![]() | This case is now closed and pages relating to it may no longer be watched
|
Case clerks: Bradv ( Talk) & Guerillero ( Talk) Drafting arbitrators: Worm That Turned ( Talk) & AGK ( Talk)
Wikipedia Arbitration |
---|
![]() |
|
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, clerk, or functionary, without further warning, by being banned from further participation in the case, or being blocked altogether. Personal attacks against other users, including arbitrators or the clerks, will be met with sanctions. Behavior during a case may also be considered by the committee in arriving at a final decision.
@ Bradv: Is GS allowed to explain in Evidence page by creating subsection like responding to xxx? Hhkohh ( talk) 12:53, 18 December 2018 (UTC)
(Moved from my section on the main evidence page, for length reasons and to avoid it becoming too much of a back-and-forth)
Extended content moved from evidence page
|
---|
Above, in his reply to me, they start with "Once again, misrepresenting the truth: " (well, I presume they are trying to describe my evidence and not their reply). "Once again" is a personal attack if not supported by evidence, and "misrepresenting the truth"? Some examples:
An admin who, after it has been explained to them numerous times, still maintains at their Arb case that blocking people for adding unsourced content is the right thing to do (without any consideration of the correctness of the information), should not remain an admin any longer. Fram ( talk) 17:53, 18 December 2018 (UTC)
@ GiantSnowman: when I highlight another poor block [6], your response is this [7]: "* 121.212.176.113 ( talk · contribs · WHOIS) - blocked (for the second time) for repeated vandalism and unsourced content; they'd been issued a final warning 3 days prior to my block." Their only edit since that final warning was, like I clearly explained, a sourced and correct edit, actually correcting an error in the article (which you then reinserted). If you even can't check the facts during your ArbCom case, after it has been explained to you, but only repeat the incorrect claim that lead you to the block in the first place, then it becomes more and more obvious that you can't be trusted with the tools, since you block IPs based on incorrect information, and are either not willing or unable to check whether they make improvements or "vandalism" even when questioned about it. I have now rollbacked your reinsertion of the incorrect information as the vandalism it actually is. The chance that the IP editor returns after you blocked them for making an actual improvement is slim though, judging from their reaction then. I can't blame them. 10:14, 19 December 2018 (UTC) You since "clarified" you block with " In the edit highlighted by Fram, the IP was seemingly changing sourced content. It was fair to revert and view as vandalism." [8]. And here I was thinking that admins, before blocking someone, have the duty to check that the edit they believe to be vandalism actually is vandalism. What's the point of giving someone a warning, if they get blocked for their next edit no matter what? Yes, it takes a bit more time and effort. If you are not willing to make that effort but block anyway, and even worse continue to defend the block even after it has been pointed out that it was unwarranted, then you shouldn't be an admin. How hard is it to simply say "oops, I screwed up that one, after the previous problems I thought that that edit was vandalism, I should have looked better"? But instead, you simply repeat "repeated vandalism and unsourced content" as if repeating a mistake suddenly makes it correct. Fram ( talk) 10:41, 19 December 2018 (UTC) |
This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|
Clerk note: Any evidence from this section should be brought to the evidence page.
Brad
v🍁
00:20, 22 December 2018 (UTC)
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)
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).
Giant
Snowman
08:39, 20 December 2018 (UTC)
A GS edit from today: [9]. If the change is not supported by the inline source, it is a BLP violation, right? Heck, even not updating a corresponding date is a BLP violation, right? One of these gets a warning, and after a few you get a block, right? Or do we assume good faith from our editors? To make a fuss about this "error" (can you spot it?) would be completely ridiculous, but this is the kind of "problem" edit which has caused much of the ArbCom case, leading to mass rollbacks, warnings, blocks, ... But only for others, of course, not for GS. Fram ( talk) 10:21, 20 December 2018 (UTC) Or an edit from yesterday [10] about someone who died this week (recent deaths = BLP policy). GS added two sources, but the first is not about the subject at all, and the second contradicts information in the infobox (well, sometimes it does, sometimes it doesn't, it isn't even internally consistent). The problem with the first source is simply a typo, but that kind of excuse is not valid when others edit football BLPs, so... I guess we are, in their own twisted logic, now up to a second warning for BLP violations for GS? Fram ( talk) 10:29, 20 December 2018 (UTC)
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)
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)
|
Clerk note: Any evidence from this section should be brought to the evidence page.
Brad
v🍁
00:20, 22 December 2018 (UTC)
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)
|
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)
Extended content
|
---|
|
I am over my 500-word limit. GS's statement above that he had been an admin for 7 years and never had a problem until recently prompted me to investigate. I went through a few of the search results for "GiantSnowman" at ANI and this is what I found. If it's useful to the arbitrators, I request permission to exceed the word limit so I can paste this content into my evidence section (just the diffs, or the quotes, too, if they're helpful... or none of it if it's not necessary). Thank you. Levivich ( talk) 20:02, 20 December 2018 (UTC)
Requested addition from Levivich
|
---|
This 2013 thread about templating and threatening blocks in content disputes included this comment:
A second 2013 thread about GS entitled "Questioning an administrator's attitude" about GS's conduct in content disputes, ended with this comment:
A third 2013 thread, included a lengthy discussion about whether it was OK to block users for not properly categorizing articles:
A 2014 thread called "I want to report administrator GiantSnowman" ended with this comment:
A second 2014 thread about whether all content needed to be sourced, and when admin action should be taken:
|
Reply from GiantSnowman
|
---|
|
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)
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, Giant Snowman 14:51, 21 December 2018 (UTC)
@ 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)
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)
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.
Brad
v🍁
05:58, 24 December 2018 (UTC)
Content moved from evidence page
|
---|
While investigating the first rollbacks brought to ANi I did a series of random spot checks on edits rolled back. I found no edits that jumped out as unconstructive, but he blindly rolled back things like incrementing up by one number of games played, a missing player number, and additions and deletions from squads. He also rolled back good deletions and formatting corrections and improvements as "additions lacking sources". I initially suspected his account had been compromised because the first rollback brought to ANi looked more like vandalism than the work of a clueful editor. (see ANi thread) While GiantSnowman removed the rollback script under great pressure, as an Admin he retains the ability to use rollback as a bundled right, so the script removal is basically meaningless. His own evidence shows he still completely misunderstands the purpose of rollback and that he can not be trusted with rollback use. Many Admins would have removed rollback PERM from a regular user caught rolling back over 400 constructive edits from one user. If a chance to explain was offered, any Admin would have removed rollback PERM after an inadequate explanation was given without an AN, and certainly after the user misused rollback several more times while an ANi was under way. Many users would have been blocked in these circumstances, and all Admins would expect an unequivocal admission of guilt and promise not to do it again to grant an unblock (regardless of the facts of the case). GiantSnowman has received special grace because he is an Admin, yet he extends no grace to users he "thinks" are making unconstructive edits, blocking them without mercy even for constructive edits that don't meet his standards. One Arb suggested that some users are out to get Admins but don't want less strictness on regular users. That is not my point at all. We need to increase the AGF for established users and decrease the free passes for Admins so we all work under the same reasonable rules. Cases like this where the double standard is very obvious make regular editors resent the elitist Admin corp that close ranks around their own. We all are entitled to make mistakes, but we are not entitled to abuse advance permissions repeatedly without consequences. |
@ Bradv: can we try to semi-protect evidence main page? thanks! Merry Christmas! Hhkohh ( talk) 13:33, 24 December 2018 (UTC)
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)
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. Giant Snowman 09:38, 26 December 2018 (UTC)
This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
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?
Giant
Snowman
08:10, 27 December 2018 (UTC)
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)
|
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. Giant Snowman 11:40, 31 December 2018 (UTC)
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)
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)
Phase | Opens | Closes |
---|---|---|
Evidence | 2018-12-17 | 2019-01-10 |
Workshop | 2019-01-03 | 2019-01-17 |
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? - Mr X 🖋 00:21, 2 January 2019 (UTC)
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)
I have a few observations that may or may not be helpful. -- Dweller ( talk) Become old fashioned! 13:15, 3 January 2019 (UTC)
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).
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)
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)
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)
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:
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)
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)
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). Giant Snowman 09:01, 7 January 2019 (UTC)
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)
"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 toolsis 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)
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)
@ 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)
Me: apparently racist and sexist. Also me: creates and promotes 1971 Women's World Cup to DYK... Giant Snowman 12:45, 9 January 2019 (UTC)
@ 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)
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)
![]() | This case is now closed and pages relating to it may no longer be watched
|
Case clerks: Bradv ( Talk) & Guerillero ( Talk) Drafting arbitrators: Worm That Turned ( Talk) & AGK ( Talk)
Wikipedia Arbitration |
---|
![]() |
|
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, clerk, or functionary, without further warning, by being banned from further participation in the case, or being blocked altogether. Personal attacks against other users, including arbitrators or the clerks, will be met with sanctions. Behavior during a case may also be considered by the committee in arriving at a final decision.
@ Bradv: Is GS allowed to explain in Evidence page by creating subsection like responding to xxx? Hhkohh ( talk) 12:53, 18 December 2018 (UTC)
(Moved from my section on the main evidence page, for length reasons and to avoid it becoming too much of a back-and-forth)
Extended content moved from evidence page
|
---|
Above, in his reply to me, they start with "Once again, misrepresenting the truth: " (well, I presume they are trying to describe my evidence and not their reply). "Once again" is a personal attack if not supported by evidence, and "misrepresenting the truth"? Some examples:
An admin who, after it has been explained to them numerous times, still maintains at their Arb case that blocking people for adding unsourced content is the right thing to do (without any consideration of the correctness of the information), should not remain an admin any longer. Fram ( talk) 17:53, 18 December 2018 (UTC)
@ GiantSnowman: when I highlight another poor block [6], your response is this [7]: "* 121.212.176.113 ( talk · contribs · WHOIS) - blocked (for the second time) for repeated vandalism and unsourced content; they'd been issued a final warning 3 days prior to my block." Their only edit since that final warning was, like I clearly explained, a sourced and correct edit, actually correcting an error in the article (which you then reinserted). If you even can't check the facts during your ArbCom case, after it has been explained to you, but only repeat the incorrect claim that lead you to the block in the first place, then it becomes more and more obvious that you can't be trusted with the tools, since you block IPs based on incorrect information, and are either not willing or unable to check whether they make improvements or "vandalism" even when questioned about it. I have now rollbacked your reinsertion of the incorrect information as the vandalism it actually is. The chance that the IP editor returns after you blocked them for making an actual improvement is slim though, judging from their reaction then. I can't blame them. 10:14, 19 December 2018 (UTC) You since "clarified" you block with " In the edit highlighted by Fram, the IP was seemingly changing sourced content. It was fair to revert and view as vandalism." [8]. And here I was thinking that admins, before blocking someone, have the duty to check that the edit they believe to be vandalism actually is vandalism. What's the point of giving someone a warning, if they get blocked for their next edit no matter what? Yes, it takes a bit more time and effort. If you are not willing to make that effort but block anyway, and even worse continue to defend the block even after it has been pointed out that it was unwarranted, then you shouldn't be an admin. How hard is it to simply say "oops, I screwed up that one, after the previous problems I thought that that edit was vandalism, I should have looked better"? But instead, you simply repeat "repeated vandalism and unsourced content" as if repeating a mistake suddenly makes it correct. Fram ( talk) 10:41, 19 December 2018 (UTC) |
This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|
Clerk note: Any evidence from this section should be brought to the evidence page.
Brad
v🍁
00:20, 22 December 2018 (UTC)
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)
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).
Giant
Snowman
08:39, 20 December 2018 (UTC)
A GS edit from today: [9]. If the change is not supported by the inline source, it is a BLP violation, right? Heck, even not updating a corresponding date is a BLP violation, right? One of these gets a warning, and after a few you get a block, right? Or do we assume good faith from our editors? To make a fuss about this "error" (can you spot it?) would be completely ridiculous, but this is the kind of "problem" edit which has caused much of the ArbCom case, leading to mass rollbacks, warnings, blocks, ... But only for others, of course, not for GS. Fram ( talk) 10:21, 20 December 2018 (UTC) Or an edit from yesterday [10] about someone who died this week (recent deaths = BLP policy). GS added two sources, but the first is not about the subject at all, and the second contradicts information in the infobox (well, sometimes it does, sometimes it doesn't, it isn't even internally consistent). The problem with the first source is simply a typo, but that kind of excuse is not valid when others edit football BLPs, so... I guess we are, in their own twisted logic, now up to a second warning for BLP violations for GS? Fram ( talk) 10:29, 20 December 2018 (UTC)
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)
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)
|
Clerk note: Any evidence from this section should be brought to the evidence page.
Brad
v🍁
00:20, 22 December 2018 (UTC)
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)
|
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)
Extended content
|
---|
|
I am over my 500-word limit. GS's statement above that he had been an admin for 7 years and never had a problem until recently prompted me to investigate. I went through a few of the search results for "GiantSnowman" at ANI and this is what I found. If it's useful to the arbitrators, I request permission to exceed the word limit so I can paste this content into my evidence section (just the diffs, or the quotes, too, if they're helpful... or none of it if it's not necessary). Thank you. Levivich ( talk) 20:02, 20 December 2018 (UTC)
Requested addition from Levivich
|
---|
This 2013 thread about templating and threatening blocks in content disputes included this comment:
A second 2013 thread about GS entitled "Questioning an administrator's attitude" about GS's conduct in content disputes, ended with this comment:
A third 2013 thread, included a lengthy discussion about whether it was OK to block users for not properly categorizing articles:
A 2014 thread called "I want to report administrator GiantSnowman" ended with this comment:
A second 2014 thread about whether all content needed to be sourced, and when admin action should be taken:
|
Reply from GiantSnowman
|
---|
|
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)
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, Giant Snowman 14:51, 21 December 2018 (UTC)
@ 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)
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)
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.
Brad
v🍁
05:58, 24 December 2018 (UTC)
Content moved from evidence page
|
---|
While investigating the first rollbacks brought to ANi I did a series of random spot checks on edits rolled back. I found no edits that jumped out as unconstructive, but he blindly rolled back things like incrementing up by one number of games played, a missing player number, and additions and deletions from squads. He also rolled back good deletions and formatting corrections and improvements as "additions lacking sources". I initially suspected his account had been compromised because the first rollback brought to ANi looked more like vandalism than the work of a clueful editor. (see ANi thread) While GiantSnowman removed the rollback script under great pressure, as an Admin he retains the ability to use rollback as a bundled right, so the script removal is basically meaningless. His own evidence shows he still completely misunderstands the purpose of rollback and that he can not be trusted with rollback use. Many Admins would have removed rollback PERM from a regular user caught rolling back over 400 constructive edits from one user. If a chance to explain was offered, any Admin would have removed rollback PERM after an inadequate explanation was given without an AN, and certainly after the user misused rollback several more times while an ANi was under way. Many users would have been blocked in these circumstances, and all Admins would expect an unequivocal admission of guilt and promise not to do it again to grant an unblock (regardless of the facts of the case). GiantSnowman has received special grace because he is an Admin, yet he extends no grace to users he "thinks" are making unconstructive edits, blocking them without mercy even for constructive edits that don't meet his standards. One Arb suggested that some users are out to get Admins but don't want less strictness on regular users. That is not my point at all. We need to increase the AGF for established users and decrease the free passes for Admins so we all work under the same reasonable rules. Cases like this where the double standard is very obvious make regular editors resent the elitist Admin corp that close ranks around their own. We all are entitled to make mistakes, but we are not entitled to abuse advance permissions repeatedly without consequences. |
@ Bradv: can we try to semi-protect evidence main page? thanks! Merry Christmas! Hhkohh ( talk) 13:33, 24 December 2018 (UTC)
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)
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. Giant Snowman 09:38, 26 December 2018 (UTC)
This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
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?
Giant
Snowman
08:10, 27 December 2018 (UTC)
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)
|
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. Giant Snowman 11:40, 31 December 2018 (UTC)
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)
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)
Phase | Opens | Closes |
---|---|---|
Evidence | 2018-12-17 | 2019-01-10 |
Workshop | 2019-01-03 | 2019-01-17 |
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? - Mr X 🖋 00:21, 2 January 2019 (UTC)
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)
I have a few observations that may or may not be helpful. -- Dweller ( talk) Become old fashioned! 13:15, 3 January 2019 (UTC)
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).
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)
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)
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)
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:
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)
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)
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). Giant Snowman 09:01, 7 January 2019 (UTC)
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)
"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 toolsis 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)
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)
@ 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)
Me: apparently racist and sexist. Also me: creates and promotes 1971 Women's World Cup to DYK... Giant Snowman 12:45, 9 January 2019 (UTC)
@ 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)
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)