) [reply]

• @Legacypac: Here's one, at least; but it's a dose of arbfoolery to demand diffs that admins are actually doing their job 😷🍗 ——SerialNumber54129 11:30, 24 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank-you User:Serial Number 54129 I am not sure we want to get into a debate over User A should have lost rollback but User B was not as bad as User G with how they used Rollback. It is SkyisBlue that had any normal user rolled back over a thousand correct edits against various users and then claimed they were policy complaint, they could kiss their PERM goodbye with little discussion. Legacypac (talk) 13:13, 24 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Bradv: can we try to semi-protect evidence main page? thanks! Merry Christmas! Hhkohh (talk) 13:33, 24 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I blocked the IP for obvious block evasion, but I will wait for a clerk to edit the page and remove the text.--Ymblanter (talk) 13:35, 24 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Since some of the victims here are IPs, why are we excluding IP evidence by page protection? Legacypac (talk) 09:42, 25 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

IPs can still mail evidence to ArbCom for example, and it will be posted by clerks. We are excluding IPs used by LTA editors.--Ymblanter (talk) 11:06, 25 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I feel uncomfortable about evidence from LTA, vandalism-only account or block evasion user/IP. If other IPs want to post evidence, I am happy to see a clerk help them post Hhkohh (talk) 11:42, 25 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

(comment removed)

I have never been desysopped.--Ymblanter (talk) 14:20, 25 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I never said those IPs are LTA, but they are obviously block evasion and we can also WP:DENY their request Hhkohh (talk) 14:35, 25 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Bradv: can you collapse IP wording per WP:DENY? Thanks Hhkohh (talk) 14:46, 25 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

 Clerk note: The anonymous comments that have been removed all fit a particular pattern of long term abuse. Other editors who wish to submit evidence pertaining to this case but are unable to edit the page are welcome to send it by email to clerks-llists.wikimedia.org. Bradv🍁 16:44, 25 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Anyone following my contribs will have noticed I've just rollbacked 2A02:C7F:9E12:8F00:6C51:14D8:1B23:F46C (talk · contribs · WHOIS) and blocked them - done per WP:DENY, this is a WP:DUCK sock, in case you were wondering. GiantSnowman 09:38, 26 December 2018 (UTC) [reply]

This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
I know I'm not the most well versed in the policies here but how in the ever loving hell does that IP qualify for either of those? Not to mention, that both of those are essays, not policies or even guidelines. And just taking a random example here of say Alexander Büttner. You reverted the changes they made... Except the changes made were not only correct, they were even sourced. The last time the source was updated was the 20th after the previous match. A new match was added on the 23rd that he played in. That would obviously update the number of appearances. Please, do explain how following the rules YOU YOURSELF required for adding content, is worthy of a block by you, without even a warning? You blocked it for block evasion... But based on what? I see absolutely NOTHING in their edits that would even remotely suggest that they are evading a block and it is my understanding at least that unless you have some very solid evidence, if you were suspecting them of a block evasion, should you not have taken them to SPI or ANI? The edits had been up for over 30 hours already and they had not made further edits since updating team stats in relation to that match, so it doesn't seem as if there was some kind of need to hurry.84.219.252.47 (talk) 18:29, 26 December 2018 (UTC)[reply] I can't believe you would roll back constructive sourced edits and block an IP on a flimsy basis during this case. Will use this as evidence. Legacypac (talk) 18:41, 26 December 2018 (UTC)[reply] @GiantSnowman: Can you post some diffs of vandalism or other bad edits by this IP? Levivich (talk) 18:57, 26 December 2018 (UTC)[reply] Where is the evidence this IP is related to the named acct [19]? Legacypac (talk) 19:06, 26 December 2018 (UTC)[reply] Another indicator of GiantSnowman's incompetence - the tag he placed says "please refer to contributions or the sockpuppet investigation of the sockpuppeteer for evidence". The blue link is supposed to go to the editor's SPI file but there is no SPI file for this editor. He swings into action whenever an editor edits "Woking F.C." GiantSnowman seems to have had it in for "Woking123" since he blocked him in 2017 (twice) for "persistent addition of unsourced content". The objection was "adding unsourced content" to Rhys Murphy. Woking123 wrote that he was on loan to Crawley Town from Forest Green. He also cited a reference - "Soccerworld". GiantSnowman also claims that IPs in the 5.51.xx.xx range are sockpuppets of Woking123. Thing is, these all geolocate to Bristol, which is a long way from Woking, and the ISP (Cablecom) is different. The sooner GiantSnowman is de-sysopped the better. 94.2.25.22 (talk) 08:02, 27 December 2018 (UTC)[reply] The DUCK evidence is that they all edit articles largely related to four clubs - Woking, Crawley Town, Swindon Town, and Vitesse in the Netherlands. The page history at Woking FC shows that IP 94.2.25.22 (making their 12th ever edit- the other 11 being to variouis ref desks) simply incorrect. Woking and Bristol are 100 miles apart; having a username which links you to that area doesn't kean you live in that area...perhaps a clerk could look at the IPs posting here and see if there is any socking going on? GiantSnowman 08:10, 27 December 2018 (UTC)[reply] So because an IP is editing a page correctly and the IP is located somewhere in the general area of the club they are updating (unsurprisingly people update clubs they follow), you think they are a DUCK of another editor you blocked for making what you call unsourced (but maybe already sourced and correct?) changes. We already learned you incorrectly block editors and you evidently blocked this IP based on a big assumption that is more likely incorrect than correct. You should no longer be an Admin. We can't trust your judgement. Legacypac (talk) 15:21, 27 December 2018 (UTC)[reply] There are no diffs offered to show any of the IPs edits were incorrect. If a regular editor routinely removed good edits they would be blocked as a vandal, not given an ArbComm case to defend themselves. Legacypac (talk) 16:17, 27 December 2018 (UTC)[reply] So is anybody going to unblock this IP that seems to have done nothing wrong to deserve a block, other than editing the wrong articles from the wrong geographic location? Levivich (talk) 04:47, 28 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

526wigir (talk · contribs) is also a sock of the same user - only started properly editing after the above IP was blocked on 26 December; edited Woking FC-related articles (including Draft:Armani Little), and edited Elliot Benyon and Ben Killip (amongst others) which have histories populated by these socks. Given this user was registered slightly before the IP got my attention I suspect the person simply forgot to log in when editing from the IP. Blocked and reverted accordingly. GiantSnowman 11:40, 31 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

And now 2A02:C7F:9E12:8F00:A5F7:380F:73A7:4929 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)

Hi GiantSnowman. I was looking at Brian Galach as it was referred to in evidence. I'm OK with the revert and block of 2a02:c7f:9e12:8f00:6c51:14d8:1b23:f46c as they made the same edit on the article as User:Cnomis who is blocked as a sock of User:Woking123. It's the history of that article which I'm curious about: [20]. Could you run through that for me, as it appears you created the article - perhaps in userspace - and that other users have created it on three other occasions, which you appear to have then moved into your own userspace. I'm particularly curious about why you removed this version from mainspace. The only significant difference I can see between that version and the current version: Brian Galach is the use of ukfootballtrials.com as a source, from which comes information - such as the player having spent time at Chelsea when a lad - that is not included in the current version. I assume that ukfootballtrials.com is an unreliable source. My thinking is that you were working on an article on Brian Galach in your user space, and rather than deal with potential inaccuracies on versions that were appearing on mainspace you were moving them into your own space until you were satisfied you had a version ready for mainspace. Is that the case? SilkTork (talk) 19:39, 30 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Silktork - yes, correct. Basically he was not notable for mainspace (he did't meet GNG or NFOOTBALL until I movedit back into mainspace), so I merged into the draft version until he was. (The other three users all turned out to be socks of Woking123 by the way, though I don't think I knew that at the time). I could have PRODded/AFDed the mainspace version - and it would have been deleted. However, I thought it better/more useful to keep the history intact, and continue working on one 'complete' version in draftspace, so I was BOLD and merged. And yes, you are correct in saying that 'UK Football Trials' is not a RS, hence why I did not keep that ref on the merged version. Playing for Chelsea is a big deal, and most smaller clubs will 'big up' if one of their players was formerly with a bigger club. No other sources (as far as I can see) mention Chelsea - why is that? I'm happy to answer any further questions if you have any? GiantSnowman 10:00, 31 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for that. Yes, I have a few questions about items that have come up in evidence that it would be useful to get clarity on. First, can you explain why the version you moved from mainspace doesn't meet GNG or NFOOTBALL, as his career at the point you moved it back into mainspace [21] appears to be the same - the professional debut in the September EFL Trophy game is present in the earlier version. Also, on the same article, you have twice removed the sourced information that Galach is currently on loan: [22], [23]. I assume the thinking here is because the person who entered the information is a sock of a blocked editor, and you are following WP:BLOCKEVASION. However, since the information is true, and as it currently stands without that material our article is inaccurate, is your thinking that it is better to discourage socks than to have accurate articles? Or were the reverts part of ongoing vandal and sock fighting, and there was little time to consider and check the merits of the material added (I have read the comments that Soccer articles get a high degree of subtle vandalism)? SilkTork (talk) 20:01, 31 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If I may help out here if GS will not be back for a few days, the original match in the EFL Trophy would not have met the notability guidelines at WP:NFOOTBALL as the appearance was against the academy side of Tottenham Hotspur, not the senior side. WP:NFOOTBALL requires that a player must have featured in a match against two teams from fully professional leagues, which the Tottenham academy side is not. The article was recreated when he made a second appearance in the competition, this time against the senior Portsmouth side thereby meeting WP:NFOOTBALL. Kosack (talk) 21:22, 31 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That does help. Thanks. SilkTork (talk) 06:13, 1 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, as Kosack says, he did not meet NFOOTBALL because he did not play in a competitive match between two teams from fully-professional leagues (the opposition were a youth team playing in a senior competition and there is AFD consensus that that does not confer notability, see eg this recent AFD, but there are earlier ones which I can't quite recollect). He also didn't meet GNG. The additions were reverted in line with WP:DENY. Allowing 'good' content added by socks to remain is a dangerous precedent. They have been blocked/banned for a reason, and if they want to continue editing we have procedures in place for that. GiantSnowman 13:59, 1 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The usertalk message that was sent out for this case stated "Please add your evidence by December 31, 2018, which is when the evidence phase closes.". The dates on the official pages for this case are vastly different. Which are correct? What is the actual deadline for Evidence, and for the Workshop? Softlavender (talk) 12:27, 31 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Softlavender, clerks have delayed the deadline of the case after opening the case.Hhkohh (talk) 12:34, 31 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Hi Softlavender. On the back of arbitrator and party inactivity over the holiday season, this case's schedule was amended after the talk page notifications were issued. The schedule is now:

Phase	Opens	Closes
Evidence	2018-12-17	2019-01-10
Workshop	2019-01-03	2019-01-17

The committee is scheduled to start voting on/before 2019-01-24. Hope this helps, AGK ■ 12:53, 31 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I see that there are some conversations taking place on the evidence page and that a couple of admin editors have posted background information and observations. I'm also aware that the non-admin editor who brought this case has been effectively muzzled. No comment on that for now, except to say that the evidence page for this case stands apart from the other cases I've been involved with or have observed. I don't why that is.

My question, which I touched upon in my statement in the case request, is: can I present evidence specific to this case about the culture of (a few) admins protecting other admins by prematurely shutting down discussions, threatening to block editors without due cause, posting falsehoods about editors, and quashing criticism from editors by selectively invoking rules of procedure? - MrX 🖋 00:21, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'm inactive on this case, and this is just my opinion, not ArbCom's opinion. Having said that, I'd consider that outside the scope of this case. If an admin is "protecting" another admin, that's effectively an issue of involvement. Your proposed evidence would only be helpful to examine the behavior of an involved admin, but no such admins are parties to this case. We cannot sanction non-parties, and so I believe such evidence would serve no purpose here.

Without comment on whether such a culture exists, the correct "process" to address such a culture would be to challenge involved actions in a polite manner on the admin's talk page, then at community noticeboards, then at an ArbCom case request, stopping if you receive a satisfactory resolution at any step in that process. This would have to be directed toward a single individual, not a whole culture of "protecting admins". ArbCom can't really effectively tackle a culture. We can't sanction culture. We can tackle individuals, and in doing so, create precedents and bright lines that bring the general culture of our project more in line with policy.

Lastly, I have to disagree that we've "muzzled" the filer. After repeated boundary pushing and warnings, we said they could submit evidence through the clerks instead of directly, to ensure they did not continue their disruptive behavior on case pages. Their evidence would be immediately posted publicly, unchanged, so long as it met the requirements for evidence in an arbitration case. They have so far chosen not to use that method of submitting evidence, but that's their choice. I think this is the minimum restriction we could have placed to stop the disruptive behavior, since warnings were unsuccessful. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 09:34, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for sharing your thoughts on this BU Rob13. I did challenge the behavior of an admin, albeit in a mildly impolite way because I felt the abrupt closure of an ongoing ANI discussion was pretty impolite. I suppose my impoliteness nullified any chance of holding the admin accountable, but that's not how it should work. I know Arbcom can't tackle a culture, but it can reinforce existing policies through its statements of principle and findings of fact. For the record, that's all I'm hoping for. I'm am not looking for the involved admins to be sanctioned.

Legacypac made 9 posts to the evidence page. None that I see are so severe that they justify restricting him to submitting evidence via email. What I see is Legacypac trying to navigate Arbom's arcane process and instead of receiving guidance, he got the treatment we normally reserve for banned editors and the most disruptive participants. It stands in striking contrast to the clerking that has not been done for Iridescent's football reflections or disputants using the evidence page for debate. That tends to perpetuates the perception that admins are treated with deference on Wikipedia. And please, someone explain to me like I'm a third grader, why Legacypac can't even appeal this onerous restriction on wiki. Why can't he at least avail himself of this forum? - MrX 🖋 12:26, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@MrX: I don't think being impolite prevents an admin from being held accountable, but it probably does prevent a positive result at the first step. The optimal outcome when an admin takes an involved action is for that admin to be challenged, realize their mistake, and correct it by undoing their action. It's easier to get that done with honey than vinegar. If admins fail to undo an involved administrative action, then the community or ArbCom could "sanction" them in the sense of declaring them to be involved with respect to the editor, preventing future involved actions. This is a "sanction" in the loosest sense of the word; it just undoes and prevents damage by making clear how the policy on involved actions applies in a specific case. That's what I'd be looking at as a first step if we saw compelling evidence of involved actions in an ArbCom case. If the actions were repeated or formed a pattern of behavior, then we'd have to consider more serious sanctions. Again, none of this is me saying whether or not a culture like this exists; I'd need to see the evidence. I do think it's important that you understand how ArbCom could help correct things if such a culture did exist, though, so you don't feel like there's nowhere to turn for this perceived issue. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 21:33, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I hear what you're saying BU Rob13 and I am quite familiar with the process for addressing serious admin conduct issues. Let's be careful though about framing this situation as "involved admins", which is not how I see it at all. It's about trust, judgement, and accountability in that order. Admins simply should not be shutting down discussions that are in the midst of examining another admin's behavior unless they can point to some consensus or policy-based reason to do so. That simple gesture of restraint would go very far toward restoring trust and confidence that admins are routinely held accountable.- MrX 🖋 23:50, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It's hard to know exactly what this is without seeing specifics and evaluating those, of course. I'm declining to take a stance on the alleged culture, since there's a chance elements of this could become part of this case or come to arbitration at a future date. If the allegation is that an admin is closing discussions prematurely with the intent to protect a specific editor or editors, I think that allegation is fundamentally an issue of involvement wherein they're not acting neutrally toward an editor or group of editors. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 10:41, 3 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I would say that if there is evidence specific to this case about a culture that has perpetuated issues - i.e. evidence of individuals stopping legitimate discussion of the issues through methods you suggest - I would encourage you to post it. Whilst there are no other individuals are currently party to the case, I have seen enough that I think there should be more parties. Worm^TT(talk) 10:11, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Worm That Turned. - MrX 🖋 12:26, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@MrX: Guidance on the case scope will be published, if all goes to plan, in the next 1–2 days. AGK ■ 12:50, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I have to say that I am baffled as to the rationale for restricting Legacypac to participation by email. If the purpose of this hurdle really was to reduce the perceived disruption (I don't see any myself), then this would be equally achievable by allowing him to post evidence to his user talk page, or a subpage within his user space, and a clerk could cross-post it from there. Forcing the user who filed the case to only be allowed to participate further by email is self-defeating and obstructive, particularly when nothing he did was especially outré, and even more particularly when one of the issues at hand is the differing treatment meted out to admins and non-admins, or the perception thereof. Fish+Karate 14:04, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I was going to say the same as Fish and Karate said. Since Legacypac stated that he doesn't feel comfortable using the email option, wouldn't his talk page or a user subpage be an acceptable compromise? Valenciano (talk) 14:51, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Agree x2. If nothing else it's extremely crass—not to say shortsighted—to treat a non-admin differently to an admin...in the middle of a case that revolves around treating non-admins differently to admins. Couldn't make it up. ——SerialNumber54129 15:30, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

FWIW I also agree. If you must impose restrictions, have Legacypac post on a subpage or similar, rather than by email. GiantSnowman 15:49, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you all for your comments. I will note that the restriction was imposed during the holiday period, while there was a lot of inactivity. We're in a different place now, and I'll have a discussion about alternatives, especially given that LegacyPac has made it clear that he's unhappy with email contact. Worm^TT(talk) 16:10, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• I see that Bbb23 and Ymblanter were added to the case. Does that mean the scope has expanded? Given that Ivanvector threatened to block me[24][25] for asking GS for clarification, will he be added as a party? - MrX 🖋 17:48, 3 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  Well, it turns out that answer was on another page that I wasn't watching. In case anyone else is wondering about the case scope, the answer is here: WT:Arbitration/Requests/Case/GiantSnowman#Drafter's statement as to parties and scope.- MrX 🖋 23:03, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I have a few observations that may or may not be helpful. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 13:15, 3 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence closes 10 January - so no, get involved. GiantSnowman 13:25, 3 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 13:41, 3 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I can't speak for other admins, but if I were topic-banned, I would be very afraid of accidentally rolling back another's edits because I often rollback quickly (comes with years of experience).

This is a problem easily solved - put .mw-rollback-link { display:none; } in your user css and all the far-too-easy-to-accidentally-click rollback links go away. I've done this for years (alongside javascript to put them back when I really do want to rollback). —Cryptic 17:17, 3 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi clerks, just flagging that I'm not so much "inactive" as not on the Committee at all. :)

As a piece of minor bureaucracy, can I please be removed from the casenav? Is a (small) chance I might comment on the case as a community member, and don't want any confusion as to what role I have. -- Euryalus (talk) 08:46, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

 Clerk note: The outgoing arbitrators who are not remaining active on this case have been removed from the list.​ Bradv🍁 14:42, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Bradv. -- Euryalus (talk) 08:04, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Are these list of active arbitrators ever accurate? BU Rob13 announced three sections up that he is not active in this case, but he's still listed. - MrX 🖋 23:08, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@MrX: Rob asked to be marked active again on January 2, and asked again to be marked inactive three hours ago. Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 07:04, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I can't help but wonder why arbitrators like BU Rob13 or Euryalus can't simply update Template:Casenav/data themselves with a brief reason stated in the edit summary. It's not something that needs to be clerked. It takes no more effort to update the template than to ask a clerk to update the template.- MrX 🖋 12:35, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

One may as well ask why Ebenezer Scrooge needed Bob Cratchit..."the clerk's fire was so much smaller that it looked like one coal"  ;) ——SerialNumber54129 13:17, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@MrX: Fair point, but I'm not presently an arbitrator so don't have the authority to amend the casenav pages. Also, casenav templates are technically complex so they're best altered by experts like the clerks. Can't speak for BU Rob or anyone else, but that's what was behind my request.

On the more general issue, I agree there's plenty of stuff the Committee asks clerks to do that it could perfectly well do itself. If you look at cases I drafted over the last few years you'll see very few requests for the clerks - I think it's actually good for arbitrators to do basics like civility enforcement and section reordering as it keeps them close to the case and shows the community they're paying attention as they go. -- Euryalus (talk) 13:47, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@MrX: On my to-do list is changing our templates to make it as easy and error-free for to update these things without an additional layer. Right now, we ask arbs to give us a heads up so that procedural results (recalculated majorities, updated lists across multiple proceedings) will be immediately observed; as long as they have to shoot off the email anyway, might as well have us do it. Euryalus, you were listed as inactive as you're still eligible to become active on the case, because it opened before the end of your term; of course, we are glad to list it however you'd like. Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 21:38, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, and thanks for the note. Just making it clear I won't be, in case I end up commenting on something as a member of the community. -- Euryalus (talk) 21:49, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@MrX: When an arbitrator goes active or inactive, there are several pages that need to be updated, not just casenav. The clerks generally know the Committee's procedures better than the Committee itself (or at least better than I do), so I leave it to them as the more qualified individuals. As for providing a reason for changing activity, I don't believe any arbitrator should have to give a reason for going active/inactive. Usually, those reasons are quite personal. They have been in my case, anyway. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 06:12, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks User:Iridescent for the 112,994 football biographies data. Do you, or anyone else, know how this compares to the number of biographies in other areas such as musicians, writers, politicians, film stars, etc? Or could someone tell me how to do the count myself. I'd like to be able to put that number into some sort of context. Is that, say, twice the number of biographies in other topic areas, four times the number, ten times the number, or about average.

I'd also be interested if anyone has data to indicate the proportion of edits to football biogs compared to other topics. For the past couple of weeks I have occasionally looked at Recent changes, and while I am seeing football biogs appear there frequently, in my random viewing I haven't seen that as higher than politician, musician or actor biogs, particularly Indian/Asian biogs, and I'm wondering if my random selections are not representative. SilkTork (talk) 12:18, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@SilkTork, you can get a very rough idea of the numbers from a hastemplate search on the relevant infobox. This won't be particularly accurate, as it will include drafts etc and won't include anything without the template in question, but it gives a rough estimate.

To get an exact number, provided you're an admin or have a bot flag (it won't work otherwise) the easiest way without goofing around with scripts is to use AWB's "make list" function. Make sure you have the nolimits plugin enabled; then, open AWB, select "Category (recursive, NL, admin or bot)" from the drop-down, and enter the name of the parent category (in this case, "Association football players by nationality". Run "make list" and it will generate an unfeasably large number; click "filter", check "mainspace" and "remove duplicates" and leave the other check boxes blank, and it will give you both the count, and a list to play with or use for double-checking. (The full list of all footballers is too large for the server to handle, but here's the approximately 20,000 English footballers; assume similar numbers for Germany, France, Spain and Italy and smaller but still substantial counts for every other medium to large country, and if anything my figure of 110,000 and Galobbter's figure of 150,000 are possibly underestimates.)

What makes sports biographies different from (for instance) music biographies is that they're far more dynamic. A typical musician only needs to be updated either when something significant happens in their life, they release an album, or a new biography is published; a biography of anyone involved in professional sports literally needs to be updated every week. ‑ Iridescent 14:44, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

(adding): Very rough numbers based on infobox use: 161,000 footballers, 100,000 musicians or groups. What you're seeing in recent changes will depend to a large part on what day you look; by definition, the overwhelming number of updates to sports biographies will be at the weekend when the games are played. ‑ Iridescent 14:51, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Petscan would be easier to use then AWB. Gives 163402 footballers with a depth of 2 and 158536 footballers with a depth of 1. Galobtter (pingó mió) 15:03, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

One thing is that, football is just one sport (though a very large one), so how much should it be in the recent changes relative to entire areas like actors etc? Galobtter (pingó mió) 15:03, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Iridescent. And thanks also for the point about the dynamic nature of sports biographies, which does seem to be an imperative for some editors within that topic area; though I'm still to witness myself in Recent changes a disproportionate number of edits to football bios. Perhaps I need to look on a Saturday afternoon when games are being played and thus stats are in need of being updated. SilkTork (talk) 15:06, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

And thanks Galobtter for the link to Petscan. I had been considering that. SilkTork (talk) 15:08, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

39,604 for musicians, 46,880 for politicians, 21,962 for actors; which adding them together gives 108,446. That means there are more football bios than musicians, politicians and actors put together. SilkTork (talk) 15:42, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

For what it's worth, but your count for politicians at least seems way off. You only took 2 levels deep from Category:Politicians by nationality, but most are buried three levels deep or even deeper (because most are not categorized by country, but by state, city, ...). 3 deep, you find 173839 results. 4 deep gives 238649 (but starts to include more false positives at first sight). I haven't checked whether the other searches have similar problems. Fram (talk) 09:14, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for that Fram. What I did was a like for like search (2 deep), and I thought the number seemed a little low so did wonder if I did the search properly. Additionally, I was thinking last night that while there may be more football bio articles than, say politics bio articles, there may actually be more editors willing to monitor those articles. Football has 552 active members and another 687 inactive members (total 1,239): Wikipedia:WikiProject_Football/Members. Politics has 320 total members (active and inactive): Wikipedia:WikiProject_Politics/Participants. I have been speaking to WP:Football, and there appears to be a feeling in that project that they prefer reflective and supportive editing when encountering edits by non-WP:Football members, but they accept the reality of having to perform blunt reverts at times, and appear to tolerate it all the time from some productive WP:Football members. I'm kinda thinking of Dirty Harry as I write this. Editors who are unorthodox and blunt but get the job done. Such editors will tend to divide opinion. SilkTork (talk) 15:01, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

However, if a BLP on a politician gets vandalized an ordinary user with a clue typically can recognize vandalism and revert, and they do not need to get updated so often. Association football articles typically need to get updated once per week, and one often needs some knowledge of the subject to be able to catch vandalism.--Ymblanter (talk) 15:18, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

In English football, teams in divisions 2 to 4 play 38 league games (plus at least 2/3 cup games) per season, which runs from the end of August to the start of May. There can often be 2 updates a week. In the 2012–13 season, James Hanson made 59 appearances in all competitions during that 37 week period - so 1.59 games/updates per week. GiantSnowman 15:22, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

150,000+ football biographies, with infoboxes and other tables containing 10+ statistics each (games played, goals scored, etc.) means 1.5+ million data points. We populate these data points manually, with a human being copying them from another website into a text file; even the "last updated" field needs to be set manually in the text file. Meanwhile, a significant subset of these million+ data points change weekly, and people also fraudulently change the statistics on a regular basis.

It doesn't have to be this way. This is something the community chooses to do, not something we are required to do. An encyclopedia doesn't need to have complete, up-to-date statistics about every footballer in the world; in my opinion, doing so risks turning an encyclopedia into an almanac. We don't keep track of how many concerts a musician has played as headliner vs. as the opening act. We don't keep track of the number of movies an actor appears in as the star vs. a supporting role. The Britannica article on Pelé doesn't include any detailed stats. When The New York Times writes about a footballer, they don't publish stats.

There are alternatives:

1. Tighten notability guidelines to require that a player appear in a pro game for a top-tier professional club, rather than any professional club
2. Tighten notability guidelines to require multiple appearances (3? 5? 10?) rather than one appearance
3. Tighten notability guidelines for infobox/statistical tables only; e.g., a player doesn't get stats on their article until they've played a full season for a pro team
4. Update monthly, semi-annually, or annually, instead of weekly
5. Use a web scraper [26]
6. Move the project from enWiki to Wikidata, and use a database
7. Use some of the WMF's $100 million endowment to license the data directly (is it heresy to suggest WP buy reliable data?)

I know this isn't the forum for policy changes. I'm raising this for two reasons: first, I'm sure these ideas have been discussed before, but if any more experienced editor thinks they are worthy of being discussed again in light of the structural problems exposed by this case, I hope they will start the discussion in the appropriate forum. I imagine this isn't just a footy problem, it must be a problem in other sports and other areas that have updating statistical tables.

Secondly, as it relates to this case: nobody edits in a vacuum, and, at least to my mind, community consensus also means community responsibility. Even GS's awe-inspiring 50,000 mainspace edits in 2018 [27] are just a drop in the bucket compared with over a million data points across over a hundred thousand articles, changing constantly, sometimes fraudulently. This is a complicated case, and it involves more than just infoboxes and statistics, but the way I see it, we're asking a guy to empty an ocean with a teacup, and in his haste to actually try and accomplish this impossible task, he spills water. It's a lot easier to blame him for spilling the water than it is to blame ourselves for the inevitable collateral damage and editor burnout that arises from asking editors to empty an ocean with a teacup in the first place. As editors consider "what to do with GS," I hope they remember the context and alternatives. Levivich (talk) 21:57, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It is not only player-related bios, although that is naturally a key driver. These articles are inherently volatile, being updated for every match (2 per week in many cases for 9 months of the year) with latest appearance details. Then there are the thousands of club & grounds articles & specific current season statistical articles, manager articles, national league articles and international association and competition articles. Every time a ball is kicked, these articles seem likely to be edited. Bigger Q - is WP really the place for this minute level of detail? Leaky Caldron 14:18, 8 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Whether or not we need that "minute level of detail" is likely another discussion for another day. However, whilst it is present, we need to ensure it complies with our policies and guidelines. GiantSnowman 14:27, 8 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Quite right, which is why I said Bigger Question. Unless of course the Footy project have created their own set of rules contrary to general policy. IIRC, One of the Arbs asked for evidence around that but I cannot see why it would objectively affect your case in a negative way - hopefully not anyway. Leaky Caldron 14:51, 8 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This bot has malfunction and has been blocked (see Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Malfunctioning bot). I have rollbacked entries on my watchlist only (or undone if rollback would revert a 'good' previous edit by the bot) in line with WP:ROLLBACKUSE #5 ("To revert widespread edits (by a misguided editor or malfunctioning bot) unhelpful to the encyclopedia"). This has also been done by other users on my watchlist (see eg this and this). GiantSnowman 09:01, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I've been resisting commenting on this case since I'm a fairly inactive user, but: That was unsmart. There are plenty of other editors and administrators who are not currently being scrutinised RE: their rollback use who could have done this rollback. You didn't need to do that. You really should (in my opinion) stay well away from any kind of rollback use, mass-rollback or not, until this case is over. It does not make you look good. -- Thanks, Alfie. ^{talk to me | contribs} 15:29, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Why? Surely I need to demonstrate that I know how/when to use rollback. If I stop, I cannot do that. GiantSnowman 15:30, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I don't agree. This was a largely unnecessary rollback since it doesn't "break" the encyclopaedia's usability in any way - the bot will fix its' own mistakes once the malfunctioning task is fixed. You seem to be searching for any and all excuses to retain the Rollback permission, and it just... doesn't look good at all. -- Thanks, Alfie. ^{talk to me | contribs} 15:46, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I saw a malfunctioning bot appear on over 40 of the articles on my watchlist. Saying I am 'searching' for things to rollback is ludicrous. I suppose I shouldn't have rollbacked this either? GiantSnowman 15:47, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think it's ludicrous, GS. I don't have any skin in this game whatsoever. I don't edit in these areas... Hell, don't even edit signed in all that much. I'm just saying that to me, a fairly average editor, it's a little embarassing to see someone continue to engage in behaviour that looks like the behaviour that bought them to ArbCom in the first place. And FWIW, I can't see that diff - It seems to be a rollback in the area of a football BLP, however, so you probably shouldn't have.

Take a break. There are so many other useful things that you could be doing as an admin. -- Thanks, Alfie. ^{talk to me | contribs} 15:59, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

GiantSnowman, I have to agree with Alfie. This does not reflect well on your judgment. You most certainly do not need to demonstrate that you know how/when to use rollback. Why not just let someone else handle it until the case is over? - MrX 🖋 17:31, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

GS is under no injunction not to use rollback for the duration of this case, and it is unfair to expect him not to take administrative action when he sees something that needs fixing. If his rollbacks are bad, that's an entirely different issue, and would indeed have relevance to the case, but claiming that simply using rollback on edits which need to be reverted is an error in judgment is, in point of fact, "convicting" GS in advance of the outcome of the case -- or at the very least, expecting GS to act as if he had been found guilty already.

If the editors commenting here wish GS to be enjoined from using rollback for the duration of the case, they can ask ArbCom to issue that injunction, but unless and until they do, GS should have the same freedom to use rollback (not mass rollback, which he has said he won't use) as any other editor with that right. Beyond My Ken (talk) 18:06, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Worth noting that I do completely understand this - GS is free to utilise the permissions they have. Actively preventing GS from using rollback would be punitive, and we don't hand out punitive restrictions (in general). However, GS is also free not to. It appears suspect (and potentially demonstrates bad judgement - that's up to the Arbs) that GS feels comfortable using rollback in exactly the areas that bought them to ArbCom in the first place, but also appears to feel the need to premptiviely justify it here. I apologise for not being able to demonstrate anything more objective than "it looks bad", but... exactly that. It rubs me the wrong way. Certainly if multiple people questioned my use of a permission enough to warrant a case at ArbCom, I would at least think twice and refrain from using it at least for the duration of the case, although I hope I'd be able to resolve that difference way before it reached AC. It's certainly not "Business as usual". -- Thanks, Alfie. ^{talk to me | contribs} 18:21, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Technically, BMK is correct, but if I recall correctly, in the case of DangerousPanda, similar continued use of admin permissions was not looked upon favorably.- MrX 🖋 18:34, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

GiantSnowman. You explain above that you are using rollback "in line with WP:ROLLBACKUSE #5". Earlier you said: "OK then, let me clarify. I will no longer use rollback for #5 of WP:ROLLBACKUSE, which is the area where the issue lies. Instead I will reveiew individual edits and use the manual 'undo' if appropriate. GiantSnowman 10:07 am, 10 December 2018, Monday (28 days ago) (UTC+0)" [28] and "I have therefore already removed the mass rollback script (a few days ago) and have said I will not rollback edits that might fall under #5 (and haven't)." [29]. Have you changed you mind somewhere? Or am I missing something? SilkTork (talk) 18:29, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I should have been clearer. The issue at hand was with the use of mass rollback in order "to revert widespread edits (by a misguided editor [...]) unhelpful to the encyclopedia". Nobody has raised any issues with me manually rollbacking "malfunctioning bots", so I saw no problem with the edits. However, if you feel it best I don't deal with this problem then I won't. The bot continues to malfunction, but I guess I'll just leave that for somebody else to clean up then... GiantSnowman 19:25, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'm neutral at the moment on you using Rollback - I was just unclear on why you said you wouldn't use it for #5, and then use it for that purpose. So your intention when you said "I will no longer use rollback for #5" and "I will not rollback edits that might fall under #5" was that you would use it in the case of "malfunctioning bots", but not for the "misguided editor" part? My understanding was the community's concern was the "widespread" nature of your use of Rollback because of the possibility that appropriate edits get reverted along with the inappropriate, and that you understood that. But now I'm not sure you are fully aware of the nature of the concerns that have been raised against you, particularly as you manually reverted me when I was actively editing [30], your edit comment claiming that the information was unsourced, even though it was sourced to references already present in the article (and still there as no new sources have been added), and my previous two edits to the article had been to add sources: [31] - 10 minutes earlier and [32] - 4 minutes earlier. It appears to me that you were not showing the appropriate care and attention that we expect from any editor, let alone an admin. That you would do this not to an IP or new editor, but to someone of my experience, who additionally is on the Committee which is looking into how careful you are with your reverts, is suggestive of either a deliberate lack of respect for other users, or clear evidence that you do lack insight into just how careful you need to be. My feeling is that you have got so caught up in what you feel is the importance of dealing with statistics in football bio articles in the proper WP:Football manner, that you are losing sight of the bigger picture. I am not seeing you as a malicious person, and I do feel that you have good intent, and I'm taking on board what people are saying about the hectic nature of keeping up with statistics in the football topic, but my observations so far are leading me to agree with the community that you simply don't take enough care and are not aware of the value of being collegiate in a community activity. An editor who rarely comments, Alfie, has felt concerned enough to raise this issue with you when he sees you performing widespread Rollback edits because the widespread use of Rollback is a significant part of the cause of concern and you indicated in two different arenas that you would not perform widespread Rollback edits, yet you argue with him instead of thanking him for his concern. I understand that you may feel a little stressed and beleaguered at the moment, and, as I say, I am neutral on your use of the Rollback tool at this moment, but I think Alfie was making a good point. For the avoidance of doubt, until this matter is cleared up, it may well be best to stay away from widespread use of Rollback, and, additionally, to start reflecting on your editing style, and to consider if both checking the value of edits and reaching out to users may be more helpful in the long run, than performing blunt reverts. This is not any sort of official ArbCom recommendation, just one editor to another. SilkTork (talk) 00:49, 8 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I appreciate your guidance (and that of Alfie and many others). I have already said I will not touch these bot edits, though nobody has raised any issues with my historical reverts of bots - the issue at hand is, primarily, use of the Mass Rollback script to revert addition of unsourced content. Yes, this is stressful, and I feel like I am being attacked from all sides. I feel like I'm damned if I do something ("he's using the tools again!") and I'm damned if I don't ("he's ignoring a problem, he's not fit to be an admin"). I've posted concerns on the Evidence talk page about the conduct of other users which ARBCOM has completely ignored, which makes it even harder. Like I said, this feels like a show trial; evidence is being ignored. GiantSnowman 09:30, 8 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

While I do have empathy for what you are going through, that empathy is tempered by a sense that you did not consider the impact of your own editing on others. Just because someone is editing as an IP or new editor does not mean they don't have a sense of their own value and worth which can be somewhat hurt when someone reverts/rejects their contribution. If someone is not editing to WP:Footy standards, that does not make them a vandal. When I add content to an article and am still actively editing it, I do not like being reverted as though I am a vandal. Imagine if you will, that Wikipedia articles are like collaborative lego. You lay down the foundation for a village, then I come along and start building a house. Before I can put the roof on, you smash my house, and sweep the pieces away. How do you think I would feel? Imagine, instead, that you saw two problems - that the house was in the wrong style for the village, and that you were unsure about the foundations, and raised those issues with me. Either I could reassure you that I was going to fix those problems, or you could show me how to fix those problems. I am a happier person. Wikipedia has improved. And you feel prouder of what you have done. It's just a thought.

Anyway, I am concerned that you feel some evidence is being ignored. If you point it out to me I'll take a look at it. SilkTork (talk) 10:07, 8 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, not updating a date when you add a stat is not vandalism, and as a community (myself included) we all need to be better at dealing with it. It's hard though when it feels like firefighting. Don't get me started on WP:LIVESCORES...

Evidence I feel has been ignored? The comments by Ymblanter and Iridescent about disruption affecting football articles; my evidence of the same (Dominic Solanke and Timothy Weah et al); and my 'Proving a negative' section that shows I have take on board the community's concerns and am making more of an effort to be friendlier/source edits added by others. Other issues that have been overlooked are other editors involved with this ARBCOM MFDing my sandboxes/taking the piss with their comments. GiantSnowman 10:18, 8 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

As for Julius Bliek, yes I should have tried to source the stats rather than remove them - and that is something I have been doing for the past few weeks. However it's incredibly hard to say/prove I have changed, because the "he's only doing it while ARBCOM are looking at him" argument is an easy one to make. GiantSnowman 10:43, 8 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That you are taking that on board and adjusting your approach is a positive for me. Some of your responses have been defensive rather than reflective - I intended to query some of your responses a little while ago, as I wasn't sure you had understood the point being made, then I got distracted. I'll look for them again, and raise them with you. I have to say that I haven't been impressed (as you may have gathered) by your quick revert style of editing - but I'm not really an advocate of reverting anything other than vandalism anyway, but if you can show understanding of why people are concerned, and show that you are adapting your editing style, then that will be a positive to me. That you are doing it because there's an ArbCom case on is not the point - we all need someone to indicate to us when we are making a mistake. It's not making mistakes that's really the issue, it's how people respond when they told they are making mistakes. Some people learn. Some people continue to make mistakes. SilkTork (talk) 11:08, 8 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I hope I show that I am learning. Yes I have been defensive - like I say, I have felt attacked and stressed and a little disheartened at some of the views others hold about me/other editors who have been friendly with me in the past either not supporting me or outright criticising me. It's not been pleasant. If there are specific things you need querying let me know and I'll be happy to answer. GiantSnowman 11:14, 8 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to look now at "MFDing my sandboxes/taking the piss with their comments". Can you provide diffs, or at least point more clearly at what you mean. SilkTork (talk) 13:26, 8 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Full thread is here, with diffs etc. GiantSnowman 13:38, 8 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I don't like what's going on there, but I'm not seeing anything sanctionable. It is the nature of RfA, AN, and ArbCom that some people will be critical and others will be supportive. It doesn't help your case that you are engaging in the same sort of petty sniping as the people you are complaining about: "they don't seem to grasp proper drafting competence". My preference on cases is that the clerks deal with misbehaviour and issue warnings. The clerks do watch what is going on quite closely. My suggestion would be to accept that you will get some supportive and some negative comments, and that not all comments will be fair and accurate. If you start to respond negatively to such comments you may find that it could spiral out of control, and you end up coming off worse. If you have genuine concerns about conduct on the case then you could try approaching the clerks directly: Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Clerks, and asking for their advice. SilkTork (talk) 14:34, 8 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your advice, again. This is my first ARBCOM case (from any perspective), and it doesn't/didn't appear that the clerks are reviewing, let alone taking any action (a view shared by others) - even just a word telling them to stop it... GiantSnowman 14:43, 8 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry for what might be piling on, but I just wanted to say something about this quote about being damned if one does and damned if one doesn't: "he's ignoring a problem, he's not fit to be an admin". Has anyone ever actually said something like this? Because They [admins] are never required to use their tools is policy, and speaking just for myself, I've never gotten a different impression in practice. Blah blah WP:there is no deadline blah, but seriously, if anyone's giving you the impression that you must do something on Wikipedia, they're wrong. I don't think any reasonable person would take you not doing something negatively in this context. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 14:58, 8 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Fair point, although I wasn't necessarily talking about using tools, and I have the feeling (however ridiculous) that given the atmosphere of the ANI thread/ARBCOM (which saw the filing party prevented from directly posting, and another key player being added as a party) I will be criticised no matter what I do or no not do... GiantSnowman 15:03, 8 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The nature of an ArbCom case is that pretty much everyone: clerks, arbiters, parties, innocent bystanders, will get criticised by someone for something. And at least some of that criticism may well be accurate. The criticism most likely to be accurate is that which is repeated the most often. The rest of what is said is often just emotion, which tends to run high during a case. If you find yourself getting particularly frustrated by what someone is saying, then you really are better off speaking to the clerks than sounding off on the case pages. SilkTork (talk) 16:34, 8 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

(I would say The criticism most likely to be accurate is that which is repeated the most often provided it originates from different users, just to be on the safe side.)--Ymblanter (talk) 16:42, 8 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ymblanter's evidence is that over the space of 18 days they have noted three requests for protection of football related biographies. I'm now looking at the Rolling archive for RFPP, to see what's there: Lily-Rose Depp - an actress, Emily Blunt - an actress, Robert Williams (basketball) - basketball, Matt LaFleur - GridIron, Ed Buck - politics, Peter Stuyvesant - politics, Trevor Lawrence (American football) - GridIron, Anna Soubry - politician, Arianne Zucker - actress, Sunil Chhetri - footballer, Tina Turner - actress and singer, Treyvon Hester -GridIron, Blair Walsh - GridIron, Tom Lister Jr. - wrestler, Daniel Suárez - driver, Mitchell Trubisky - GridIron, Dejan Lovren - footballer, Cody Parkey - GridIron, James Alefantis - chef, Tahith Chong - footballer, Udit Narayan - singer, Lamar Jackson - GridIron, Darren Kelly - footballer, Neha Kakkar - singer, Sebastian Janikowski - GridIron, Pete Wentz - singer, Dipika Kakar - actress, Kareem Hunt - GridIron, Allen Hurns - GridIron, Annie LeBlanc - singer, Dallon Weekes - singer, Joe Trohman - musician, Glen Kamara - footballer, Cris Collinsworth - GridIron, T. Y. Hilton - GridIron, Jordan Jones (footballer, born 1994) - foot6baller, Jack Daugherty (musician) - musician, Dani Daniels - actress, Vũ Minh Hiếu - footballer, Kalidou Koulibaly - footballer, Willie Soon - engineer, Denis Suárez - footballer, Rod Salka - boxer, Jerry Speziale - law; Steve Smith (cricketer) - cricket, John Beaton FIFA referee, Roger Taylor (Queen drummer) - musician, Hirving Lozano - footballer, Adrien Rabiot - footballer, Nabil Fekir - footballer, Kamaru Usman - fighter, Rashida Tlaib - politician, Pep Simek - business, Jane McDonald - actress, Michael van Gerwen - darts, Catriona Gray - actress, Michael Greger - author, Jimin (singer, born 1995) - singer, Joseph Mazzello - actor, Britt Robertson - actress, Olivia Newton-John - actress singer, Aaron Ramsey - footballer, Kirby Smart - GridIron, Jermain Defoe - footballer, Gabriela Firea - politician, Sarah McDaniel - model, David Coleman (education), Adam Thielen - GridIron, Jake Muzzin - hockey, Elle Ramirez - actress, Max Comtois - hockey, Sheikh Hasina - politician, Yeshayahu Leibowitz - writer, Rodger Bumpass - actor, Eve Torres - actress, Franco Soldano - footballer, Rocco Rossi - business, Keylor Navas - footballer, Kevin Keatts - basketball, Amy Adams - actress, Mark Steketee - cricket, Dianne Buswell - dancer, David Warner (cricketer) - cricket, Jim Schmitt - politician, Kevin Faulconer - politician, Betsy Price - business, Erik Stocklin - actor, Abu Bakr - religion, Yash (actor) - actor, Ben Lee (violinist) - musician, Robert Rinder - law, Mara Wilson - writer actress, Twiggy - model actress, Macaulay Culkin - actor, Roald Amundsen - explorer, Ann E. Rondeau - military, Raasi (actress) - actress, Lea Michele - actress, Stevo Todorčević - maths, Judi Dench - actress, Peter Chiarelli (ice hockey) - hockey, Sean Combs - singer, Norma Yeeting - health.

There may be some duplicates. I'll go through and count them later, but there do appear to be a good number of footballers in that list. And a surprising number of American footballers. SilkTork (talk) 12:01, 8 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I've counted 22 actors/actresses, 17 singers/musicians, 16 footballers, 14 GridIron/American footballers, and 8 politicians. For me that certainly puts footballers in a high category for potential disruption - one of the highest groups. SilkTork (talk) 13:09, 8 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

To be noted in this fairly unscientific survey - January is the winter transfer window, so there tends to be an uptick in speculative editing. Also to be noted, there are more footballer articles than actors or American footballer articles, so you'd expect there to be commensurately more requests for protection. Fish+Karate 13:44, 8 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

We've had assertions that football is a high target but with little to no evidence, so I took a look at data which appears to me to support the claims. If we have several reliable people claiming this to be so (including an ex-Arb), and I do an independent research of data which supports the claims, I'm inclined to agree with the claims. If you feel that you have data/evidence which indicates something different to my conclusion, I'd be happy to see it. SilkTork (talk) 13:54, 8 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No need to be defensive. 16 requests for protection to footballer articles to date during the January transfer window is actually less than I'd expect to see. I don't disagree that footballer articles absolutely are a high target for disruptive editing, particularly during transfer windows, major tournaments, and so on. Was it "fairly unscientific" you did not like? I retract it. Fish+Karate 14:07, 8 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

There will also be articles (both football and non-football related) that are protected but never reach RFPP, and others which should be protected but never get it... GiantSnowman 14:31, 8 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Hmlarson: I am unclear about your evidence. Are you saying that GS's nomination of two articles for deletion is, in of out itself, an "attempt to mass delete articles about Mexican women football (soccer) players", or are you presenting those two articles as exemplars, and there are other articles of this type that GS nominated for deletion? If so, you should list those other articles.

If it is just the two articles you specify, then that is in no way an attempt to "mass delete", because two things are not be considered to be a "mass" of things. Further, the primary locus of this case concerns the use of rollback and mass rolback of edits, not the nomination of articles for AfD -- where, in any case, the decision to delete or not is made by community consensus, over which GS has no control. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:18, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Also, Hmlarson's statement falls just short of calling GS a racist, which would be a personal attack. Certainly it is a violation of WP:Casting aspersions, as no evidence is provided that GS has focused on deleting material or articles about "football (soccer) players who are women or people of color".

I call for the clerks (@Bradv:,@Guerillero:) to strike those comments, at the very least because they are opinion and not factual evidence, and in general for the clerks and arbs to police the evidence page more rigorously to prevent such inflammatory opinions from being allowed to poison the well in what seems to becoming a very emotionally fraught case. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:26, 8 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Echoing Beyond My Ken - @Hmlarson: are you suggesting GiantSnowman supports article deletions on the basis of race? If so, you will need to provide a lot more evidence than you have here. If not, please clarify the implication in your post on the /Evidence page. -- Euryalus (talk) 02:37, 8 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'd also request that Hmlarson either refactors to clarify or provides significantly more evidence. Beyond My Ken, unfortunately, most cases are emotionally fraught, because by the time we reach Arbcom we're at the end of the community's tether. The clerks do an excellent job of monitoring cases and proactively managing statements - though they don't generally tinker with parts of them, instead removing them wholesale and leaving the onus on the user to post within the expected boundaries. Worm^TT(talk) 09:20, 8 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not surprised by Hmlarson's ridiculous and offensive posts. But for what it's worth I've also nominated articles about English men for deletion - this and this two recent examples which spring to mind. GiantSnowman 09:21, 8 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Worm That Turned:, can you be more specific by what you mean by "significantly more evidence"? What would be considered sufficient by you or the committee? Links to previous examples that meet these standards are great. Hmlarson (talk) 18:12, 8 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

As a participant in the two AfDs presented as evidence here, I think Hmlarson's comments are misleading (at best). While bundled AfDs can be frustrating to participate in (and I voiced such frustration there), there are in no way abusive behavior. I've participated in dozens (probably hundreds) of AfD nominations made by GS and never understood his behavior to be abusive or biting. The insinuation made about potential racist or sexist motives is completely ridiculous as well. I recommend the clerks strike this evidence from the page. Jogurney (talk) 19:16, 8 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I would expect, at the very least, to see evidence that GS focuses on women / people of colour across a significant time period. We generally say significant accusations require significant evidence - what you have provided does not come close to meeting that requirement. Worm^TT(talk) 08:40, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Hmlarson: Per the section below, it looks like the Evidence phase will close without you providing further material to back up your accusation? -- Euryalus (talk) 19:38, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Me: apparently racist and sexist. Also me: creates and promotes 1971 Women's World Cup to DYK... GiantSnowman 12:45, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Euryalus: Thanks for the ping. Accusation or experience? Looks like I have until the 10th. I'm in the US - and if I can squeeze it in, I'll see about expanding or re-writing for clarity. Thanks. Hmlarson (talk) 20:12, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• The evidence phase is now closed, and Hmlarson never presented any more evidence to support their very broad and substantially unsupported accusation of racism against Giant Snowman. Given that, I believe a short block is in order for violation of WP:Casting aspersions. The editor was given every opportunity to expand their statement, and encouragement from one of the drafting arbs to do so, but their casual attitude to this ("...if I can squeeze it in") belies the seriousness of the charge they levied. Their inability or unwillingness to add more evidence in this very public forum should not stand without repercussions. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:45, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ping @Hmlarson:. -- Euryalus (talk) 08:35, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ping @Euryalus: Thanks for the ping. Hmlarson (talk) 15:57, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, it wasn't for fun: it was in case you still wanted to provide anything to back up your implication that GiantSnowman is a racist. As it stands this appears to have been just a personal attack on your part. Can safely predict your "evidence" will be ignored in the PD for this case, but as you know repeated personal attacks will also lead to your account being blocked from editing.. -- Euryalus (talk) 01:54, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently, Hmlarson doesn't take implying that another editor is a racist seriously - and neither do the admins monitoring this page, or we would have seen a block by now. Does presenting evidence in an ArbCom case impart some sort of immunity from standard Wikipedia behavioral policies? I am very disappointed that this slur is not being taken seriously - not even a warning to Hmlarson, except from Euryalus.Beyond My Ken (talk) 12:04, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

An administrator would have to be nuts to unilaterally block someone for presenting evidence, however absurd, against another administrator in a arbitration case resting on the premise that admins protect their own. This is the committee's house to clean. —Cryptic 12:54, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Beyond My Ken: Personally left it as a warning largely per Cryptic - generally up to the clerks and Committee to make these calls on a case page. I note the evidence-free "evidence" is now removed, which is good. Without having reviewed Hmlarson's editing in any detail it also looks as if this sort of comment was a one-off, so hopefully the issue can be left where it lies. -- Euryalus (talk) 23:06, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Is there a reason why the "evidence" has not been removed by a clerk yet? IMO it should've been removed straight away rather than giving Hmlarson time to "substantiate" it, because of the serious nature of the claim (and flimsy would give the so-called evidence for it too much credit), and unsubstantiated aspersions should be removed to make it clear they are unacceptable. Galobtter (pingó mió) 12:11, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• No, this has been handled correctly through challenging - though it is now clear that he has not backed up the statement and so I believe it should be removed when a clerk has time. Worm^TT(talk) 12:55, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

 Clerk note: The evidence phase of this case will close in approximately 7 hours, per the schedule posted at the top of this page. The Workshop will remain open for another week. Bradv🍁 16:44, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The evidence phase is now closed. Bradv🍁 22:49, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]