Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/GiantSnowman/Workshop

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

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.

Legacypac criticises Bradv, saying he is an administrator favouring other administrators (in this case GiantSnowman). Bradv is not an administrator. The Evidence phase has been completely protected. This is unfortunate, because IPs have been presenting useful evidence against GiantSnowman (they are frequently the targets of his abuse). Protection can only be effected by administrators, so an argument here that Guerillero (which I think is Spanish for "warrior") is favouring another administrator might gain greater traction. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.136.236.159 (talk) 09:05, 28 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I’m restoring the above post. This appears to be yet another example of administrators favouring administrators since Ymblanter (a previously de-sysopped administrator) has performed no actions relating to this case other than removing IP evidence and blocking the IPs who filed it. The latest block reason appears to be specious – he says "Block evasion:VXfC" but there is no editor registered under that name (I just checked). @Legacypac:, please note this administrator abuse. 81.148.173.57 (talk) 11:39, 28 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]