Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/GiantSnowman

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

Case clerks: Bradv (Talk) & Guerillero (Talk) Drafting arbitrators: Worm That Turned (Talk) & AGK (Talk)

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

Preliminary statements by uninvolved editors

Statements by uninvolved editors are now archived on case front pages.

Moved to Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/GiantSnowman#Preliminary statements by uninvolved editors

Discrepancies in schedules for this case

This question was cross-posted and has now been answered here. AGK ■ 12:55, 31 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

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) 12:28, 31 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Drafter's statement as to parties and scope

Dear all:

Given the background to this dispute, the following editors are added as parties to this case:

Bbb23 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Fram (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Ymblanter (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

The scope of this case is (i) the conduct of GiantSnowman and (ii) related background, including the community discussions at ANI.

Clerks may remove evidence of tenuous relevance to the case scope. Evidence about the additional parties must assist the committee's examination of this problem and deal with the reasons these events developed.

In the course of evaluating GiantSnowman's conduct, I have also been considering the following concerns:

At ANI, around 4 hours after GiantSnowman first responded to the thread, Ymblanter (talk · contribs) closed the thread.
Looks like GS has learned his lesson, and there is no point of keeping this open any longer. If anybody has specific suggestions please open a new subsection below (or write in the existing subsection, which I leave open.
Were the community's concerns resolved by the point of that closure? Was closing the thread a fair reflection of the consensus emerging?
When the ANI review was in its early stages, and after an earlier closure, Bbb23 (talk · contribs) closed the thread with a comment asserting that no concerns existed and no action may follow.
GS's response is satisfactory. There is no reason that he cannot use mass rollback for socking and vandalism. No administrative action is going to be taken here.
Did this obstruct review of an administrator and prevent the community from dealing with the concerns about GiantSnowman? Was there an attempt at supervoting?
In the ANI thread, at other discussions, in the arbitration requests thread, and during this arbitration case, Fram (talk · contribs) has taken on the guise of prosecutor. As much as Fram was raising some legitimate concerns, was their scrutiny disproportionate in its quantity, intensity, and broad scope? Is Fram throwing everything at the wall to see if it sticks?

The new parties are among our most experienced contributors, and administrators regarded with respect. Being named as a party must not be interpreted by other users as a finding of misconduct.

Workshop submissions and Evidence will be welcome on these points, as is passing commentary in this thread. AGK ■ 13:43, 3 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@AGK: Once in a great while I comment at a case request. I don't believe I've ever commented after case acceptance. Am I required to comment? If so, I assume I must do so on the evidence page? Frankly, I want to do as little as possible and yet still comply with the Committee's wishes.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:57, 3 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

AGK, can move their Preliminary statements section to proper venue? Thanks, Hhkohh (talk) 14:00, 3 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Bbb23, you're not required to participate, though you should be aware that you are a named party to the case and therefore involved in the discussions. It may well be worth watching the pages in case you wish to comment on anything you disagree with. Worm^TT(talk) 14:18, 3 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk note: The added parties have been notified. 1 2 3. Bradv🍁 16:17, 3 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, AGK, for your impartial and fair statement. Making accusations in the guise of questions surely is a very nice touch. Is there any reason you couldn't add these parties without the additional very loaded questions tagged on at the end? Fram (talk) 08:00, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Fram: Please try to be objective. There are two questions: has Fram gotten caught up in proving criticism of GiantSnowman – and was this deliberate? Positing these possibilities is unpleasant, but necessary in examining the full dispute. AGK ■ 11:20, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

AGK, please read up on what "objective" means. Posting, out of the blue, two clearly negative "possibilities" among the many possible questions, is not "objective", it's poisoning the well. Just like, on the workshop page, your omission of whoever provided evidence from the bits of evidence you seem to agree with, but the inclusion of the fact that I provided the evidence in the one bit of evidence you disagree with. If you have a point to make about me on the workshop page, start a section about me, but don't sneak it into your "objective questions" here or into a piece of workshop about GS, not about me. Adding me as a party to the case may be justified, but adding questions like "was their scrutiny disproportionate in its quantity, intensity, and broad scope? Is Fram throwing everything at the wall to see if it sticks?" is not. Perhaps you should recuse yourself from this case and start posting some evidence instead, if you can see such problems about me without providing any evidence? Then you could elaborate how my evidence was "disproportionate in quantity, intensity and broad scope"?

"Disproportionate in quantity" would mean that I provided too much evidence of misconduct? Or that I spent too much time on collecting evidence? That's a new concept, I thought the problem was usually not enough evidence... How I spent my time is my choice obviously.
"Disproportionate in intensity" is not clear. Should I have be less intense in my scrutiny? More casual? Why?
"Disproportionate in scope"??? All my evidence is about GS, is about recent behaviour, and is about behaviour directly relevant to the accusations of problems with their use of rollback, warnings and blocks. There is apparently one bit of evidence you disagree with, without making it clear why exactly, but how that justifies posing these "objective" questions is not really clear. You could just as well add "objective" questions about the muzzling of Legacypac in this case, but I haven't seen you doing this.
"Positing these possibilities is unpleasant, but necessary in examining the full dispute." How? Has GS's behaviour been caused by my criticism? Have I caused them to rollback or block editors? You seem to imply that somehow my actions during the "dispute" can be a factor in favour of GS, or explaining their behaviour. It would be interesting if you could expand on that line of reasoning, as I don't really grasp it. Fram (talk) 11:44, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Just a point of order – existing evidence (the ANI thread and case itself) raises these issues.

Your criticism of GiantSnowman, in the ANI threads and during this case, is significant among the issues brought to arbitration. I asked whether, in those threads, you went too far – eg adopting an immoderate tone, assuming bad faith, or presenting facts stridently. Please try to stop directing that type of behaviour at me. Arbitrators do not have skin in this game; recognise that I am not trying to attack you and I am receptive to evidence that your earlier conduct at GiantSnowman was proportionate. If I may, I shall ask again – would you review your various comments (ANI and in Evidence) and consider if, as typed, they helped or hindered reaching the desired outcome.

Positing these possibilities […] – could you re-read? In that context, the possibility related to you rather than GiantSnowman. AGK ■ 12:12, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No, you raise these issues. You at first claimed that you were simply raising questions, but you now make it abundantly clear that they were indeed accusations, not questions ("Please try to stop directing that type of behaviour at me."). It is not up to others (including me) to provide evidence that my "earlier conduct at GS was proportionate" when you haven't provided any evidence that it was disproportionate. It is up to you to support your accusations with some evidence, and as an Arn you should be well aware of that. "Arbitrators do not have skin in this game", but you give every impression of having some "skin" here, and that you are, contrary to what you claim, actually really trying to attack me in a passive-agressive way and without making any effort to substantiate your attacks.

If you had concerns about my approach in this case, you should have posted some indication of which parts you find potentially problematic, not, to use your own tactic, "throw mud and see what sticks".

Your final statement makes no sense. There is a dispute about GS use of the tools (rollbacks, blocks), understanding of policy, use of warnings and reverts, ... I have provided evidence (during the AN discussion and in the case). You claim that examining my approach is "necessary in examining the full dispute". But somehow "the full dispute", in your mind, now "related to you rather than GS". If these "possibilities" you raise are not about the original dispute, about the case accepted by ArbCom, about the actions by GS, but solely about my edits, then they don't belong in this case. They have no bearing on GS' actions, my actions have not been adressed outside this case first (you know, the attempts at prior dispute resolution which are expected before a case is started), and you seem to have included me to piggyback some concerns without evidence, without prior attempt at resolution, and without them having any impact on GS' actions, into this case anyway.

So please explain very clearly, and with some supporting evidence, what you are actually claiming, how it is part of this case examining GS' actions in rollbacking, warning and blocking editors, and not some separate issus you have with my editing, and why you should remain on this case as an "objective" arb if you insist on continuing with this without much firmer grounds and without a much clearer policy-based approach to this. Fram (talk) 12:35, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Questions about your conduct during the dispute have now been asked 3 times, so I will just note your response. 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)[reply]

What questions? What "3 times"? How am I supposed to answer some vague, unsubstantiated accusations? If I was supposed to answers some questions, then perhaps formulate some questions for me first? You only asked questions about me, not to me. A question like "Is Fram throwing everything at the wall to see if it sticks?" is a general question towards others, not a question you ask from me. If you do ask it from me, my answer is "no". AGK, are you throwing wild accusations about Fram to the wall in the hope that something sticks? Fram (talk) 13:28, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I really look forward to your "proposals for discussion" at the workshop, when the only "evidence" about me at the evidence phase is a comment by GS, which was a mutual misunderstanding which has been amically resolved at my talk page in the meantime[1]. You really make less and less sense here. On the other hand, I just asked a series of questions about your conduct, which you have not answered at all. Oh, and everything is optional of course, including accepting your counsel, or not. Your threatening tone, as if I usually refuse to answer questions about my conduct, is noted. My belief in your impartiality remains very, very low, and if you continue with this approach in this way, I would urge the other arbs to add you as a party as well and name some other drafting arbs instead. Fram (talk) 13:28, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

AGK, some of your phrasing about Fram struck me as unnecessarily negative, particularly "guise of prosecutor" and "throwing everything at the wall to see if it sticks", and makes me wonder whether this case will be handled fairly. kcowolf (talk) 03:57, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I have posted a comment (12:12) that I hope explained not that I say Fram did do those things. Rather I was questioning whether Fram did those things, and if so did it worsen the problem or prevent the community resolving the core problems. Arbitration is one of the few venues on Wikipedia where questions of user conduct and motivations are openly discussed. Asking these questions can appear unfair, but it's why we are here.

Once the Evidence and Workshop phases of this case end, I and my co-drafter are responsible for writing a draft decision. The draft is then put to a full vote of the committee and each element needs the approval of a majority. AGK ■ 12:21, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

To quote you, "In the ANI thread, at other discussions, in the arbitration requests thread, and during this arbitration case, Fram (talk · contribs) has taken on the guise of prosecutor." You stated that as fact, not as a question, and the phrase "guise of prosecutor" feels--again--unnecesarily negative. The word "inflammatory" even comes to mind. kcowolf (talk) 19:38, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Re: "Questions about your conduct during the dispute have now been asked 3 times", has anyone raised any questions about my conduct regarding GiantSnowman? (You can check here:[2]) No? Well I also found the "questions" to be inappropriate. (Please note that I am not expressing an opinion ether way on the actual case, just on the appropriateness of editorializing in the Drafter's statement). --Guy Macon (talk) 13:36, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@AGK:--Please recuse. And, as a returning arb, you ought to possess better writing and/or communication skills (esp. that you're the drafter). Your questions to Fram are vastly misplaced, inflammatory and a net-negative.∯WBG^converse 09:58, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@AGK:: This is really quite inappropriate. Please (at the very minimum) strike your comments about Fram "taking on the guise of prosecutor". I would prefer if you would recuse, however - your comments are inflammatory and give the appearance that you aren't impartial: This is unfair to Fram and GS, both of who deserve a fair case. You should really know better - you're not new to this. -- Thanks, Alfie. ^{talk to me | contribs} 11:08, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Where to ask for the recusal of an arb / drafter on this case?

The committee members who have commented have made clear that they (we) do not believe AGK need to recuse. There's no need for more discussion on this point Worm^TT(talk) 22:12, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

I have asked User:AGK to recuse from this case, based on my own experience and the comments and similar requests by multiple other editors (see User_talk:AGK/Archive_2019#Please recuse from the GiantSnowman arbcom case and the additional request for the same by User:Winged Blades of Godric yesterday on this page.

According to WP:RECUSAL, after the arb has declined to recuse, "the user may refer the request to the Committee for a ruling", but it isn't made clear where that request should be made. I can't propose a motion, and it isn't a clarification or amendment, so...

The reasons for the original request can be found at the user talk page (I can expand if necessary); the decline is rather unsatisfactory and shows a thorough lack of insight in the problems raised by multiple editors. "I was elected as an arbitrator whose record is one including clear, plain questions like the ones I asked you."?? They clearly didn't understand or care about any of the complaints that lead to the requests for recusal. " As much as Fram was raising some legitimate concerns, was their scrutiny disproportionate in its quantity, intensity, and broad scope? Is Fram throwing everything at the wall to see if it sticks?" and "has Fram gotten caught up in proving criticism of GiantSnowman – and was this deliberate?" are not clear, plain questions asked me, they are loaded questions asked others about me, not something I need to respond to. Coupled with things like "Fram has taken on the guise of prosecutor.", which isn't even disguised as a question but is a plain accusation.

Arbs, please indicate where I need to post this request, and what kind of evidence and structure you want for it. Fram (talk) 15:45, 8 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Here is fine, Fram. I'll point the rest of the committee to this comment. Worm^TT(talk) 15:50, 8 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Recusal is done where an arbitrator might have brought external emotions or experiences into a case, not where an arbitrator is presenting evidence that a party dislikes or disagrees with, or the arbitrator is indicating that they have examined the evidence and are feeling that there is a case to answer. Unless there is evidence that AGK is bringing a prior bias into the case then I'm not seeing a reason to recuse based purely on AGK examining the evidence and forming an opinion that a party doesn't agree with. If it's a matter of the wording that Fram doesn't like, which seems to be shared by others, then perhaps we can look at that as a separate issue. It's not uncommon for arbitrators to try out different wording in the Workshop before finding the right approach, and for parties, other arbs, and innocent bystanders to criticise the wording. So: I don't see a need for AGK to recuse, but would be willing to discuss the wording used to see if we can up with something less inflammatory. SilkTork (talk) 17:12, 8 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Why bother having an evidence phase if it is OK for an arbitrator to decide part of the case before all of the evidence has been posted? How is it possible for an arbitrator to "examine the evidence" and come to a conclusion before the evidence phase? Should we all start loading up our preliminary statements with evidence rather than limiting ourselves to arguing whether arbcom should take the case -- just so we can get our arguments in before someone decides ahead of time what the result is going to be? Should we change the title of "Drafter's statement as to parties and scope" to "Drafter's statement as to parties and scope and what he has already decided that the result is going to be"? --Guy Macon (talk) 17:44, 8 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know that recusal is necessary, as I'm unaware of a preconceived bias against Fram. (I could be wrong. I don't know for certain, and I invite Fram to present evidence to that effect if he has it.) I do agree with SilkTork that there should be a way to rephrase AGK's wording to settle things down. Katie^talk 17:32, 8 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You don't see any evidence at all that anyone has already decided that "Fram has taken on the guise of prosecutor"? No evidence at all? There is a time and a place for arbitrators to make decisions. Before anyone has had a chance to post evidence or argue against the evidence others have posted is not the time, and the drafter's statement as to parties and scope is not the place. --Guy Macon (talk) 17:51, 8 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I think you can infer from my statement that I don't like the way these things were phrased. Do I think that rises to the level of bias and necessitates recusal? I don't see that yet, but as I said, I invite Fram and others to calmly present evidence to that effect. I'm not going to advocate for recusal simply because I don't like the wording of a statement. In the opposite vein, I'm not going to support sanctioning an editor or admin unless there's solid evidence to do so and it's supported by policy. That's all I'll say about it until I see some evidence here. Katie^talk 19:12, 8 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Related issue: it often happens at ANI that one person acts as a prosecutor. It also often happens that another person steps up and acts as a defense attorney. Nobody at ANI has ever had a problem with this. Yet the statement I am objecting to says "In the ANI thread, at other discussions, in the arbitration requests thread, and during this arbitration case, Fram (talk · contribs) has taken on the guise of prosecutor" (emphasis added). ANI does has WP:BOOMERANG, but that applies to the person filing the case misbehaving in the dispute leading up to the ANI case, not to the person filing the case trying to make his case. If you want to make a rule that says that at arbcom you cannot do your best to make your case, that's fine (but the rule should be documented, not sprung on people, and to be fair you should consider a matching rule prohibiting attempts to defend the accused), but it isn't your place to retroactively sanction or even criticize someone for behavior at ANI that ANI allows and even encourages. --Guy Macon (talk) 18:21, 8 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I think that's because ANI rests on individuals either defending prosecuting/taking sides/acting as a Recorder etc., whereas Arbcom—by its nature—already has (is) a body to perform all those functions, and as such, they perform them collectively, rather than as individuals. ——SerialNumber54129 19:04, 8 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to briefly note that the contents of the statement above were written solely by AGK and reflect the scope of the case and pertinent questions as he sees them. The statement was not shared with the Arbitration Committee as a whole before it was posted, nor did we have any input into its contents. I didn't even know it existed for several days after it was posted.
I appreciate why certain editors think the statement warrants recusal, but I disagree. I see evidence that AGK is thinking about this dispute in a certain way, certainly, but I have not seen any evidence that he carried any preconceived biases at the start of this case. Forming an opinion about the conduct of the parties during a case is an expected part of the arbitration process. We form an initial impression during the case request, because we must to determine whether the dispute warrants a case. This impression either strengthens or changes during evidence, and it helps frame our work as we proceed into the workshop and decision. Sometimes, our impression remains more-or-less the same from start to finish, while others it changes drastically as more evidence is submitted. Recusal is only warranted if an arbitrator carries preconceived biases from prior to the case that interfere with their ability to change their mind if the evidence leads in a different direction.
While I don't personally agree with taking an aggressive approach to questioning during arbitration, nothing prohibits it. I'm certainly willing to rethink my opinion on a recusal here, but I would need to see some evidence that AGK is acting with preconceived bias, not merely forming an opinion as he reviews the evidence for this case. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 01:46, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Just noting that AGK and I did discuss the addition of parties, based on the evidence that had been provided at the time. I agreed that the parties should be added - though asking the questions at the same time was probably a mis-step. That said, I see no evidence that AGK has any historical bias against any individuals in this case, and has simply been asking pointed questions. As such, I do not believe he needs to recuse. Worm^TT(talk) 08:44, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Requesting clarification from arbitrators. I'm confused about what evidence is welcome/permitted, and what evidence is not welcome/permitted. I had thought that AGK's statement was an "official" Arbcom ruling about the parties and scope of the case. Assuming that adding parties was a committee decision, what is the committee's view of the proper/helpful scope of evidence, if it's not the questions AGK posed? Thank you in advance for clarifying. Levivich (talk) 03:18, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Neither the decision to add those parties nor the scope posted by AGK were discussed by the Committee. At this point, until advised otherwise, I would recommend submitting any evidence related to the conduct of GiantSnowman or other editors involved in the dispute, including those at the ANI threads. I would treat AGK's questions as if they were posted under the "Questions to the parties" section of the Workshop, which is probably where they should have gone. They do not reflect any "consensus" of the pertinent questions among the Committee. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 04:48, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- AGK has an opinion that evidence and workshop proposals on the questions he raised would be welcome; that hardly means that only evidence and proposals on those topics are welcome. When I read through the case last week, I thought to myself that more evidence and comments on the theme of "the scale of maintenance problems in the topic area" would be useful, and was going to post to that effect, but then more people did comment on that issue and my questions were answered. If I'd asked about it, I hope no one would have thought that only that topic was open for discussion. Opabinia regalis (talk) 05:12, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  - Thank you both. What had confused me were the parts about clerks removing evidence not relevant to "the case scope" and that evidence "must" be relevant to "this problem" (italics in original), but your explanations have cleared up my confusion. Thanks again. Levivich (talk) 05:38, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I think the preceding statements answer the original question about where to ask: the talk pages of the case are fine. As for the substance of the recusal request - I don't think it's necessary for AGK to recuse on this basis. Recently, we've seen some feedback from the community that arbs should be more actively engaged in cases and should communicate more with the community about their thinking and the way the case is progressing. I don't like the idea that an arb doing those things - responding to the evidence so far, asking questions of the participants to clarify that evidence, or taking action to make sure the case's parties, scope, etc. are aligned with the actual issues it covers - should then be said to have prejudged the case. Nobody gets asked to recuse because they said "I don't see the relevance of Joe Schmo's evidence", replied to a workshop proposal with "I don't think the evidence supports this", or responded in other ways to the case as it develops. The questions aren't my style, but flip the page over and you'll find people questioning my style too :) Take AGK's post as feedback about what he thinks so far, from 1/13 of the people making the final decision, not as an indicator of a firm conclusion by the whole group. Opabinia regalis (talk) 05:12, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Asking questions, commenting about proposals, thinking about the evidence and forming opinions is not evidence of bias or malfeasance, it's what we're supposed to be doing. I find the notion that it's inappropriate for arbitrators to develop opinions during the case absurd. It is impossible to come into a case without having an initial opinion on it, considering that the first step in any case is to read the case request and form an opinion about whether it necessitates a full case. It is impossible to read evidence, proposals and commentary and not build upon or reconsider that initial opinion as you think about what you've read. Asking AGK to recuse on the basis that they have read the evidence as submitted so far and have questions about it is unwarranted. In the absence of any evidence that AGK came into the case with a bias against Fram or any other party, I don't see a reason for recusal. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 08:24, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I find the above to be compelling enough that I withdraw my call for recusal and am now Neutral on the question of recusal. I stand by my "wrong place, wrong time" opinion (forming an opinion does not require broadcasting that opinion on a page that is supposed to be about something else entirely) but the above makes me unsure that recusal is the right remedy. --Guy Macon (talk) 09:04, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I had and have no evidence or indication that AGK held any opinion about me before this case started. I am also not sure that they really have an opinion about me, it may also be that they are just trying to deflect attention away from GS andput the blame (partly) elsewhere.

The feeling I have about this case can be summarized as this:

People are presenting and discussing evidence while 15 or so "judges" listen in
Suddenly, a new judge (not even a judge yet when the case was opened, but added as drafter on the very first day of his tenure[3]!) pops in, points to a witness, and shouts "I accuse this witness, does anyone have evidence for this?".
When I ask them what I'm supposedly accused of, they reply "I accuse this witness of deliberately presenting too much evidence"
When asked again, the accusation changed to "adopting an immoderate tone, assuming bad faith, or presenting facts stridently", and the burden of evidence changed to proving innocence ("I am receptive to evidence that your earlier conduct at GiantSnowman was proportionate.")
When I replied, trying to address the various "issues" they raised, the full answer was "Questions about your conduct during the dispute have now been asked 3 times, so I will just note your response. 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) "

This was patently untrue. Different questions were asked "about me", not from me, and no one had presented anything supporting AGKs claims (either in that discussion or at the evidence page). On the contrary, multiple editors had expressed serious misgivings about the line and tone of questioning.

Because I wasn't alone with my concerns, and because there were also other issues (I'll come back to them in a moment), I asked for the recusal.

At the workshop meanwhile, AGK started presenting their analysis of the evidence[4]. For some reason, they didn't add whoever presented evidence they agreed with (mostly me), but felt the need to include my name as evidence presenter for evidence they didn't agree with. I asked them about the reason for this on the 4th, but didn't get a response.

Later that day, they suddenly moved their section to the top of the page[5] instead of following the normal order used in all(?) cases so far, and thus putting his analysis before everyone else's. User:Beyond My Ken questioned them about this on the 4th: "Why did you feel it necessary to move the "Analysis of evidence" section from the bottom of the page, where it normally lives, to near the top of the page?", but had to ping AGK explicitly to get a response, because "Sorry, I took it as a comment" (right...). Their arguments were rather weak, and included "As the case's drafting arbitrator I am generally responsible for ensuring the case proceeds on-time, fairly, and in the correct order.", when in fact they were only added as a second drafting arbitrator long after the case had opened (at their own request), and their actions were giving e.g. User:Lourdes the impression of "I feel it may represent that you have already adjudged GS even before this particular stage is over. I would suggest you withdraw from the case or at least as the drafting representative, to avoid questions of impropriety cropping up. I'm not saying that this is why you did it, but the impression is quite negative.", i.e. the exact opposite of the reason they gave for their actions.

In general, AGK has ignored many questions (in his evidence section, or in the above discussion), dodged others, and hasn't shown any indication that they listen to concerns (not from me as an involved party, but from anyone else), and see no problem at all with their actions and comments. When declining the request for recusal, they didn't address any of the actual complaints, only stating " And I was elected as an arbitrator whose record is one including clear, plain questions like the ones I asked you.". Now, I have no idea about their record or why they were elected, but it is plain to see that they did not ask me "clear, plain questions", but that they asked others some plainly leading questions instead.

An Arb who has prejudged the case before the evidence phase is even closed, an Arb who is pushing for evidence against someone they want to see as a party, but who fails to provide any evidence for their prejudice or any indication as to why they ask such questions, is not an Arb who seems inclined to look at the case (evidence + workshop) with an open mind, but one who has made up his mind before the evidence phase was even closed.

I asked them ""Positing these possibilities is unpleasant, but necessary in examining the full dispute." How? Has GS's behaviour been caused by my criticism? Have I caused them to rollback or block editors? You seem to imply that somehow my actions during the "dispute" can be a factor in favour of GS, or explaining their behaviour. It would be interesting if you could expand on that line of reasoning, as I don't really grasp it. Fram (talk) 11:44, 4 January 2019 (UTC)" They have failed to directlu answer these rather pertinent (and clear) questions, but instead gave the rather chilling and threatening reply

"Questions about your conduct during the dispute have now been asked 3 times, so I will just note your response. 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)" Answering questions about my conduct is entrely optional, and an Arb who instructs me otherwise is a problem. Questions about my conduct had been asked 3 times, but not to me, and no one else answered, so perhaps AGK would do better to note that total lack of response, instead of strongly implying that I may expect "proposals for discussion" about my conduct from "we" (AGK and...?).

In conclusion, while I don't know why AGK is doing all this or how he felt about me before the start of this case, he has shown a chilling lack of self-reflection during this case, a total inability to take on board criticism from anyone (not just from me), and has given multiple people the strong impression that they have already formed conclusions about this case, not based on the evidence presented in the case, but on, well, that part isn't clear, on something else which they haven't discussed but which will lead to workshop proposals about me, as I haven't been able to provide evidence contradicting his evidence-less accusations.

It seems unlikely from the above that other arbs will agree that they have to recuse, but I hope that their forthcoming proposals will be checked against the actual evidence, and that if needed others will jump in to assist WTT in drafting proposals actually based on the presented evidence, and not on what AGK thinks. From what I have seen so far, I have little faith in their objectivity or competence in that regard (see e.g. also their pseudo-legalistic use of Latin in the workshop page, hatting sections with a "verbatim" heading without including any literal, word-for-word elements but just his own table of actions). Fram (talk) 08:17, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

AGK refactored the page completely to get his own "analysis of the evidence" at the top

I almost never agree with Fram but I agree with most of their criticisms here. My impression is that AGK has taken a heavy handed approach without communicating effectively. Prejudging cases are difficult to avoid, as one of their colleagues noted above: "I find the notion that it's inappropriate for arbitrators to develop opinions during the case absurd". This is however entirely missing the point; it is not about arbitrators developing opinions (which is okay and natural, but are generally kept in mailing list or other private discussions), but the idea of showing the complete lack of impartiality by making a serious accusation (in the form of poorly worded questions) so openly this early in the case without recognising it as such, which to me is a problem. I don't think that was ever the intention however, as AGK have explained earlier as well. I also don't think there is any more purpose to protest this further. The ideal solution for me would be to release the proposed decision drafts sooner than planned, so that the community members here would have more chance to scrutinise any potential remedies that can be deemed as unfair when taking the current context into consideration. Alex Shih (talk) 09:16, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"Release the proposed decision drafts sooner than planned". Yes, that could work. It's unfortunate that AGK's absolutely odd approach has to be managed with justifications from the committee and other workarounds. I hope AGK takes on board the feedback from various editors and learns to stick to procedure than undertake odd moves (probably just to behave like the boss-man! Like I said, pretty unfortunate) Lourdes 17:18, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Update?

Any idea when the PD will be posted? Fram (talk) 15:01, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Please note I'll be away this weekend again - likely logging off in an hour or two, and not back until Monday? If I have chance to come back over the weekend I will... Giant Snowman 15:49, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Fram and GiantSnowman: See Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/GiantSnowman/Proposed decision#Running where AGK states they "plan to post the Proposed Decision on-wiki by early next week.". To keep everything together it's probably best to leave any further questions or comments there. Thryduulf (talk) 00:29, 26 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Thryduulf: many thanks. Giant Snowman 11:11, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Can't wait!-- Flooded with them hundreds 13:14, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Bread and circuses^^^ ——SerialNumber54129 13:22, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Administrator's accountability

I've tried post my comment related to the administrator accountability on the Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/GiantSnowman/Proposed decision page. I found that page read-only. On the project page it reads;

Administrators are expected to objectively consider criticism and questions relating to their decisions. For an administrator to not promptly and appropriately deal with concerns, without good cause, may constitute misconduct.

For the first time after Wikipedia launch on 15 January 2001! The above rule, as given, means what? Administrator who violated a Wikipedia code of conduct shall objectively consider criticism and questions of that violation? It may constitute misconduct?

As to the user accounts blocks where the block root cause was just the content dispute, opposite opinion or so - not violation of any of the Wikipedia rules, the administrator's decisions are mainly exerting authority over others, and complaints against such decisions are almost regularly turned into grave dancing. The mentioned grave dancing is mockery, further baseless accusations of the blocked user, or blind refusal to consider the user's defense.

There are numerous cases proving my statement above. --109.93.228.242 (talk) 17:14, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]