![]() | Therefore, with the exception of arbitrators and clerks, all editors must create a section for their statement and comment only in their own section. |
![]() | 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.
The bulk of the proposed decision has been posted, but there are a few additional remedies that will be proposed by the drafting arbitrators (and, of course, other arbitrators may propose additional items at any time). Best, Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 22:05, 30 January 2019 (UTC)
late? ∯WBG converse 16:59, 25 January 2019 (UTC)
Presuming we'd rather start the process than delay the lot, I've posted as much of the PD as I could this evening. I will resume tomorrow. Please remember that except from this thread, the "own section" rule applies to this page. AGK ■ 21:11, 29 January 2019 (UTC)
@ AGK: Thank you for the explanation of why you are including each item, that is very good to see.
One grammar note though, a small one but it is really bugging me for some reason: In the "MassRollback.js" finding one sentence reads "expected to review the target account's contributions and be sure that every edit needs rolled back." but it should end either "needs to be rolled back" or "needs rolling back". Thryduulf ( talk) 23:52, 29 January 2019 (UTC)
Re WBG's points 2 and 3:
AGK, if I may, I think the phrasing and be sure that every edit needs rolled back.
could better be phrased something like that the edits being rolled back qualify under policy. Administrators and rollbackers should consider whether the use of mass rollback is the most appropriate course of action, even if permitted under policy.
As written this would effectively make WP:BANREVERT dead letter. I don’t think you could get consensus to do that in an RfC. I don’t advocate for mass rollbacking ever edit of every sockmaster, but there are certainly cases where BANREVERT is needed even if at face value the edits are constructive. In these cases, it often isn’t effective to check every single edit, so sometimes typos and the like are restored. They’re almost always instantly corrected by people in the topic area. My addition of the second sentence should also help to emphasize that even if policy would allow mass rollback, common sense says it’s not always the best option. TonyBallioni ( talk) 01:56, 30 January 2019 (UTC)
be sure that every edit needs rolling back. This does not impose a requirement that every edit needs to be individually inspected.Suppose there was a brand new account with 100 contributions to celebrity biographies, the 5 most recent of which added photographs of a cock and balls. I would be sure that "every edit needs rolling back". Requiring administrators to be sure before they act is not a departure from current policy, and is already implicit in WP:BANREVERT. AGK ■ 21:36, 30 January 2019 (UTC)
that rolling back every edit is within policy, which I think gets at your point without the possible confusion. Regardless, thank you for your reply :) TonyBallioni ( talk) 21:45, 30 January 2019 (UTC)
The Wikipedia community conducts almost all of its activities online, where people may fail to observe norms of professionalism and civility
Wikipedia makes use of this committee to handle "removal of administrative tools" and "serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve"
When clicked, rollback performs the action without explaining the reason by an edit summary.
Mass rollbacking is equivalent to opening a user's contributions (up to 500 at once) and clicking each rollback link-button.
Before using the script, rollbackers or administrators are expected to review the target account's contributions and be sure that every edit needs rolled back.
The Wikipedia community regulates and coordinates its activities using software features designed for collaborative article-writing. This necessitates the need to "mark" discussions as closed without necessarily preventing further edits by technical means.
When clicked, rollback performs the action without explaining the reason by an edit summary.
GiantSnowman continued to incorrectly use the rollback tool; eg 9 December 2018, 20 December 2018
GiantSnowman has wrongly blocked other users
GiantSnowman only blocked 46 editors in this period
Whatever our findings about GiantSnowman's judgment, nobody contends that they acted out of a genuine desire to improve Wikipedia
GiantSnowman desysopped
errors that are frequent, sustained, and serious? No. As TonyBallioni said, "we are not talking about someone who has been repeatedly warned and who was frequently at noticeboards for bad conduct, but someone who apparently had been doing this for years, who never had it brought up to them, and who had blocks reviewed by other admins that were upheld" (though I wasn't doing it for years, and and purely because I thought it was allowed by ROLLBACKUSE.) Furthermore I'm not sure how you can jump from the position that I was editing under a genuine belief I was improving Wikipedia to "he can no longer be trusted with the tools". Giant Snowman 21:02, 30 January 2019 (UTC)
We have what amounts to several years of non-help and non-advice, but plenty of what would appear to the user to be harassment
@ SilkTork: - that is a very unfair summary, and also factually incorrect. This user was first advised (no warning templates used!) back in 2009 to add references, and again in 2010, and again in 2012, and then later in 2012, and also in 2012. The first warning template that I can see for unsourced content was in 2012 - after the user had been blocked (by me) and then unblocked (again, by me) after promising to add references. But they continued, resulting in another warning in 2012 and another in 2013 etc. It was clear that this user, having been given advice over a number of years from numerous editors, wasn't listening - so escalating warnings were the next step, followed by blocks. Yes I am the admin who blocked them a number of times - and that is because our editing habits (Dutch football articles) overlap, and so I was the one who saw him repeatedly adding unsourced content to article. Implying I have harassed this editor is extremely unfair. I wasn't the first to template them; and I tried before then to talk to them (they never responded until they were blocked, see this exchange). Please note that some of these diffs were previously presented as Evidence, but (again) they have been ignored by ArbCom... Giant Snowman 10:18, 31 January 2019 (UTC)
GiantSnowman must not take any action that breaches Wikipedia's guideline, please do not bite the newcomers
at least one other admin has been following his example
indefinitely prohibited from using rollback
if he can take on board the criticism and modify his approach, the community would look favourably on a second RfA
I appreciate and thank GiantSnowman for his willingness to actively participate in this case and for his openness to change, but I'm not confident right now that promises are enough
is indefinitely prohibited from using rollback and from leaving a blank or default edit summary
GiantSnowman admonished and placed under review
Regarding proposed principle 2, "Raising concerns": None of the findings or remedies are based on a problem with escalating concerns appropriately, or continually restating concerns. As it stands, since the issued principles in a case exist to establish the basis for the findings or remedies, it's unclear to me if this principle is needed.
Proposed principle 4, "Terminating discussions", seems too detailed to me. The existence and purpose of the {{ archive top}} template isn't relevant for any of the findings. The second paragraph seems more apt for a reminder in a remedy, rather than a principle. All edits should be taken with their effects on other editors in mind, so it's oddly specific to single this out as a principle for the closing of a discussion. The first sentence of the third paragraph isn't a principle that the community can use as guidance; it's a description of what can happen after a discussion is closed. The last sentence is redundant with the second paragraph. Although perhaps with different wording I might feel differently, at the moment I agree with Katie: I don't feel the arbitration committee should be providing guidance on how to close discussions in the form of principles. isaacl ( talk) 03:09, 31 January 2019 (UTC)
Regarding The committee may
[1], in my opinion, it would be more fitting for general Wikipedia policy to be presented as case principles, and for specific calling to attention to be presented as a remedy. This clearly separates the underlying pre-existing policy, which usually originates from the community, from any refinement and reminder that the arbitration committee is publishing.
isaacl (
talk) 19:57, 31 January 2019 (UTC)
recognise and call attention to standards of user conduct
Regarding the "Fix or revert" principle, I feel the second and last sentences are overly broad. Whether or not a fact belongs in this encyclopedia is often a matter of debate; due weight considerations and community consensus on what information is included or not included must be weighed. The second sentence does not adequately place this into context. The last sentence shifts the onus for complying with Wikipedia policies and guidelines away from the editor introducing the change, with a very broad "where possible and appropriate" clause. For example, fixing an editor's propensity to leave out citations is usually possible, but may take five to ten times the effort for someone to hunt down a source and properly integrate the original change into the overall body of text. I agree in the interest of collaboration, editors should be flexible in doing this fixup work when the change is likely to be correct, but the converse is true as well: editors must be flexible in learning how to make complete changes themselves. There must be incentives for editors to improve the quality of their contributions, or else managing the inflow of content becomes unsustaninable.
Regarding "Check before reverting", I think it may also be overly broad. Reverting the edits of banned users is a long-standing practice, regardless of whether or not the edits are helpful. Editors known to introduce edits with errors or that contravene consensus should be held to a stricter standard. If they make a block of edits that have a high number of problematic edits, or appear similar in content and a sampling exhibits issues, reverting the edits should be considered reasonable (and I believe reflects current practice). I would not include omitting citations as a problematic edit for this purpose, though, as long as the change itself is a reasonably plausible one. isaacl ( talk) 17:46, 2 February 2019 (UTC)
Regarding But we don't simply go down the easy route - we go down the most appropriate and helpful route, even if that requires a bit more effort.
[2]: whereas that is the laudable goal, time is the most valuable asset that volunteers have to offer, and it's an imposition to ask them to devote endless hours fixing up what others can more easily do themselves. In an ideal world, there would be a continual fresh stream of page patrollers, to avoid burn out, but there are many (if not most) areas in Wikipedia that are dependent on a small number. A site ban or a removal of administrative privileges feels like an undue escalation when intermediate restrictions have not yet been tried. Please note that maintaining an article's coherence and structure is also beneficial for editor retention: it gives contributors confidence that they do not have to continually fix problems themselves, and so it is worthwhile to contribute to Wikipedia.
isaacl (
talk) 16:49, 3 February 2019 (UTC)
@ SilkTork: As requested, pinging. Not sure I'm fully satisfied with the wording, but it's a start. isaacl ( talk) 16:31, 4 February 2019 (UTC)
To foster a collaborative community, editors should accommodate when contributors lack experience in a specific aspect of Wikipedia's process or consensus guidelines and practices. As much as practicable, editors should work with less experienced editors to help them improve the quality of their contributions, and seek to preserve their contributions when appropriate. Additional flexibility should be given for edits that beneficially update Wikipedia and are likely to be correct.
Less experienced editors should strive to learn community practices and follow them, whether or not they personally agree with the consensus view. Once less experienced editors are made aware of the bare minimum requirements for their changes, they are expected to eventually comply in order to alleviate the workload of others.
Regarding this edit: whereas I understand the sentiment in support of the closing, I disagree that sanctions against an administrator can only be issued by the arbitration committee. Adminstrators are subject to community sanctions like any other editor. Only sanctions that effectively remove administrator privileges need to be enacted by the arbitration committee, and even so, the community has the responsibility to discuss the range of possible sanctions available, in accordance with the prerequisite that the community must attempt to resolve the issue itself before opening a case. isaacl ( talk) 16:44, 4 February 2019 (UTC)
Regarding concerns on enforcing an edit summary restriction: more details on enforcement can be specified in the "enforcement" section. Personally I suggest requiring a pattern of behaviour to be apparent before progressing beyond warnings. isaacl ( talk) 14:42, 6 February 2019 (UTC)
@ Dweller:: I'm not sure I follow your suggestion that GiantSnowman be put on probation but that violations be left undefined. I imagine I'm missing something? As KrakatoaKatie suggests, I think it is necessary to specify what behaviours are under scrutiny, and what is problematic. As I allude to, I think a pattern of behaviour should be outlined that, if observed, would trigger sanctions. isaacl ( talk) 22:17, 6 February 2019 (UTC)
Regarding the discussion on KrakatoaKatie's talk page, while I appreciate the advantage of being to hold an actual discussion between non-arbitrators and arbitrators alike, I feel it is unduly limiting to those who prefer to post on this talk page, where more interested parties would likely see the discussion. Although it appears the discussion may have drawn to a close, if it continues in some form, can an arbitrator open a designated section on this talk page for it? isaacl ( talk) 19:17, 7 February 2019 (UTC)
Regarding this comment: I think history shows with high-profile cases, there are editors willing to examine problematic behaviour and raise them to the attention of the arbitration committee. isaacl ( talk) 22:25, 7 February 2019 (UTC)
Regarding proposed principle 4, "Terminating discussions", it may be too broadly-stated, and might benefit from being narrowed to address only specific types of closes or specific close situations, rather than closes in general. For example, closing a thread because discussion has concluded vs. closing a thread to stop ongoing discussion. Or, a close by an admin of a thread discussing another admin's tool misuse vs. other kinds of closes. Such closes might be good or bad depending on the particular situation, and so a more narrowly-focused statement of principle here (describing existing practice, perhaps, instead of prescribing new practice) may be more helpful to the community. Leviv ich 04:07, 31 January 2019 (UTC)
Regarding SilkTork's comment about a bright-line restriction: obvious vandalism v. clueless newbie, how many edits to check before a mass roll back, when you're too involved to block... these are all judgment calls. They probably can't be reduced to a set of instructions; there may not be any restriction that prevents bad judgment. If the problem concerns the community's trust in an admin's judgment, and the admin needs the opportunity to demonstrate sound judgment and earn back the community's confidence, how about something like this:
I recognize some of these are best practices that GS already follows. These restrictions would require that best practices (in the areas where there have been past concerns) are followed while the bit is under review, under penalty of desysoping. The intent is that after a certain period of time, there would be a track record that proves that GS follows best practices and thus the community can be confident in placing their trust in his judgment without the need for further restrictions. Leviv ich 07:04, 8 February 2019 (UTC)
It seems very strange to have an evidence phase and a workshop phase where no evidence about me or proposals about me are discussed (despite AGKs prior claim that " We will now prepare proposals for discussion at the Workshop. I counsel you to accept that answering questions about your conduct is not optional. AGK ■ 12:52, 5 January 2019 (UTC) ", but then to get "proposed findings of fact" about me anyway. Strange, but not surprising sadly.
The "unnecessarily personalised the dispute with other users" part:
The "assuming bad intent on the part of others" [4]: which part of my post their is not accurate? Like I explained elsewhere, GS was not editing in bad faith (with bad intentions), they believed that they were editing for the good of the encyclopedia. The problems were that their interpretation of what was needed "for the good" was way too strict and not in line with general community expectations, and that they too often saw a few problems with an editor, and assumed that all edits then needed rollbacking. Or, like I said, they didn't act in bad faith, but they too often assumed bad faith in others.
The "demonising" (sic!): when looking at GS edits, I often encountered user:Mattythewhite making similar edits (without the extremes that lead to this ANI and arb case). It seemed (and seems) strange to have whole discussions about GS, but to ignore another editor working at the same articles with the same approach. I did not drag them to ANI or this Arb Case, I left them a note providing background of why I was there (the link about the GS ANI discussion) and what I found problematic in his edits, with examples. The ANI cases offered background to the opinions of others about such actions, and at the same time I offered Mattythewhite, a natural supporter of GS (if one wants to divide people in such categories) to a discussion about GS actions. Your "finding of fact" seems to suggest that I tried to canvass Mattythewhite to support me in the discussion about GS by demonising GS, while the opposite is true.
It is not clear to me what the actual problem is with my post to Mattythewhite's page. Should I not have mentioned the extremely similar GS discussion? Should I not have spoken directly to an editor I saw making many (in my view) problematic edits (or more in general having a problematic approach towards newbies)? Should I instead have dragged them to ANI, even though their edits were a lot less problematic and no prior attempts to discuss it with them had been made (as far as I know).
Basically, I noticed problematic edits, and discussed these with the editor on their talk page. At the same time, I alerted them to a discussion they might not have been aware of, and where their input would likely by antithetical to my position (at least in some respect), but where they were welcome as they had experience with the same issues and editors.
In their comment AGK claims "The impression of neutrality became difficult to endorse when Fram turned their attention to other users editing the same topic area as GiantSnowman. There was no basis for lumping those two users together and the passing reference to GiantSnowman was not appropriate.", which disregards e.g. the evidence by GS where they pinged Mattythewhite who had blocked the same editor GS did. More in general, it disregards the plain fact that GS and Mattythewhite are two of the most active admins in the footy project, and two of the most like-minded admins in their approach to newbies or "unsourced" editing and so on.
As an example, look at the editors in my evidence section, where GS is said to have misused rollback: User talk:Caitlinwebb3 starts with messages by Mattythewhite, is filled mainly by messages by GS and Mattythewhite, and is blocked first by Mattythewhite and then GS. User talk:Jamieroot11: first Mattythewhite, then GS. User talk:Footballinbelgium: two most recent messages are first by Mattythewhite, then by GS. User talk:Davidstockholm: a plethora of messages from both editors. The same appears with e.g. blocked IP User talk:121.212.176.113.
There clearly was a basis for "lumping the two editors together" with regards to their approach to unsourced or not perfectly formatted edits in football articles, and my message explained what the problems were with their editing. So it would be nice if you could explain what was wrong with that edit, and how I should have handled it instead, as I am rather flummoxed how this edit ended up here as evidence of my misbehaviour. Fram ( talk) 09:32, 31 January 2019 (UTC)
@ AGK and DGG: I'm glad you are not "in effect endorsing those low standards", and I promise never to use bad-faith allegations like accusing someone that they have "taken on the guise of prosecutor", that they are "demonising" users, or that they are deliberately criticising others, "throwing everything at the wall to see if it sticks" with their actions being "disproportionate in its quantity, intensity, and broad scope". Fram ( talk) 08:32, 1 February 2019 (UTC)
I'm a bit put off by the finding of fact concerning Fram. The evidence seems very weak for reaching any conclusion other than that Fram acted in good faith in pursuing WP:ADMINACCT, in a case that would have otherwise been shut down as "not a big deal; GS has learned his lesson; y'all go home now".
After AGK added Fram to the case, I submitted evidence of Fram, and two other admins, upholding policy and seeking resolutions to the matter. That stands in sharp contrast to the actions of other admins who collectively (whether intentionally or not) suppressed efforts to rectify the issues. Fram's persistence in pursuing a resolution seems to be a direct consequence of Giant Snowman's repeated defensiveness, evasiveness, flippancy, deflection, and his own assumptions of bad faith (for example, claiming that he was being harassed).
I'm concerned that singling Fram out in this way will have a chilling effect on the community's ability to handle any WP:ADMIN issues outside of Arbcom. If Arbcom wishes to be the only venue where admins can be held to account, this would be a pretty good way of accomplishing that.- Mr X 🖋 13:35, 31 January 2019 (UTC)
"... there is a big difference between "acting incorrectly but in good faith" and "deliberate abuse of the tools". I think only one of those is grounds for losing the mop."
I am also surprised to see Fram here. While this is not the first time at the Arbcom rodeo, I generally think he's improved his conduct since then. There is still an air of "being right and being a dick at the same time" ie: Fram tends to be most abrasive when he is right, and other people haven't picked up on his explanations - this makes it difficult for action to be taken because people think "well, Fram was actually right". Hopefully with some more self-reflection, this problem will disappear of its own accord. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 14:03, 31 January 2019 (UTC)
So multiple, multiple times the admin in issue has raised from WP:Rollback:
Which apparently according to Rollback has its generation or confirmation in this committees, 2009 statement: "However, rollback may be used in circumstances where widely spread edits (by a misguided editor or malfunctioning bot) are judged to be unhelpful to the encyclopedia, since such edits would be tedious to revert manually. In such instances, it is expected that an explanation will be provided in an appropriate location, such as at a relevant talk page."
Now, whether the admin was right or wrong about what those words might mean, it seems, 1) very "unhelpful" that the committee does not directly address what those words are suppose to mean and how those words are to be operationalized or processed to everyone in the community (since, you know, you are suppose to interpret what "misguided" and "unhelpful to the encyclopedia" means, and point the way to identifying and settling disputes about "misguided" (we do have guidelines, eg, WP:RS, and WP:CITE) and "unhelpful"), and 2) unsourced material by WP:V and WP:BLP standards certainly seems rather "unhelpful to the encyclopedia", or at least that's within reason, and 3) finally, it seems rather more respectful and collegial here if the committee would address the issues directly put to you by the admin, the committee members are being asked to weigh in against. Alanscottwalker ( talk) 16:37, 31 January 2019 (UTC)
Number 8 is so truncated as to be misleading. "Editor". Think what that word means. The best editors on Wikipedia and off readily remove content because removing content whether by reversion or otherwise is a fix (and depending on the various definitions of reversion thrown around, in which we sometimes seem to need a theology degree on reversion, every removal is someone else's reversion). Removing content is one of the most important and sometimes difficult things editors do. (Eg., we most definitely do not want articles that contain every known mention in the literature because the article could then be a billions of words long mess.) And it most certainly is not limited to WP:BLP. WP:DON'T PRESERVE explicitly says: "Several of our core policies discuss situations when it might be more appropriate to remove information from an article rather than preserve it. Wikipedia:Verifiability discusses handling unsourced and contentious material; Wikipedia: No original research discusses the need to remove original research; What Wikipedia is not describes material that is fundamentally inappropriate for Wikipedia; and WP:UNDUE discusses how to balance material that gives undue weight to a particular viewpoint, which might include removal of trivia, tiny minority viewpoints, or material that cannot be supported with high-quality sources. Also, redundancy within an article should be kept to a minimum." -- Alanscottwalker ( talk) 17:29, 2 February 2019 (UTC)
As far as I know, this "set" of issues is the first time GS has been made aware of just how significantly people are viewing his actions. My sense of him over the years is that he will (now) take this on board. He does a lot of good work and I'd hate to lose that. Now if there are continued problems, that's another issue. If he isn't desysopped, I'd expect him to be very very careful moving forward with rollback and blocking as well as hopefully extending good faith and clear communication even when he's pretty certain someone is a troll/sock. If this is the wrong place for a comment of this nature, please move or delete as appropriate. Thanks Hobit ( talk) 22:36, 31 January 2019 (UTC)
I am glad to see proposed principle 4.1 isn't going anywhere but have concerns over
Joe Roe's statement that, "It's reasonable to say that extended discussion of admin misconduct at ANI, a venue that can't adequately deal with it, falls into the latter category.
" which he then reiterates FOF 7 ANI, insofar as it has a legitimate role in dispute resolution, is supposed to produce concrete outcomes that admins can implement to "break the back" of a dispute.
Discussion is a fundamental part of how Wikipedia works - I think this mischaracterizes the role ANI can (though obviously doesn't always) play in the case of concerns over administrator actions. It is a way for the community to discuss issues among itself and make sure that concerns are heard. The difficulty ArbCom also has in dealing with these issues is present in this case's discussion to date. It's not an easy topic, but I'm not sure that the pressure cooker of a formal ArbCom case is better for the administrator under discussion, even if it does serve to cool the passions of the community. Perhaps after slightly further discussion, GS could have made a commitment that the community was satisfied by. Best,
Barkeep49 (
talk) 03:48, 1 February 2019 (UTC)
The question Doug Weller asked when the case was being considered of (and I'm paraphrasing here) "if we can't trust a user with rollback, can we trust them with the tools?" has stuck with me and I have answered the question both ways at various points. There have been mixed feelings on the right remedy, but broad support that there has been problems with hearing criticism (which have improved during the case), inappropriate bans, and inappropriate rollback. Two of these three areas are areas non-admin can work-in (not BITING, appropriate reverting). Perhaps the committee could consider "suspending" Giant rather than making him go through a community RfA - which would essentially remove the tools permanently. He could then apply for reinstatement to this committee, showing sustained improvement, after X months (3 or 6 would be my suggestion). This seems better than an editing restriction which would be difficult to enforce at AE and could, if problems were to continue, lead to it coming back to ArbCom anyway (with perhaps further community rancor having transpired in the interim). Best wishes, Barkeep49 ( talk) 18:52, 6 February 2019 (UTC)
To handle requests (other than self-requests) for removal of administrative tools. Because of this policy you may
create procedures through which policy and guidelines may be enforced.Alternatively you could desysop and then choose, in 3 or 6 months time, to at your
at sole discretion, revisit any proceeding at any time.and decide that was incorrectly decided because there is evidence on the record of GS improving and subsequent events would go to show that this evidence is correct. On a practical level I think the community would welcome ArbCom's ability to have gradations of thinking beyond admonishment and desysop. Not everyone may agree that a gradation should have been done here, but conceptually that kind of concept if found throughout our behavior policies. Best wishes, Barkeep49 ( talk) 22:50, 6 February 2019 (UTC)
Violations may be reported by any editor to WP:AE. GiantSnowman may appeal any or all of these sanctions, including the review itself, at any time.
- It's traditional to say that the appeal can be to ArbCom (ARCA) for clarity, unless it's intended for the restriction to be able to be lifted by AE/AN as with a DS/GS in which case I would suggest saying that. Best wishes,
Barkeep49 (
talk) 17:37, 8 February 2019 (UTC)
I'd really like Arbcom to weigh in on the subject of my evidence. I don't think principles 8 and 9 quite cover the nuance. Just because someone challenges material in a BLP doesn't mean it's contentious, which is the argument I've seen. Inherently uncontroversial but unsourced material even in a BLP should also not be removed on sight. -- Dweller ( talk) Become old fashioned! 22:37, 3 February 2019 (UTC)
I think GS is a good admin, who has been heavy handed in some areas. And I think in part he's been heavy handed because he's been so convinced he's right and entrenched in very very longstanding attitudes.
On the specifics, I really do not think football is particularly special. I could make very similar arguments about a whole slew of topics. The question for me is, if I add, for example, a birth town to a BLP without a source, that is not a contentious edit even if it not a terrific quality edit. It is only contentious if there's a perceptible negativity, so for example, if the edit was that they were born in "Arseholeville" or the like. The purpose of BLP is to protect living people from slurs and derogatory editing, not to ensure that every article is Featured quality.
On the meta, admins are so precious. And GS isn't just an admin but a really active content contributor. The committee isn't stupid, you know the impact it has on many admins when you desysop them. When an admin has been misguided, I wish you'd consider some kind of probation as an intermediate option between ticking off and desysopping - and not just in this case. -- Dweller ( talk) Become old fashioned! 09:32, 4 February 2019 (UTC)
I echo Leaky caldron. Even a mention of site ban is ridiculous. It is insulting to Giant Snowman and utterly demeans this committee. -- Dweller ( talk) Become old fashioned! 11:55, 4 February 2019 (UTC)
FWIW, I've been discussing with KrakatoaKatie at her talk page, the idea of probation. I don't know if that should more properly be here or somewhere else, because I think it should be a default option for Arbcom to consider in any case where desysopping is a possibility. -- Dweller ( talk) Become old fashioned! 21:07, 6 February 2019 (UTC)
Quick feedback on the proposed editing restriction for GiantSnowman. Speaking as someone who's spending a lot of time at AE these days, I share SilkTork's concern and think it'd be helpful if the wording could be clarified from how it reads now now. While I certainly think we all have a general idea of what clearly crosses the line of "biting newcomers," it's those edge cases that could be tricky without something a little more tightened up. Otherwise, it's vague enough that it's practically unenforceable. Best, Lord Roem ~ ( talk) 06:21, 4 February 2019 (UTC)
The fact that this has even been mentioned - even hinted at or suggested in passing - is shocking. Outrageous in this particular case and more so in the historical context of AC sanctions against past and current Admins. who's misbehavior far and away exceeds GS's errors of judgment / wrong actions. Leaky caldron ( talk) 11:11, 4 February 2019 (UTC)
Comment moved here:
I agree with Ritchie333. I am particularly surprised given that there was no reference to any proposal concerning Fram's behaviour in workshop phase,, nor was there any relevant evidence presented during the evidence phase, meaning that a finding of fact/proposal concerning Fram is very much out of left field. For it to appear in this manner obviates non-arbitrators' opportunity to collate/submit any evidence that could have leavened this finding of fact. I am glad to see the proposal is looking like it will be voted down. Fish+ Karate 11:52, 4 February 2019 (UTC)
So does this apply to any revert without an edit summary, or only ones specifically made with a tool? There's a (not very good but not entirely unreasonable either) argument to be made that rollback itself isn't a tool, since it's baked into the Wikimedia interface itself rather than being a gadget or user script or so on; there's a much better argument, though, that just clicking on the edit button and manually editing out whatever some other user just put in isn't. If - as I suspect - this was meant to mean any summaryless revert no matter how it was made, and you feel you have to make that explicit for some reason despite 383 archives of WP:AN/3RR giving admins practice at identifying what's a revert and what isn't, then writing "by any method" instead of "with any tool" will save everyone the inevitable trip to WP:ARCA. — Cryptic 18:31, 4 February 2019 (UTC)
Also, specifically re this vote: @ Worm That Turned: Already done, to the extent it's possible to do, at WP:Customizing watchlists#Remove or modify the .5Brollback.5D link. — Cryptic 19:54, 4 February 2019 (UTC)
For my part, Lourdes' version, with or without Amorymeltzer's suggested edit to it (but not Amorymeltzer's edit taken by itself, which is what we ended up with; or any of those just tacked onto the front while leaving the ambiguous parts), get the idea across. — Cryptic 11:47, 6 February 2019 (UTC)
Separately - do the usual exceptions at WP:BANEX apply? I'd think not, in this case, but it should be made explicit. — Cryptic 11:47, 6 February 2019 (UTC)
@ Ymblanter and GiantSnowman: Again, WP:Customizing watchlists#Remove or modify the .5Brollback.5D link. This is a non-issue. — Cryptic 12:28, 8 February 2019 (UTC)
I only just read it this way following the comments from
Katie and
Worm, so I apologize for the late-hour of this comment, but it seems to me that
Remedy 3 (the rollback restriction) is a little vague on what counts. Specifically, the remedy says "rollback" includes any revert, made with any tool, that undoes another editor's contribution without providing a rationale in the edit summary.
Saying "without providing a rationale" suggests to me no edit summary rather than a providing a way to make a custom edit summary, which I doubt is the intent (see also
#Comment from Cryptic re Remedy 3). Moreover, Katie and Worm note other tools like Twinkle, which has some options (rollback (vandal)) that autorevert without an edit summary and others (rollback, restore this revision, etc.) that allow for a custom edit summary but will provide a default if one is not provided. I don't think as written or opined-on it is clear if those latter options are allowed if customized. ~ Amory (
u •
t •
c) 22:59, 4 February 2019 (UTC)
" GiantSnowman is indefinitely prohibited from using the rollback functionality. GiantSnowman is additionally indefinitely prohibited from leaving blank or default edit summaries while reverting other editors' contributions."Lourdes 12:01, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
Section created and comments moved here. SilkTork ( talk) 14:26, 7 February 2019 (UTC)
"Custom" is a sensible addition. Alternatively, you could probably use " GiantSnowman is indefinitely prohibited from using the rollback functionality. GiantSnowman is additionally indefinitely prohibited from leaving blank or default edit summaries while reverting other editors' contributions."
Lourdes 12:01, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
@
Leaky caldron: The page header does state with the exception of arbitrators and clerks, all editors must create a section for their statement and comment only in their own section
, so arbs are indeed exempt from having to create their own section.
–
FlyingAce
✈hello 15:14, 7 February 2019 (UTC)
Note to @ Lourdes: Only Remedy #3 has actually passed at this moment, since 3 of the votes for Remedy #4 are contingent on Remedy #1 (desysopping) passing. Since that is not currently passing, Remedy #4 only has 5 votes, which is not sufficient to pass. Of course, that could change if the arbs who voted for it change their vote to be absolute instead of dependent, or if one additional arb voted in favor of it without conditions (6 votes being needed for passage in this case when there are no abstentions). Beyond My Ken ( talk) 00:53, 8 February 2019 (UTC)
There is a technical issue concerning the rollback restriction. It is actually very easy to hit a rollback button accidentally. I have a pretty fast laptop, but still my watchlist loads some stuff in three stages, and after every stage it looks like everything is fine and I can click on the links, I click, and suddenly it turns out that I was clicking on a different link one or two lines above what I actually intended to click. I accidentally hit rollback in this way about once per month. (In these cases, I undo it with apologies). I rarely edit from a cell phone, but from what I remember it is even easier to accidentally hit rollback there. Unless there is a script which just protects the rollback button from showing anywhere (which I am not aware of), and if the restriction passes, it might have sense to add a clause that if GS hit rollback incidentally, they must immediately undo their edit and redo it with a proper edit summary. We unfortunately have some users who would be happy to point out at this accidental rollback as a violation of the topic ban. (Note that I did not express any opinion on whether a rollback restriction is a good idea, but merely pointed out one of its technical aspects).-- Ymblanter ( talk) 12:22, 8 February 2019 (UTC)
![]() | Therefore, with the exception of arbitrators and clerks, all editors must create a section for their statement and comment only in their own section. |
![]() | 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.
The bulk of the proposed decision has been posted, but there are a few additional remedies that will be proposed by the drafting arbitrators (and, of course, other arbitrators may propose additional items at any time). Best, Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 22:05, 30 January 2019 (UTC)
late? ∯WBG converse 16:59, 25 January 2019 (UTC)
Presuming we'd rather start the process than delay the lot, I've posted as much of the PD as I could this evening. I will resume tomorrow. Please remember that except from this thread, the "own section" rule applies to this page. AGK ■ 21:11, 29 January 2019 (UTC)
@ AGK: Thank you for the explanation of why you are including each item, that is very good to see.
One grammar note though, a small one but it is really bugging me for some reason: In the "MassRollback.js" finding one sentence reads "expected to review the target account's contributions and be sure that every edit needs rolled back." but it should end either "needs to be rolled back" or "needs rolling back". Thryduulf ( talk) 23:52, 29 January 2019 (UTC)
Re WBG's points 2 and 3:
AGK, if I may, I think the phrasing and be sure that every edit needs rolled back.
could better be phrased something like that the edits being rolled back qualify under policy. Administrators and rollbackers should consider whether the use of mass rollback is the most appropriate course of action, even if permitted under policy.
As written this would effectively make WP:BANREVERT dead letter. I don’t think you could get consensus to do that in an RfC. I don’t advocate for mass rollbacking ever edit of every sockmaster, but there are certainly cases where BANREVERT is needed even if at face value the edits are constructive. In these cases, it often isn’t effective to check every single edit, so sometimes typos and the like are restored. They’re almost always instantly corrected by people in the topic area. My addition of the second sentence should also help to emphasize that even if policy would allow mass rollback, common sense says it’s not always the best option. TonyBallioni ( talk) 01:56, 30 January 2019 (UTC)
be sure that every edit needs rolling back. This does not impose a requirement that every edit needs to be individually inspected.Suppose there was a brand new account with 100 contributions to celebrity biographies, the 5 most recent of which added photographs of a cock and balls. I would be sure that "every edit needs rolling back". Requiring administrators to be sure before they act is not a departure from current policy, and is already implicit in WP:BANREVERT. AGK ■ 21:36, 30 January 2019 (UTC)
that rolling back every edit is within policy, which I think gets at your point without the possible confusion. Regardless, thank you for your reply :) TonyBallioni ( talk) 21:45, 30 January 2019 (UTC)
The Wikipedia community conducts almost all of its activities online, where people may fail to observe norms of professionalism and civility
Wikipedia makes use of this committee to handle "removal of administrative tools" and "serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve"
When clicked, rollback performs the action without explaining the reason by an edit summary.
Mass rollbacking is equivalent to opening a user's contributions (up to 500 at once) and clicking each rollback link-button.
Before using the script, rollbackers or administrators are expected to review the target account's contributions and be sure that every edit needs rolled back.
The Wikipedia community regulates and coordinates its activities using software features designed for collaborative article-writing. This necessitates the need to "mark" discussions as closed without necessarily preventing further edits by technical means.
When clicked, rollback performs the action without explaining the reason by an edit summary.
GiantSnowman continued to incorrectly use the rollback tool; eg 9 December 2018, 20 December 2018
GiantSnowman has wrongly blocked other users
GiantSnowman only blocked 46 editors in this period
Whatever our findings about GiantSnowman's judgment, nobody contends that they acted out of a genuine desire to improve Wikipedia
GiantSnowman desysopped
errors that are frequent, sustained, and serious? No. As TonyBallioni said, "we are not talking about someone who has been repeatedly warned and who was frequently at noticeboards for bad conduct, but someone who apparently had been doing this for years, who never had it brought up to them, and who had blocks reviewed by other admins that were upheld" (though I wasn't doing it for years, and and purely because I thought it was allowed by ROLLBACKUSE.) Furthermore I'm not sure how you can jump from the position that I was editing under a genuine belief I was improving Wikipedia to "he can no longer be trusted with the tools". Giant Snowman 21:02, 30 January 2019 (UTC)
We have what amounts to several years of non-help and non-advice, but plenty of what would appear to the user to be harassment
@ SilkTork: - that is a very unfair summary, and also factually incorrect. This user was first advised (no warning templates used!) back in 2009 to add references, and again in 2010, and again in 2012, and then later in 2012, and also in 2012. The first warning template that I can see for unsourced content was in 2012 - after the user had been blocked (by me) and then unblocked (again, by me) after promising to add references. But they continued, resulting in another warning in 2012 and another in 2013 etc. It was clear that this user, having been given advice over a number of years from numerous editors, wasn't listening - so escalating warnings were the next step, followed by blocks. Yes I am the admin who blocked them a number of times - and that is because our editing habits (Dutch football articles) overlap, and so I was the one who saw him repeatedly adding unsourced content to article. Implying I have harassed this editor is extremely unfair. I wasn't the first to template them; and I tried before then to talk to them (they never responded until they were blocked, see this exchange). Please note that some of these diffs were previously presented as Evidence, but (again) they have been ignored by ArbCom... Giant Snowman 10:18, 31 January 2019 (UTC)
GiantSnowman must not take any action that breaches Wikipedia's guideline, please do not bite the newcomers
at least one other admin has been following his example
indefinitely prohibited from using rollback
if he can take on board the criticism and modify his approach, the community would look favourably on a second RfA
I appreciate and thank GiantSnowman for his willingness to actively participate in this case and for his openness to change, but I'm not confident right now that promises are enough
is indefinitely prohibited from using rollback and from leaving a blank or default edit summary
GiantSnowman admonished and placed under review
Regarding proposed principle 2, "Raising concerns": None of the findings or remedies are based on a problem with escalating concerns appropriately, or continually restating concerns. As it stands, since the issued principles in a case exist to establish the basis for the findings or remedies, it's unclear to me if this principle is needed.
Proposed principle 4, "Terminating discussions", seems too detailed to me. The existence and purpose of the {{ archive top}} template isn't relevant for any of the findings. The second paragraph seems more apt for a reminder in a remedy, rather than a principle. All edits should be taken with their effects on other editors in mind, so it's oddly specific to single this out as a principle for the closing of a discussion. The first sentence of the third paragraph isn't a principle that the community can use as guidance; it's a description of what can happen after a discussion is closed. The last sentence is redundant with the second paragraph. Although perhaps with different wording I might feel differently, at the moment I agree with Katie: I don't feel the arbitration committee should be providing guidance on how to close discussions in the form of principles. isaacl ( talk) 03:09, 31 January 2019 (UTC)
Regarding The committee may
[1], in my opinion, it would be more fitting for general Wikipedia policy to be presented as case principles, and for specific calling to attention to be presented as a remedy. This clearly separates the underlying pre-existing policy, which usually originates from the community, from any refinement and reminder that the arbitration committee is publishing.
isaacl (
talk) 19:57, 31 January 2019 (UTC)
recognise and call attention to standards of user conduct
Regarding the "Fix or revert" principle, I feel the second and last sentences are overly broad. Whether or not a fact belongs in this encyclopedia is often a matter of debate; due weight considerations and community consensus on what information is included or not included must be weighed. The second sentence does not adequately place this into context. The last sentence shifts the onus for complying with Wikipedia policies and guidelines away from the editor introducing the change, with a very broad "where possible and appropriate" clause. For example, fixing an editor's propensity to leave out citations is usually possible, but may take five to ten times the effort for someone to hunt down a source and properly integrate the original change into the overall body of text. I agree in the interest of collaboration, editors should be flexible in doing this fixup work when the change is likely to be correct, but the converse is true as well: editors must be flexible in learning how to make complete changes themselves. There must be incentives for editors to improve the quality of their contributions, or else managing the inflow of content becomes unsustaninable.
Regarding "Check before reverting", I think it may also be overly broad. Reverting the edits of banned users is a long-standing practice, regardless of whether or not the edits are helpful. Editors known to introduce edits with errors or that contravene consensus should be held to a stricter standard. If they make a block of edits that have a high number of problematic edits, or appear similar in content and a sampling exhibits issues, reverting the edits should be considered reasonable (and I believe reflects current practice). I would not include omitting citations as a problematic edit for this purpose, though, as long as the change itself is a reasonably plausible one. isaacl ( talk) 17:46, 2 February 2019 (UTC)
Regarding But we don't simply go down the easy route - we go down the most appropriate and helpful route, even if that requires a bit more effort.
[2]: whereas that is the laudable goal, time is the most valuable asset that volunteers have to offer, and it's an imposition to ask them to devote endless hours fixing up what others can more easily do themselves. In an ideal world, there would be a continual fresh stream of page patrollers, to avoid burn out, but there are many (if not most) areas in Wikipedia that are dependent on a small number. A site ban or a removal of administrative privileges feels like an undue escalation when intermediate restrictions have not yet been tried. Please note that maintaining an article's coherence and structure is also beneficial for editor retention: it gives contributors confidence that they do not have to continually fix problems themselves, and so it is worthwhile to contribute to Wikipedia.
isaacl (
talk) 16:49, 3 February 2019 (UTC)
@ SilkTork: As requested, pinging. Not sure I'm fully satisfied with the wording, but it's a start. isaacl ( talk) 16:31, 4 February 2019 (UTC)
To foster a collaborative community, editors should accommodate when contributors lack experience in a specific aspect of Wikipedia's process or consensus guidelines and practices. As much as practicable, editors should work with less experienced editors to help them improve the quality of their contributions, and seek to preserve their contributions when appropriate. Additional flexibility should be given for edits that beneficially update Wikipedia and are likely to be correct.
Less experienced editors should strive to learn community practices and follow them, whether or not they personally agree with the consensus view. Once less experienced editors are made aware of the bare minimum requirements for their changes, they are expected to eventually comply in order to alleviate the workload of others.
Regarding this edit: whereas I understand the sentiment in support of the closing, I disagree that sanctions against an administrator can only be issued by the arbitration committee. Adminstrators are subject to community sanctions like any other editor. Only sanctions that effectively remove administrator privileges need to be enacted by the arbitration committee, and even so, the community has the responsibility to discuss the range of possible sanctions available, in accordance with the prerequisite that the community must attempt to resolve the issue itself before opening a case. isaacl ( talk) 16:44, 4 February 2019 (UTC)
Regarding concerns on enforcing an edit summary restriction: more details on enforcement can be specified in the "enforcement" section. Personally I suggest requiring a pattern of behaviour to be apparent before progressing beyond warnings. isaacl ( talk) 14:42, 6 February 2019 (UTC)
@ Dweller:: I'm not sure I follow your suggestion that GiantSnowman be put on probation but that violations be left undefined. I imagine I'm missing something? As KrakatoaKatie suggests, I think it is necessary to specify what behaviours are under scrutiny, and what is problematic. As I allude to, I think a pattern of behaviour should be outlined that, if observed, would trigger sanctions. isaacl ( talk) 22:17, 6 February 2019 (UTC)
Regarding the discussion on KrakatoaKatie's talk page, while I appreciate the advantage of being to hold an actual discussion between non-arbitrators and arbitrators alike, I feel it is unduly limiting to those who prefer to post on this talk page, where more interested parties would likely see the discussion. Although it appears the discussion may have drawn to a close, if it continues in some form, can an arbitrator open a designated section on this talk page for it? isaacl ( talk) 19:17, 7 February 2019 (UTC)
Regarding this comment: I think history shows with high-profile cases, there are editors willing to examine problematic behaviour and raise them to the attention of the arbitration committee. isaacl ( talk) 22:25, 7 February 2019 (UTC)
Regarding proposed principle 4, "Terminating discussions", it may be too broadly-stated, and might benefit from being narrowed to address only specific types of closes or specific close situations, rather than closes in general. For example, closing a thread because discussion has concluded vs. closing a thread to stop ongoing discussion. Or, a close by an admin of a thread discussing another admin's tool misuse vs. other kinds of closes. Such closes might be good or bad depending on the particular situation, and so a more narrowly-focused statement of principle here (describing existing practice, perhaps, instead of prescribing new practice) may be more helpful to the community. Leviv ich 04:07, 31 January 2019 (UTC)
Regarding SilkTork's comment about a bright-line restriction: obvious vandalism v. clueless newbie, how many edits to check before a mass roll back, when you're too involved to block... these are all judgment calls. They probably can't be reduced to a set of instructions; there may not be any restriction that prevents bad judgment. If the problem concerns the community's trust in an admin's judgment, and the admin needs the opportunity to demonstrate sound judgment and earn back the community's confidence, how about something like this:
I recognize some of these are best practices that GS already follows. These restrictions would require that best practices (in the areas where there have been past concerns) are followed while the bit is under review, under penalty of desysoping. The intent is that after a certain period of time, there would be a track record that proves that GS follows best practices and thus the community can be confident in placing their trust in his judgment without the need for further restrictions. Leviv ich 07:04, 8 February 2019 (UTC)
It seems very strange to have an evidence phase and a workshop phase where no evidence about me or proposals about me are discussed (despite AGKs prior claim that " We will now prepare proposals for discussion at the Workshop. I counsel you to accept that answering questions about your conduct is not optional. AGK ■ 12:52, 5 January 2019 (UTC) ", but then to get "proposed findings of fact" about me anyway. Strange, but not surprising sadly.
The "unnecessarily personalised the dispute with other users" part:
The "assuming bad intent on the part of others" [4]: which part of my post their is not accurate? Like I explained elsewhere, GS was not editing in bad faith (with bad intentions), they believed that they were editing for the good of the encyclopedia. The problems were that their interpretation of what was needed "for the good" was way too strict and not in line with general community expectations, and that they too often saw a few problems with an editor, and assumed that all edits then needed rollbacking. Or, like I said, they didn't act in bad faith, but they too often assumed bad faith in others.
The "demonising" (sic!): when looking at GS edits, I often encountered user:Mattythewhite making similar edits (without the extremes that lead to this ANI and arb case). It seemed (and seems) strange to have whole discussions about GS, but to ignore another editor working at the same articles with the same approach. I did not drag them to ANI or this Arb Case, I left them a note providing background of why I was there (the link about the GS ANI discussion) and what I found problematic in his edits, with examples. The ANI cases offered background to the opinions of others about such actions, and at the same time I offered Mattythewhite, a natural supporter of GS (if one wants to divide people in such categories) to a discussion about GS actions. Your "finding of fact" seems to suggest that I tried to canvass Mattythewhite to support me in the discussion about GS by demonising GS, while the opposite is true.
It is not clear to me what the actual problem is with my post to Mattythewhite's page. Should I not have mentioned the extremely similar GS discussion? Should I not have spoken directly to an editor I saw making many (in my view) problematic edits (or more in general having a problematic approach towards newbies)? Should I instead have dragged them to ANI, even though their edits were a lot less problematic and no prior attempts to discuss it with them had been made (as far as I know).
Basically, I noticed problematic edits, and discussed these with the editor on their talk page. At the same time, I alerted them to a discussion they might not have been aware of, and where their input would likely by antithetical to my position (at least in some respect), but where they were welcome as they had experience with the same issues and editors.
In their comment AGK claims "The impression of neutrality became difficult to endorse when Fram turned their attention to other users editing the same topic area as GiantSnowman. There was no basis for lumping those two users together and the passing reference to GiantSnowman was not appropriate.", which disregards e.g. the evidence by GS where they pinged Mattythewhite who had blocked the same editor GS did. More in general, it disregards the plain fact that GS and Mattythewhite are two of the most active admins in the footy project, and two of the most like-minded admins in their approach to newbies or "unsourced" editing and so on.
As an example, look at the editors in my evidence section, where GS is said to have misused rollback: User talk:Caitlinwebb3 starts with messages by Mattythewhite, is filled mainly by messages by GS and Mattythewhite, and is blocked first by Mattythewhite and then GS. User talk:Jamieroot11: first Mattythewhite, then GS. User talk:Footballinbelgium: two most recent messages are first by Mattythewhite, then by GS. User talk:Davidstockholm: a plethora of messages from both editors. The same appears with e.g. blocked IP User talk:121.212.176.113.
There clearly was a basis for "lumping the two editors together" with regards to their approach to unsourced or not perfectly formatted edits in football articles, and my message explained what the problems were with their editing. So it would be nice if you could explain what was wrong with that edit, and how I should have handled it instead, as I am rather flummoxed how this edit ended up here as evidence of my misbehaviour. Fram ( talk) 09:32, 31 January 2019 (UTC)
@ AGK and DGG: I'm glad you are not "in effect endorsing those low standards", and I promise never to use bad-faith allegations like accusing someone that they have "taken on the guise of prosecutor", that they are "demonising" users, or that they are deliberately criticising others, "throwing everything at the wall to see if it sticks" with their actions being "disproportionate in its quantity, intensity, and broad scope". Fram ( talk) 08:32, 1 February 2019 (UTC)
I'm a bit put off by the finding of fact concerning Fram. The evidence seems very weak for reaching any conclusion other than that Fram acted in good faith in pursuing WP:ADMINACCT, in a case that would have otherwise been shut down as "not a big deal; GS has learned his lesson; y'all go home now".
After AGK added Fram to the case, I submitted evidence of Fram, and two other admins, upholding policy and seeking resolutions to the matter. That stands in sharp contrast to the actions of other admins who collectively (whether intentionally or not) suppressed efforts to rectify the issues. Fram's persistence in pursuing a resolution seems to be a direct consequence of Giant Snowman's repeated defensiveness, evasiveness, flippancy, deflection, and his own assumptions of bad faith (for example, claiming that he was being harassed).
I'm concerned that singling Fram out in this way will have a chilling effect on the community's ability to handle any WP:ADMIN issues outside of Arbcom. If Arbcom wishes to be the only venue where admins can be held to account, this would be a pretty good way of accomplishing that.- Mr X 🖋 13:35, 31 January 2019 (UTC)
"... there is a big difference between "acting incorrectly but in good faith" and "deliberate abuse of the tools". I think only one of those is grounds for losing the mop."
I am also surprised to see Fram here. While this is not the first time at the Arbcom rodeo, I generally think he's improved his conduct since then. There is still an air of "being right and being a dick at the same time" ie: Fram tends to be most abrasive when he is right, and other people haven't picked up on his explanations - this makes it difficult for action to be taken because people think "well, Fram was actually right". Hopefully with some more self-reflection, this problem will disappear of its own accord. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 14:03, 31 January 2019 (UTC)
So multiple, multiple times the admin in issue has raised from WP:Rollback:
Which apparently according to Rollback has its generation or confirmation in this committees, 2009 statement: "However, rollback may be used in circumstances where widely spread edits (by a misguided editor or malfunctioning bot) are judged to be unhelpful to the encyclopedia, since such edits would be tedious to revert manually. In such instances, it is expected that an explanation will be provided in an appropriate location, such as at a relevant talk page."
Now, whether the admin was right or wrong about what those words might mean, it seems, 1) very "unhelpful" that the committee does not directly address what those words are suppose to mean and how those words are to be operationalized or processed to everyone in the community (since, you know, you are suppose to interpret what "misguided" and "unhelpful to the encyclopedia" means, and point the way to identifying and settling disputes about "misguided" (we do have guidelines, eg, WP:RS, and WP:CITE) and "unhelpful"), and 2) unsourced material by WP:V and WP:BLP standards certainly seems rather "unhelpful to the encyclopedia", or at least that's within reason, and 3) finally, it seems rather more respectful and collegial here if the committee would address the issues directly put to you by the admin, the committee members are being asked to weigh in against. Alanscottwalker ( talk) 16:37, 31 January 2019 (UTC)
Number 8 is so truncated as to be misleading. "Editor". Think what that word means. The best editors on Wikipedia and off readily remove content because removing content whether by reversion or otherwise is a fix (and depending on the various definitions of reversion thrown around, in which we sometimes seem to need a theology degree on reversion, every removal is someone else's reversion). Removing content is one of the most important and sometimes difficult things editors do. (Eg., we most definitely do not want articles that contain every known mention in the literature because the article could then be a billions of words long mess.) And it most certainly is not limited to WP:BLP. WP:DON'T PRESERVE explicitly says: "Several of our core policies discuss situations when it might be more appropriate to remove information from an article rather than preserve it. Wikipedia:Verifiability discusses handling unsourced and contentious material; Wikipedia: No original research discusses the need to remove original research; What Wikipedia is not describes material that is fundamentally inappropriate for Wikipedia; and WP:UNDUE discusses how to balance material that gives undue weight to a particular viewpoint, which might include removal of trivia, tiny minority viewpoints, or material that cannot be supported with high-quality sources. Also, redundancy within an article should be kept to a minimum." -- Alanscottwalker ( talk) 17:29, 2 February 2019 (UTC)
As far as I know, this "set" of issues is the first time GS has been made aware of just how significantly people are viewing his actions. My sense of him over the years is that he will (now) take this on board. He does a lot of good work and I'd hate to lose that. Now if there are continued problems, that's another issue. If he isn't desysopped, I'd expect him to be very very careful moving forward with rollback and blocking as well as hopefully extending good faith and clear communication even when he's pretty certain someone is a troll/sock. If this is the wrong place for a comment of this nature, please move or delete as appropriate. Thanks Hobit ( talk) 22:36, 31 January 2019 (UTC)
I am glad to see proposed principle 4.1 isn't going anywhere but have concerns over
Joe Roe's statement that, "It's reasonable to say that extended discussion of admin misconduct at ANI, a venue that can't adequately deal with it, falls into the latter category.
" which he then reiterates FOF 7 ANI, insofar as it has a legitimate role in dispute resolution, is supposed to produce concrete outcomes that admins can implement to "break the back" of a dispute.
Discussion is a fundamental part of how Wikipedia works - I think this mischaracterizes the role ANI can (though obviously doesn't always) play in the case of concerns over administrator actions. It is a way for the community to discuss issues among itself and make sure that concerns are heard. The difficulty ArbCom also has in dealing with these issues is present in this case's discussion to date. It's not an easy topic, but I'm not sure that the pressure cooker of a formal ArbCom case is better for the administrator under discussion, even if it does serve to cool the passions of the community. Perhaps after slightly further discussion, GS could have made a commitment that the community was satisfied by. Best,
Barkeep49 (
talk) 03:48, 1 February 2019 (UTC)
The question Doug Weller asked when the case was being considered of (and I'm paraphrasing here) "if we can't trust a user with rollback, can we trust them with the tools?" has stuck with me and I have answered the question both ways at various points. There have been mixed feelings on the right remedy, but broad support that there has been problems with hearing criticism (which have improved during the case), inappropriate bans, and inappropriate rollback. Two of these three areas are areas non-admin can work-in (not BITING, appropriate reverting). Perhaps the committee could consider "suspending" Giant rather than making him go through a community RfA - which would essentially remove the tools permanently. He could then apply for reinstatement to this committee, showing sustained improvement, after X months (3 or 6 would be my suggestion). This seems better than an editing restriction which would be difficult to enforce at AE and could, if problems were to continue, lead to it coming back to ArbCom anyway (with perhaps further community rancor having transpired in the interim). Best wishes, Barkeep49 ( talk) 18:52, 6 February 2019 (UTC)
To handle requests (other than self-requests) for removal of administrative tools. Because of this policy you may
create procedures through which policy and guidelines may be enforced.Alternatively you could desysop and then choose, in 3 or 6 months time, to at your
at sole discretion, revisit any proceeding at any time.and decide that was incorrectly decided because there is evidence on the record of GS improving and subsequent events would go to show that this evidence is correct. On a practical level I think the community would welcome ArbCom's ability to have gradations of thinking beyond admonishment and desysop. Not everyone may agree that a gradation should have been done here, but conceptually that kind of concept if found throughout our behavior policies. Best wishes, Barkeep49 ( talk) 22:50, 6 February 2019 (UTC)
Violations may be reported by any editor to WP:AE. GiantSnowman may appeal any or all of these sanctions, including the review itself, at any time.
- It's traditional to say that the appeal can be to ArbCom (ARCA) for clarity, unless it's intended for the restriction to be able to be lifted by AE/AN as with a DS/GS in which case I would suggest saying that. Best wishes,
Barkeep49 (
talk) 17:37, 8 February 2019 (UTC)
I'd really like Arbcom to weigh in on the subject of my evidence. I don't think principles 8 and 9 quite cover the nuance. Just because someone challenges material in a BLP doesn't mean it's contentious, which is the argument I've seen. Inherently uncontroversial but unsourced material even in a BLP should also not be removed on sight. -- Dweller ( talk) Become old fashioned! 22:37, 3 February 2019 (UTC)
I think GS is a good admin, who has been heavy handed in some areas. And I think in part he's been heavy handed because he's been so convinced he's right and entrenched in very very longstanding attitudes.
On the specifics, I really do not think football is particularly special. I could make very similar arguments about a whole slew of topics. The question for me is, if I add, for example, a birth town to a BLP without a source, that is not a contentious edit even if it not a terrific quality edit. It is only contentious if there's a perceptible negativity, so for example, if the edit was that they were born in "Arseholeville" or the like. The purpose of BLP is to protect living people from slurs and derogatory editing, not to ensure that every article is Featured quality.
On the meta, admins are so precious. And GS isn't just an admin but a really active content contributor. The committee isn't stupid, you know the impact it has on many admins when you desysop them. When an admin has been misguided, I wish you'd consider some kind of probation as an intermediate option between ticking off and desysopping - and not just in this case. -- Dweller ( talk) Become old fashioned! 09:32, 4 February 2019 (UTC)
I echo Leaky caldron. Even a mention of site ban is ridiculous. It is insulting to Giant Snowman and utterly demeans this committee. -- Dweller ( talk) Become old fashioned! 11:55, 4 February 2019 (UTC)
FWIW, I've been discussing with KrakatoaKatie at her talk page, the idea of probation. I don't know if that should more properly be here or somewhere else, because I think it should be a default option for Arbcom to consider in any case where desysopping is a possibility. -- Dweller ( talk) Become old fashioned! 21:07, 6 February 2019 (UTC)
Quick feedback on the proposed editing restriction for GiantSnowman. Speaking as someone who's spending a lot of time at AE these days, I share SilkTork's concern and think it'd be helpful if the wording could be clarified from how it reads now now. While I certainly think we all have a general idea of what clearly crosses the line of "biting newcomers," it's those edge cases that could be tricky without something a little more tightened up. Otherwise, it's vague enough that it's practically unenforceable. Best, Lord Roem ~ ( talk) 06:21, 4 February 2019 (UTC)
The fact that this has even been mentioned - even hinted at or suggested in passing - is shocking. Outrageous in this particular case and more so in the historical context of AC sanctions against past and current Admins. who's misbehavior far and away exceeds GS's errors of judgment / wrong actions. Leaky caldron ( talk) 11:11, 4 February 2019 (UTC)
Comment moved here:
I agree with Ritchie333. I am particularly surprised given that there was no reference to any proposal concerning Fram's behaviour in workshop phase,, nor was there any relevant evidence presented during the evidence phase, meaning that a finding of fact/proposal concerning Fram is very much out of left field. For it to appear in this manner obviates non-arbitrators' opportunity to collate/submit any evidence that could have leavened this finding of fact. I am glad to see the proposal is looking like it will be voted down. Fish+ Karate 11:52, 4 February 2019 (UTC)
So does this apply to any revert without an edit summary, or only ones specifically made with a tool? There's a (not very good but not entirely unreasonable either) argument to be made that rollback itself isn't a tool, since it's baked into the Wikimedia interface itself rather than being a gadget or user script or so on; there's a much better argument, though, that just clicking on the edit button and manually editing out whatever some other user just put in isn't. If - as I suspect - this was meant to mean any summaryless revert no matter how it was made, and you feel you have to make that explicit for some reason despite 383 archives of WP:AN/3RR giving admins practice at identifying what's a revert and what isn't, then writing "by any method" instead of "with any tool" will save everyone the inevitable trip to WP:ARCA. — Cryptic 18:31, 4 February 2019 (UTC)
Also, specifically re this vote: @ Worm That Turned: Already done, to the extent it's possible to do, at WP:Customizing watchlists#Remove or modify the .5Brollback.5D link. — Cryptic 19:54, 4 February 2019 (UTC)
For my part, Lourdes' version, with or without Amorymeltzer's suggested edit to it (but not Amorymeltzer's edit taken by itself, which is what we ended up with; or any of those just tacked onto the front while leaving the ambiguous parts), get the idea across. — Cryptic 11:47, 6 February 2019 (UTC)
Separately - do the usual exceptions at WP:BANEX apply? I'd think not, in this case, but it should be made explicit. — Cryptic 11:47, 6 February 2019 (UTC)
@ Ymblanter and GiantSnowman: Again, WP:Customizing watchlists#Remove or modify the .5Brollback.5D link. This is a non-issue. — Cryptic 12:28, 8 February 2019 (UTC)
I only just read it this way following the comments from
Katie and
Worm, so I apologize for the late-hour of this comment, but it seems to me that
Remedy 3 (the rollback restriction) is a little vague on what counts. Specifically, the remedy says "rollback" includes any revert, made with any tool, that undoes another editor's contribution without providing a rationale in the edit summary.
Saying "without providing a rationale" suggests to me no edit summary rather than a providing a way to make a custom edit summary, which I doubt is the intent (see also
#Comment from Cryptic re Remedy 3). Moreover, Katie and Worm note other tools like Twinkle, which has some options (rollback (vandal)) that autorevert without an edit summary and others (rollback, restore this revision, etc.) that allow for a custom edit summary but will provide a default if one is not provided. I don't think as written or opined-on it is clear if those latter options are allowed if customized. ~ Amory (
u •
t •
c) 22:59, 4 February 2019 (UTC)
" GiantSnowman is indefinitely prohibited from using the rollback functionality. GiantSnowman is additionally indefinitely prohibited from leaving blank or default edit summaries while reverting other editors' contributions."Lourdes 12:01, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
Section created and comments moved here. SilkTork ( talk) 14:26, 7 February 2019 (UTC)
"Custom" is a sensible addition. Alternatively, you could probably use " GiantSnowman is indefinitely prohibited from using the rollback functionality. GiantSnowman is additionally indefinitely prohibited from leaving blank or default edit summaries while reverting other editors' contributions."
Lourdes 12:01, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
@
Leaky caldron: The page header does state with the exception of arbitrators and clerks, all editors must create a section for their statement and comment only in their own section
, so arbs are indeed exempt from having to create their own section.
–
FlyingAce
✈hello 15:14, 7 February 2019 (UTC)
Note to @ Lourdes: Only Remedy #3 has actually passed at this moment, since 3 of the votes for Remedy #4 are contingent on Remedy #1 (desysopping) passing. Since that is not currently passing, Remedy #4 only has 5 votes, which is not sufficient to pass. Of course, that could change if the arbs who voted for it change their vote to be absolute instead of dependent, or if one additional arb voted in favor of it without conditions (6 votes being needed for passage in this case when there are no abstentions). Beyond My Ken ( talk) 00:53, 8 February 2019 (UTC)
There is a technical issue concerning the rollback restriction. It is actually very easy to hit a rollback button accidentally. I have a pretty fast laptop, but still my watchlist loads some stuff in three stages, and after every stage it looks like everything is fine and I can click on the links, I click, and suddenly it turns out that I was clicking on a different link one or two lines above what I actually intended to click. I accidentally hit rollback in this way about once per month. (In these cases, I undo it with apologies). I rarely edit from a cell phone, but from what I remember it is even easier to accidentally hit rollback there. Unless there is a script which just protects the rollback button from showing anywhere (which I am not aware of), and if the restriction passes, it might have sense to add a clause that if GS hit rollback incidentally, they must immediately undo their edit and redo it with a proper edit summary. We unfortunately have some users who would be happy to point out at this accidental rollback as a violation of the topic ban. (Note that I did not express any opinion on whether a rollback restriction is a good idea, but merely pointed out one of its technical aspects).-- Ymblanter ( talk) 12:22, 8 February 2019 (UTC)