→Question for clerks @Bradv and @Guerillero: removed statement |
|||
Line 233: | Line 233: | ||
:::::Your thesis that any regular user who misused rollback in the way GiantSnowman is accused of doing would have had the rollback right revoked does seem intuitively obvious, but don't you think that making such a positive declarative statement rather burdens you with the responsibility of providing the evidence that this actually happened to at least one rank-and-file editor? And, obviously, the more instances that can be shown, the better to prove your point. Also, if there are other instances of admins similarly abusing rollback and not having the right removed, that would also bolster your case from the other side. [[User:Beyond My Ken|Beyond My Ken]] ([[User talk:Beyond My Ken|talk]]) 01:43, 24 December 2018 (UTC) |
:::::Your thesis that any regular user who misused rollback in the way GiantSnowman is accused of doing would have had the rollback right revoked does seem intuitively obvious, but don't you think that making such a positive declarative statement rather burdens you with the responsibility of providing the evidence that this actually happened to at least one rank-and-file editor? And, obviously, the more instances that can be shown, the better to prove your point. Also, if there are other instances of admins similarly abusing rollback and not having the right removed, that would also bolster your case from the other side. [[User:Beyond My Ken|Beyond My Ken]] ([[User talk:Beyond My Ken|talk]]) 01:43, 24 December 2018 (UTC) |
||
::::::Sure, anyone know how to search PERM removals? The Arbs, as Admins, know what would prompt them to remove a perm. Based on the people that are declined ROLLBACK [[Wikipedia:Requests_for_permissions/Rollback]] I doubt GS could pass a PERM review. [[User:Legacypac|Legacypac]] ([[User talk:Legacypac|talk]]) 05:23, 24 December 2018 (UTC) |
::::::Sure, anyone know how to search PERM removals? The Arbs, as Admins, know what would prompt them to remove a perm. Based on the people that are declined ROLLBACK [[Wikipedia:Requests_for_permissions/Rollback]] I doubt GS could pass a PERM review. [[User:Legacypac|Legacypac]] ([[User talk:Legacypac|talk]]) 05:23, 24 December 2018 (UTC) |
||
{{clerk note}} I have removed {{u|Legacypac}}'s statement and archived it here for now. This is inadmissible in its current form as it does not meet the requirements stated at the top of the evidence page. Please support your statements with diffs and resubmit. [[User_talk:Bradv|<span style="color:#C60">Brad</span>]][[Special:Contributions/Bradv|<span style="color:#C60">v</span>]]🍁 05:58, 24 December 2018 (UTC) |
|||
{{collapse top|Content moved from evidence page}} |
|||
===Inability to distinguish constructive from nonconstructive edits=== |
|||
While investigating the first rollbacks brought to ANi I did a series of random spot checks on edits rolled back. I found no edits that jumped out as unconstructive, but he blindly rolled back things like incrementing up by one number of games played, a missing player number, and additions and deletions from squads. He also rolled back good deletions and formatting corrections and improvements as "additions lacking sources". I initially suspected his account had been compromised because the first rollback brought to ANi looked more like vandalism than the work of a clueful editor. (see ANi thread) |
|||
===Rollback script removal meaningless=== |
|||
While GiantSnowman removed the rollback script under great pressure, as an Admin he retains the ability to use rollback as a bundled right, so the script removal is basically meaningless. His own evidence shows he still completely misunderstands the purpose of rollback and that he can not be trusted with rollback use. |
|||
===Any regular editor would have lost rollback=== |
|||
Many Admins would have removed rollback PERM from a regular user caught rolling back over 400 constructive edits from one user. If a chance to explain was offered, any Admin would have removed rollback PERM after an inadequate explanation was given without an AN, and certainly after the user misused rollback several more times while an ANi was under way. Many users would have been blocked in these circumstances, and all Admins would expect an unequivocal admission of guilt and promise not to do it again to grant an unblock (regardless of the facts of the case). GiantSnowman has received special grace because he is an Admin, yet he extends no grace to users he "thinks" are making unconstructive edits, [[Parable of the Unforgiving Servant|blocking them without mercy]] even for constructive edits that don't meet his standards. |
|||
One Arb suggested that some users are out to get Admins but don't want less strictness on regular users. That is not my point at all. We need to increase the AGF for established users and decrease the free passes for Admins so we all work under the same reasonable rules. Cases like this where the double standard is very obvious make regular editors resent the elitist Admin corp that close ranks around their own. We all are entitled to make mistakes, but we are not entitled to abuse advance permissions repeatedly without consequences. |
|||
{{collapse bottom}} |
Revision as of 05:58, 24 December 2018
Case clerk: TBD Drafting arbitrator: TBD
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.
Evidence page or explaining page?
@Bradv: Is GS allowed to explain in Evidence page by creating subsection like responding to xxx? Hhkohh (talk) 12:53, 18 December 2018 (UTC)
- Given that you "commented" on GS evidence first, I'm surprised by this question. Yes, it's generally allowed to put forward rebuttals in the evidence phase, though generally clerks will step in if matters fall into tit-for-tat. We also have an "analysis" of evidence section during the workshop phase, which allows for looking into any parts of evidence in more detail. Addendum: it's best to just focus on providing your evidence and not worry about what other people are writing. WormTT(talk) 12:58, 18 December 2018 (UTC)
GS' s evidence
(Moved from my section on the main evidence page, for length reasons and to avoid it becoming too much of a back-and-forth)
Extended content moved from evidence page
|
---|
GiantSnowman using personal attacks and misinformation to defend himselfAbove, in his reply to me, they start with "Once again, misrepresenting the truth: " (well, I presume they are trying to describe my evidence and not their reply). "Once again" is a personal attack if not supported by evidence, and "misrepresenting the truth"? Some examples:
An admin who, after it has been explained to them numerous times, still maintains at their Arb case that blocking people for adding unsourced content is the right thing to do (without any consideration of the correctness of the information), should not remain an admin any longer. Fram (talk) 17:53, 18 December 2018 (UTC)
@GiantSnowman: when I highlight another poor block [6], your response is this[7]: "*121.212.176.113 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) - blocked (for the second time) for repeated vandalism and unsourced content; they'd been issued a final warning 3 days prior to my block." Their only edit since that final warning was, like I clearly explained, a sourced and correct edit, actually correcting an error in the article (which you then reinserted). If you even can't check the facts during your ArbCom case, after it has been explained to you, but only repeat the incorrect claim that lead you to the block in the first place, then it becomes more and more obvious that you can't be trusted with the tools, since you block IPs based on incorrect information, and are either not willing or unable to check whether they make improvements or "vandalism" even when questioned about it. I have now rollbacked your reinsertion of the incorrect information as the vandalism it actually is. The chance that the IP editor returns after you blocked them for making an actual improvement is slim though, judging from their reaction then. I can't blame them. 10:14, 19 December 2018 (UTC) You since "clarified" you block with " In the edit highlighted by Fram, the IP was seemingly changing sourced content. It was fair to revert and view as vandalism."[8]. And here I was thinking that admins, before blocking someone, have the duty to check that the edit they believe to be vandalism actually is vandalism. What's the point of giving someone a warning, if they get blocked for their next edit no matter what? Yes, it takes a bit more time and effort. If you are not willing to make that effort but block anyway, and even worse continue to defend the block even after it has been pointed out that it was unwarranted, then you shouldn't be an admin. How hard is it to simply say "oops, I screwed up that one, after the previous problems I thought that that edit was vandalism, I should have looked better"? But instead, you simply repeat "repeated vandalism and unsourced content" as if repeating a mistake suddenly makes it correct. Fram (talk) 10:41, 19 December 2018 (UTC) |
This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|
Perhaps not exactly evidence but...
Clerk note: Any evidence from this section should be brought to the evidence page. Bradv🍁 00:20, 22 December 2018 (UTC)
This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
Thought I should bring attention to that while this is ongoing, GS is still biting newcomers and even straight up lying to their face. Not sure if this measures up to the evidence required here or if IP editors are even allowed to bring up evidence to begin with (not finding a policy about either). But latest example (as of posting this): IP editor adds info GS warns IP about unsourced, saying it's removed Rather than remove the info, GS adds further info If it was unsourced when the IP editor added it, well then it's unsourced when GS added to it since GS is just adding clarifying info to the location. If it's not unsourced, well then the warning wasn't warranted in the first place. Either way, GS warns a user saying it's removed, when adding more to the same, without adding any new references.84.219.252.47 (talk) 23:23, 19 December 2018 (UTC)
Hi Levivich, your comments about BLP are not correct - "All quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be supported by an inline citation to a reliable, published source" (my emphasis). GiantSnowman 08:39, 20 December 2018 (UTC)
A GS edit from today: [9]. If the change is not supported by the inline source, it is a BLP violation, right? Heck, even not updating a corresponding date is a BLP violation, right? One of these gets a warning, and after a few you get a block, right? Or do we assume good faith from our editors? To make a fuss about this "error" (can you spot it?) would be completely ridiculous, but this is the kind of "problem" edit which has caused much of the ArbCom case, leading to mass rollbacks, warnings, blocks, ... But only for others, of course, not for GS. Fram (talk) 10:21, 20 December 2018 (UTC) Or an edit from yesterday[10] about someone who died this week (recent deaths = BLP policy). GS added two sources, but the first is not about the subject at all, and the second contradicts information in the infobox (well, sometimes it does, sometimes it doesn't, it isn't even internally consistent). The problem with the first source is simply a typo, but that kind of excuse is not valid when others edit football BLPs, so... I guess we are, in their own twisted logic, now up to a second warning for BLP violations for GS? Fram (talk) 10:29, 20 December 2018 (UTC)
Hi @GiantSnowman: you wrote, "All unsourced content is likely to be challenged." Where does it say that? Not at WP:BLP, not at WP:INLINE, not at WP:FOOTBALL, that I can find. Please provide a source for that statement. I want you to know in no uncertain terms that, as a new editor, your writing that just now is the first time in a month that I've ever heard anybody say "all unsourced content" is likely to be challenged or needs a citation, for a BLP or any other type of article. I believe that is not written anywhere, or at least not in a policy. @Kosack: One of the problems in my view is that GS has not challenged the information prior to reverting it and/or posting warnings and/or issuing blocks. So reversion alone with an edit summary, "I challenge this as factual; please provide source," would be fine, but that doesn't merit a talk page warning. That's the challenge. If the other editor then replaced the challenged content without a source, then that would merit a warning as violating our policies. But GS's pattern is to revert and template in the first instance. We wouldn't be here if, instead of revert/templating/blocking, GS had posted a message to editors' talk pages along the lines of, "Hi, I think what you added is factually incorrect, because..." or if GS had just edited the factually incorrect information and replaced it with correct information, or added a source to unsourced information, instead of revert/template/block. Second, a challenge has to be in good faith. You can't just blanket challenge everything. Third, is there anything more easily verified than what team a professional athlete plays for, or what position, or what number they wear? This sort of information is extremely well documented on the internet in multiple reliable sources. "Challenging" such "vanilla" facts is nonsense. Fourth, once an editor "challenges" an unsourced fact, in my view, the editor becomes WP:INVOLVED in a content dispute, and thus cannot and should not use their admin tools, such as by blocking a user. Fifth, and most importantly, GS has blocked users even when the information they add is sourced, and even when they add more sources in response to talk page templates, such as the incident I laid out in the evidence I posted. Levivich (talk) 17:02, 20 December 2018 (UTC)
GS "vandalism" from yesterday: claiming that someone is born in "1.88m"[11]? Isn't that the kind of edit you find so terrible when an IP makes it? Isn't it perhaps time you realise that most editors (including IPs) are trying to help, and that a markup or technical error (not actual, intentional vandalism, but things like not updating a timestamp or not sourcing everything when adding things to a section where nothing was sourced to begin with, or even making a typo among a lot of good edits, or forgetting to add a source once between 25 sourced edits) is not a reason to rollback, warn, block, ... ? Following your own approach, this would have been your third vandalism warning in a row, and your next similar error would result in you being blocked (and no, this isn't a threat, I haven't issued any vandalism warnings and someone blocking you over this would deserve a desysop themselves). Fram (talk) 08:28, 21 December 2018 (UTC)
|
Lessons learned
Clerk note: Any evidence from this section should be brought to the evidence page. Bradv🍁 00:20, 22 December 2018 (UTC)
This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
User:107.77.173.7 makes some very poor edits, gets escalating warnings, the final warning on 13.15 today. At 13.16, they make one further edit, [15]. Result: one week block by GS. Problem; that edit was correct, the IP changed "is a professional soccer player who plays with Wigan" to "is a soccer player who played with Wigan". The Stoke Sentinel[16] makes it clear that the payer was released by Wigan this summer. His profile page at Wigan FC has been removed[17], he is not mentioned in any of their teams. Soccerbase lists him as having no club[18]. So yes, he isn't a professional player, and he doesn't play for Wigan. What's the point of a final warning if the editor gets blocked afterwards anyway for their next edit, no matter if it is correct or not? Once a vandal, always a vandal? Please unblock, apologize, and give them a friendly reminder of the need for sources. Fram (talk) 13:31, 20 December 2018 (UTC)
|
Levivich Evidence
Quick note, the original content added by VanTong18 was OR/Synth. The article added was correct and sourced part about the controversial call. It did not source this part:
Hey was criticized for his aggressive behaviour in this match towards the Vietnamese players and their manager Park Hang-seo. After the match, he faced further criticism and furor from Vietnamese fans when he posted a tweet targeting Park for refusing to shake his hand. Many fans were quick to point out the hypocrisy in Hey's tweet.
The tweet is not acceptable as a source for "aggressive behavior" or "hypocrisy" part. That is OR. Putting the two together makes it synth. spryde | talk 16:12, 20 December 2018 (UTC)
- @Spryde: Hello! I agree that the original content contained the unsourced material as you point out, but the editor corrected this problem and was blocked anyway. This may not be clear from my evidence. My initial draft of the evidence included quotations of the passages in question, but I was way over the 500 word limit, so I cut it down to just the table I posted. Since you've brought up the issue, and it case it may benefit the arbitrators, here are the various versions of the passage in question from Antoine Hey:
Extended content
|
---|
|
- The sentence in the original that was OR/SYNTH was sourced in the second version. A third source was added in the third version. And GS put the second sentence back in after the block. Nobody said to the editor "primary sources" or "Twitter" until after the block. Nobody pointed the editor to WP:PRIMARY or WP:PSTS. Nevertheless, the editor added proper sourcing for the material, and that material was–amazingly–restored by the blocking admin after the block. This new user, on their first day, added more sources and was blocked anyway. Levivich (talk) 17:31, 20 December 2018 (UTC)
Request to present additional evidence
I am over my 500-word limit. GS's statement above that he had been an admin for 7 years and never had a problem until recently prompted me to investigate. I went through a few of the search results for "GiantSnowman" at ANI and this is what I found. If it's useful to the arbitrators, I request permission to exceed the word limit so I can paste this content into my evidence section (just the diffs, or the quotes, too, if they're helpful... or none of it if it's not necessary). Thank you. Levivich (talk) 20:02, 20 December 2018 (UTC)
Requested addition from Levivich
|
---|
This 2013 thread about templating and threatening blocks in content disputes included this comment:
A second 2013 thread about GS entitled "Questioning an administrator's attitude" about GS's conduct in content disputes, ended with this comment:
A third 2013 thread, included a lengthy discussion about whether it was OK to block users for not properly categorizing articles:
A 2014 thread called "I want to report administrator GiantSnowman" ended with this comment:
A second 2014 thread about whether all content needed to be sourced, and when admin action should be taken:
|
Reply from GiantSnowman
|
---|
|
- I don't mind you going a bit over your 500 words Levivich, but I'm not one for dragging up 4 year old ANI threads in a scattergun approach. If it's directly relevant, fine, but otherwise do consider that 4 years is a long time on wiki WormTT(talk) 00:27, 23 December 2018 (UTC)
How another editor handled a similar situation 5 years ago
In researching "does every edit need to be sourced" debates, I came across this example which I think could be helpful to consider (and I ask for permission to add it to the evidence page):
In 2013, as a result of a discussion with another editor, a patrolling editor changed their "warning"/"information" template from this to this, and the other editor wrote, "I am very satisfied with the changes you have made, I think it looks really good. Thank you for making that change, much appreciated!" Levivich (talk) 02:12, 21 December 2018 (UTC)
Christmas
That's me pretty much done for the holidays - I won't be back properly until 2/3 January. I'll be around for a few hours here & there, but I probably won't have time to provide any more sub stative evidence or respond to others etc. before the 31st. I hope the Arbs take that into consideration.
I hope everyone has a merry Christmas and a happy New Year. Thanks, GiantSnowman 14:51, 21 December 2018 (UTC)
Equal treatment
Template:Ping:Legacypac It's certainly hard to argue with your general point that ordinary editors and admins should be treated equally for equal offenses, but I do want to bring up one point. For a rank-and-file editor, rollback is a user right which can easily be removed as a sanction for misusing it. For admins, however, it's part of a bundled package of rights and can't be separated. Therefore, the only way to remove the rollback right is by way of a desysop. This, however, is unequal treatment in the other direction: the removal of an editor's rollback right is much less consequential than a desysop is.
There is an alternative, though, which is that the admin can be topic banned from using rollback. This puts the onus on the admin not to push the rollback button, and if they do so accidentally to immediately self-revert and report themselves for the accidental violation.
This, it seems to me, is equal treatment. I hope you'll keep it in mind when we move to the workshop phase. Beyond My Ken (talk) 15:23, 22 December 2018 (UTC)
- @Legacypac: - Fixing malformed ping. See my comment above. Beyond My Ken (talk) 15:25, 22 December 2018 (UTC)
- User:Legacypac User:Beyond My Ken - Yes, an admin can be topic-banned from using rollback. To the best of my knowledge, this has not been done, but there is no reason it could not be done. However, there are also issues about blocks by Giant Snowman, and they need to be considered separately from rollback. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:16, 22 December 2018 (UTC)
- Yes I believe topic bans have been mentioned, but as an Arb said roughly, if we can't trust an Amin to use a basic tool like rollback correctly how can we trust them to be an Admin? I don't know the answer here but I sure wish GS was not so tone deaf and incapable of assessing a good edit from a bad edit. Legacypac (talk) 18:48, 22 December 2018 (UTC)
- The issue of the blocks aside -- I was only addressing the rollback issue -- I'm not sure I totally agree with Doug Weller that if we can't trust an admin to use rollback correctly we probably can't trust them in general. People have all sorts of strengths and weaknesses and foibles, and we really shouldn't expect an admin -- any more than any other human being --to be perfect in all respects. If the admin is otherwise a benefit to the community, but has shown a particular weakness (and there are no other issues), I do think we should consider dealing with that weakness specifically instead of applying an "all-or-nothing" standard. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:46, 22 December 2018 (UTC)
Question for clerks @Bradv and @Guerillero
Why has the original compolainant in this case been allowed to post an evidence-free diatribe against Gisnt Snowman on this evidence page? It's outright defiance of the Committee's rules, and a privilege not afforded to other users. The rules for the page are quite clear: "Evidence must include links to the actual page diff in question, or to a short page section". Why wasn't that section summarily removed? The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. (talk) 14:23, 23 December 2018 (UTC)
- I brought this to ArbComm because only ArbComm can deal with it. I'm an uninvolved non-Admin user who saw a thread at AN. The AN thread and other users submissions contain all the evidence. I'm unclear how to post diffs showing that regular users would have lost advanced permissions, but GS has not lost any permissions for behaviour that would have cost anyone else rollback PERM. Would you like me to provide another link to the AN discussion in case an Arb can't find it? Legacypac (talk) 20:42, 23 December 2018 (UTC)
- Clerk note: Legacypac, please support your evidence with diffs in accordance with the expectations outlined at the top of the Evidence page. Statements that cannot be substantiated should be removed. Bradv🍁 20:59, 23 December 2018 (UTC)
- Would you like me to dig up a list of diffs for non-Admins that have had WP:PERMs yanked? Would that really help the Arbs understand? Legacypac (talk) 21:06, 23 December 2018 (UTC)
- Your thesis that any regular user who misused rollback in the way GiantSnowman is accused of doing would have had the rollback right revoked does seem intuitively obvious, but don't you think that making such a positive declarative statement rather burdens you with the responsibility of providing the evidence that this actually happened to at least one rank-and-file editor? And, obviously, the more instances that can be shown, the better to prove your point. Also, if there are other instances of admins similarly abusing rollback and not having the right removed, that would also bolster your case from the other side. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:43, 24 December 2018 (UTC)
- Sure, anyone know how to search PERM removals? The Arbs, as Admins, know what would prompt them to remove a perm. Based on the people that are declined ROLLBACK Wikipedia:Requests_for_permissions/Rollback I doubt GS could pass a PERM review. Legacypac (talk) 05:23, 24 December 2018 (UTC)
- Your thesis that any regular user who misused rollback in the way GiantSnowman is accused of doing would have had the rollback right revoked does seem intuitively obvious, but don't you think that making such a positive declarative statement rather burdens you with the responsibility of providing the evidence that this actually happened to at least one rank-and-file editor? And, obviously, the more instances that can be shown, the better to prove your point. Also, if there are other instances of admins similarly abusing rollback and not having the right removed, that would also bolster your case from the other side. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:43, 24 December 2018 (UTC)
- Would you like me to dig up a list of diffs for non-Admins that have had WP:PERMs yanked? Would that really help the Arbs understand? Legacypac (talk) 21:06, 23 December 2018 (UTC)
- Clerk note: Legacypac, please support your evidence with diffs in accordance with the expectations outlined at the top of the Evidence page. Statements that cannot be substantiated should be removed. Bradv🍁 20:59, 23 December 2018 (UTC)
- I brought this to ArbComm because only ArbComm can deal with it. I'm an uninvolved non-Admin user who saw a thread at AN. The AN thread and other users submissions contain all the evidence. I'm unclear how to post diffs showing that regular users would have lost advanced permissions, but GS has not lost any permissions for behaviour that would have cost anyone else rollback PERM. Would you like me to provide another link to the AN discussion in case an Arb can't find it? Legacypac (talk) 20:42, 23 December 2018 (UTC)
Clerk note: I have removed Legacypac's statement and archived it here for now. This is inadmissible in its current form as it does not meet the requirements stated at the top of the evidence page. Please support your statements with diffs and resubmit. Bradv🍁 05:58, 24 December 2018 (UTC)
Content moved from evidence page
|
---|
Inability to distinguish constructive from nonconstructive editsWhile investigating the first rollbacks brought to ANi I did a series of random spot checks on edits rolled back. I found no edits that jumped out as unconstructive, but he blindly rolled back things like incrementing up by one number of games played, a missing player number, and additions and deletions from squads. He also rolled back good deletions and formatting corrections and improvements as "additions lacking sources". I initially suspected his account had been compromised because the first rollback brought to ANi looked more like vandalism than the work of a clueful editor. (see ANi thread) Rollback script removal meaninglessWhile GiantSnowman removed the rollback script under great pressure, as an Admin he retains the ability to use rollback as a bundled right, so the script removal is basically meaningless. His own evidence shows he still completely misunderstands the purpose of rollback and that he can not be trusted with rollback use. Any regular editor would have lost rollbackMany Admins would have removed rollback PERM from a regular user caught rolling back over 400 constructive edits from one user. If a chance to explain was offered, any Admin would have removed rollback PERM after an inadequate explanation was given without an AN, and certainly after the user misused rollback several more times while an ANi was under way. Many users would have been blocked in these circumstances, and all Admins would expect an unequivocal admission of guilt and promise not to do it again to grant an unblock (regardless of the facts of the case). GiantSnowman has received special grace because he is an Admin, yet he extends no grace to users he "thinks" are making unconstructive edits, blocking them without mercy even for constructive edits that don't meet his standards. One Arb suggested that some users are out to get Admins but don't want less strictness on regular users. That is not my point at all. We need to increase the AGF for established users and decrease the free passes for Admins so we all work under the same reasonable rules. Cases like this where the double standard is very obvious make regular editors resent the elitist Admin corp that close ranks around their own. We all are entitled to make mistakes, but we are not entitled to abuse advance permissions repeatedly without consequences. |