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
Audit Talk Statistics Talk Reports (pre-2016)

Track related changes
v t e

Proposed final decision

Proposals by PeterTheFourth

Proposed principles

Civility is a pillar

1) Civility is a pillar of Wikipedia - a fundamental principle. It is not optional, or any less important than any other part of Wikipedia. Mistakes may occur, but editors should always make an effort to adhere by it.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed findings of fact

DHeyward

1) DHeyward has acted grossly uncivilly to Gamaliel ([1], [2], [3], [4]). DHeyward has since apologised for his behaviour.[5]. PeterTheFourth (talk) 03:28, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Obviously false, as I apologized on the evidence page and didn't challenge any removals. I also regret any mis-characterizations but I explained them inline with the accusations made and they were not incivil. It was not my intent to be incivil and I certainly do apologize if it was taken that way. We all know there are "wiki ways" to rephrase arguments to be about conduct and behavior but I took a higher road and chose not to repeat it at all. --DHeyward (talk) 22:40, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Diff as requested of apology for comments that were deemed incivil from April 30. [6]. --DHeyward (talk) 02:24, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Out of scope to include evidence of a pattern of incivility (e.g. the time he likened Gamaliel to a nazi.) Some examples from April I cannot link to as they have been redacted, such as those here. PeterTheFourth (talk) 03:16, 8 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

DHeyward, would you please give a diff where you apologise for the misconduct? PeterTheFourth (talk) 23:12, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@DHeyward: Thanks! PeterTheFourth (talk) 03:28, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed remedies

Note: All remedies that refer to a period of time, for example to a ban of X months or a revert parole of Y months, are to run concurrently unless otherwise stated.

DHeyward admonished

1.1) DHeyward reminded that WP:CIVILITY is a pillar.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Rare. PeterTheFourth (talk) 03:16, 8 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

DHeyward interaction banned

1.2) DHeyward is indefinitely prohibited from interacting with or discussing Gamaliel.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Medium. PeterTheFourth (talk) 03:16, 8 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Proposals by Kingsindian

Proposed principles

WP:PILLAR

1) Wikipedia is an encylopedia.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed findings of fact

Gamergate drama

1) Gamergate has been the subject of countless drama, including an ArbCom case and numerous ANI and AE requests.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

At Wits' End

2) ArbCom has applied "At Wits' End" remedy elsewhere.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

At Wits' End has always struck me as rather lame -- if the committee is actually "at wit's end," they should resign; if not, it's pointless melodrama. NE Ent 21:25, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Existence of real-life harassment

3) There are all kinds of examples of harassment related to Gamergate. Whether they are done by trolls or sincere people is not relevant here.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Few ways of dealing with harassment

4) WMF and Wikipedia have very little power over real-life harassment. The cases of JarlaxleArtemis and Lightbreather are relevant here, but there are many others.

Comment by Arbitrators:

"Few" does not mean "none". We should try to avoid our actions contributing to , encouraging, or abetting harassment. DGG ( talk ) 00:41, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed remedies

Note: All remedies that refer to a period of time, for example to a ban of X months or a revert parole of Y months, are to run concurrently unless otherwise stated.

Gamergate article is deleted

1) The Gamergate article is deleted, reduced to a stub and locked.

Comment by Arbitrators:

totally outside our authority. The question is a matter for the community, which has made is decision; the two afds on it were closed as keep,and speedy keep. DGG ( talk ) 17:54, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Arbcom rarely interferes with content. Their remit is mainly to try and solve behavioral issues. Even so, the article in question likely should exist but as proposed only as a stub.--MONGO 04:42, 8 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

In case this was not clear, ArbCom will of course not direct what should be written in the stub. That will be left to the community. This is somewhat analogous to the Judea and Samaria case here, where there was a structured way of getting consensus on the issue. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 06:35, 8 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If they once again indicate that they are, basically, at the end of their rope, I myself would not necessarily object to this proposal. It might be useful to see how many hits and other forms of attention it gets, along with related articles, or, alternately, place the article and other related articles under full protection as per WP:FULL to only allow changes to be made by specific request on the article talk page. That would be an extreme step as well, of course, but might be worth a try. John Carter (talk) 23:53, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• A very dangerous precedent, bowdlerizing WP content for political purposes. Carrite (talk) 16:53, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Carrite, and cannot support this proposal. GAB^Hello! 22:16, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

BLPs related to Gamergate

2) All BLPs primarily related to Gamergate (Zoe Quinn, Brianna Wu, for instance) are deleted, reduced to a stub and locked.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Oh what a relief that would be, almost as great a relief as it would be a shit storm--but it's outside the scope of this case. Drmies (talk) 16:58, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Not only outside the scope,but outside our authority. The community decides on content, and I cannot imagine it making a decision so utterly opposed to the fundamental principle of NOT CENSORED. DGG ( talk ) 17:56, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

• Again, a dangerous precedent, bringing ArbCom into the picture as supreme decision-maker over content. Well outside the committee's scope and competence... Carrite (talk) 16:55, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Carrite, I resemble that remark. Drmies (talk) 16:58, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

As above, I strongly oppose any editorial role of Arbcom to declare certain articles verboten. GAB^Hello! 22:17, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Reducing to a stub, no, I don't think that is necessarily called for. Full protection would be a different matter. John Carter (talk) 16:59, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Proposals by User:BU Rob13

Proposed principles

Biographies of living persons

1) Articles relating to living individuals continue to be among the most sensitive content on Wikipedia. As the English Wikipedia remains one of the most prominent and visited websites in the world, a Wikipedia article about an individual will often be among the highest-ranking results in any search for information about that individual. The contents of these articles may directly affect their subjects' lives, reputations, and well-being. Therefore, while all Wikipedia articles should be factually accurate, be based upon reliable sources, and be written from a neutral point of view, it is especially important that content relating to living persons must adhere to these standards.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Irrelevant. the issue before us is not an article. DGG ( talk ) 17:57, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Copied from Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Manipulation of BLPs. Unchanged from the original, but it may be worthwhile to change articles to pages in a few spots. ~ Rob^Talk 04:46, 8 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Standards for biographical articles

2) Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons (the "BLP policy") is a fundamental policy requiring, among other things, that all biographical articles must be kept free of unsourced negative or controversial content, unsupported rumors and gossip, defamatory material, undue weight given to minor incidents or to matters irrelevant to the subject's notability, and unwarranted violations of personal privacy.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Irrelevant. This case is not about conduct relating to an article. DGG ( talk ) 17:58, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Application of the BLP policy

3) There is widespread agreement in the Wikipedia community regarding the importance of the BLP policy. The policy has been adopted and since its inception repeatedly expanded and strengthened by the community. In addition, this Committee has reaffirmed the values expressed through that policy in a series of decisions and motions, and fundamental norms concerning biographical articles have been emphasized in a resolution of the Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees. Moreover, there is widespread agreement that the BLP policy applies to all pages on Wikipedia, including those in the Wikipedia namespace.

Comment by Arbitrators:

The standards do indeed vary: they are stricter in mainspace than elsewhere. DGG ( talk ) 00:43, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

WP:CRYBLP: "This page in a nutshell: Insisting that a non-BLP issue is in fact a BLP crisis is not helpful to building an encyclopedia." No encyclopedia building occurred within the scope of this case, therefore CRYBLP is not applicable. NE Ent 10:00, 8 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Drmies: ~~The signpost is not building an encyclopedia when it posts an "April's Fools Day" "joke" on April 3; it doesn't improve the encyclopedia at all.~~ NE Ent 21:07, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

April 3? Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 21:45, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Good point. ~~Make that "skips its usual Wednesday publication date (see 2016 pub dates) to make a lame joke issue and then makes a fuss on an April 3 MFD"~~NE Ent 10:02, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@NE Ent: even when I was the editor, that Wednesday date was only nominal. It didn't reflect the 'real' date of publication because of bot limitations. Now that they've coded a new bot, they no longer have to publish under an incorrect date. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 16:17, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Drmies: The signpost is not building an encyclopedia when it post an April's Fool Day "joke" that garned maybe 44 page views on the actual day and the makes a fuss over its proposed deletion on April 3rd. NE Ent 00:12, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please, NE Ent. As has been explained umpteen times already, that page only existed to create a blue link in the side bar. Nobody was expected to actually go visit that page. The April Fools piece itself got a thousand views on April 1/2 (which includes the April 1 evening views in the US). Andreas JN 466 12:24, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Which has generally been rejected as an excuse. 'No one could be expected to go visit the page' is not an acceptable reason to violate the BLP policy any more than 'It was just a joke' is. Only in death does duty end (talk) 12:37, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Everybody agrees with you. Gamaliel said weeks ago that creating the dummy page, as a quick method to generate a sidebar in the actual article, was wrong. I was responding to Ne Ent's reference to "44 page views". I wish those 44 page views had been directed to April Fools' Day from the beginning. Andreas JN 466 13:31, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

In other words, as soon as there was good faith complaint about BLP content Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2010-03-17/News and notes could have simply been changed to (e.g.)Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Gamaliel and others/Workshop/News and Notes?, as opposed to MFD -> ANI -> Arbcom? This wasn't making a mountain out of a molehill, this was making a supernova out of a neutrino. Please provide a diff of Gamaliel's statement. NE Ent 20:11, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@NE Ent: Diffs:

[7] ("agree with the wider community's viewpoint in the discussion that the standalone page was a problem")
[8] ("I admit the subpage was a mistake and in retrospect I should have found a better way to do that.")
[9] ("I understand the community objections to the dummy standalone pages I created to make the template work and I wish I had found a better way to create that template")

The small hands reference in the April Fools' piece actually was piped to April Fools' Day well before this case started, and subsequently deleted by an editor who felt this still wasn't enough to address his BLP concerns. I didn't agree with his view, but saw no reason to edit-war over it. --Andreas JN 466 07:27, 14 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@DGG:mainspace is the only place where derogatory information is appropriate, as it supports our mission as an encyclopedia there; the standards should be stricter elsewhere. WP:BLPTALK gives an example of how to reference off site material for discussion without posting it on-wiki for good reason. NE Ent 23:19, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

quite the opposite. Articles in mainspace is the place where derogatory information is most harmful, for it is indexed and permanently visible and prominent. Our standards for the sourcing and authenticity of derogatory information there are and ought to be very much higher than elsewhere. Even when no derogatory information is involved, to avoid even the possibility of misinterpretation, we do not nowadays but irreverent jokes about living individuals in mainspace, even on April 1. In such a location, but only in such a location, someone foolish enough might take it for actual misinformation. DGG ( talk ) 03:48, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Apples and oranges; you're pointing out (correctly) mainspace has the greatest potential for damaging reputations, I'm pointing out (correctly) mainspace is the only place there is an encyclopedic purpose to be posting derogatory statements. We should be considering benefit to cost; using arbitrary made up units, a mainspace 2000 / 500 benefit to ratio is infinitely larger than a wikipedia space 0 / 10. NE Ent 09:48, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@DGG: Yes, BLP standards do vary but only in the context of building the encyclopedia. ArbCom is an area where there are plenty of potential BLP issues but is considered necessary. Same for Talk spaces. While ((noindex)) are ways to make them less visible but in the end, once they are no longer needed for the encyclopedia and a request is made to remove them, the bar is very low. There are plenty of privacy/courtesy case page blankings that I would say fall under the BLP umbrella. Otherwise, why would it be done? --DHeyward (talk) 03:16, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

They are done in order to avoid the possibility of doing harm to individuals. The essence of a blp violation is that it is doing harm to living individuals. Nothing said on that signpost page had the remotest possibility of doing harm to any living individual. I have never understood why you or anyone could have thought otherwise. Can you specify the potential harm? DGG ( talk ) 03:43, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If "harm" were the only standard that needed to be proven, your argument would apply but it's not. "Contentious material" is to be removed without a source. It's pretty clear that political satire or commentary, without citation, that degrades candidates is going to be "contentious" whether it causes harm or not to the individual named. Would you leave a false claim like what was in Signpost in an article simply because there was no harm to the individual even if it offended a population? Measuring harm to the individual is the narrowest of scope and certainly not the only scope considered where "contentious material" is concerned. This doesn't mention harm at all and is the foundation of when this policy started. "Negative material" evolved into "contentious material" Nothing says "contentious" better than an edit war. --DHeyward (talk) 04:18, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"contentious" implies that one or another of the possibilities is potentially harmful; it has always been interpreted as reasonably contentious. .We do not in practice use the full weight of BLP policy for innocuous material. Rather, its worded generally to provide the necessary flexibility for its proper use. DGG ( talk ) 17:50, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

We certainly do use it. We don't put "citation needed" on material that is contentious and unsourced about living people. "reasonable" is determined by consensus, not one editor edit warring to restore it. The restriction isn't on removal, it's on behavior after removal. We may not say that an act exempts 3RR or a topic Ban largely for disruption reason but the proper course is still for the editor that wants it retained to get a source or get consensus at BLPN or the talk page. It's so broad that even anonymous IP's with aspersions cast without a diff will be removed (no harm possible, they are anonymous, right?). It's so broad that links and quotes from the Washington Post have been revdel'd from a talk page just in the last few weeks by an arbitrator. Is it possible for a talk page citing/quotin Washington Post to meet your definition? I agreed with that removal precisely because BLP is broader than "sourced" or "harmed." --DHeyward (talk) 19:38, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note the wording:"contentious" there is a difference between contentious and disputable. Contentious implies potential harm. We need to reserve the appropriately strict rules of lBLP policy for when it actually matters--we certainly have enough such cases, and there when there is, strict enforcement is essential, and nobody should be permitted to interfere with it. But trivialities are trivialities, and if we concentrate our efforts on these, we will have no time for actually fixing what needs fixing. Some admins do indeed enforce BLP unreasonably, and they are almost as much a danger to the properly strict enforcement as any who fail to enforce it when really needed. Such cases do not normally come here, but perhaps they ought to. DGG ( talk ) 03:48, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No, we need to get in the habit of not talking smack about people. If we apply the rules all the time, we will be applying them when it matters and not wasting time arguing over stupid stuff. NE Ent 09:53, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

But DHeyward, half the things said on this very page could be removed by that token (i.e. that contentious material without a source should be removed). And when you ask DGG, "Would you leave a false claim like what was in Signpost in an article", you're implicitly treating mainspace and project space the same. You'll be hard-pressed to find anyone to disagree with your view that satire in article space is absolutely inappropriate. But you can find a lot of satire and humour in project space (essays etc.). Lest there be any doubt on this, I have already said that I consider the Trump piece to have been ill-advised for the Signpost. There should be no repeats. But I can't escape the feeling that your reasoning above, and that of others on this page, has lost sight of the wood for the trees. It's as though policy wordings have acquired a life of their own, divorced from the realities they are meant to address, and those wordings are then applied selectively: putting one thing under a magnifying glass, while failing completely to consider what equally zealous application of the same reasoning would mean to myriad other things said on Wikipedia – including the things said on this page, or the assertion made on WP:REICHSTAG about the Queen of England. I could go ahead and delete that, citing WP:BLP, but is this really how you'd want things to be, that we all start hunting jokes in project space? --Andreas JN 466 15:37, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Not at all, but BLP would be a valid reason to remove material while waiting for consensus to see if it is. This being silly season, the political jokes at one parties expense are going to be contentious. Whatever anybody thinks of Clinton, Sanders or Trump, is going to be contentious in any space. Evaluating the statement only against "harm" is too much leeway for abuse. This was an example of that. An edit war over a silly joke about a candidate, an Arbcom case and disputes about whether it "really" was a BLP violation - to me at least - it's prima facie evidence that it is a BLP issue simply because it's contentious. It has to be interpreted that way or 1000 admins will be injecting their own views into "harm." That will be chaos. I agree it's certainly not uniform in either space or scope and we use judgement/consensus and have humorous pieces but I think it's clear that references to politicians facing elections in 6 months should be judged with little leeway. --DHeyward (talk) 19:38, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

On a first principles basis, BLP policy starts with unsourced material about a living person.. The next step is unsourced negative material. It's the tertiary principle of "harmful" that invokes sanctions but it's not where BLP begins. It seems to undermine the process to narrow the principle between "unsourced negative material" and "harmful material." No one should restore material removed under BLP without clear consensus or meeting the deletionists demand for sourcing. "Harm" is not the first principle because no one is qualifies to individually asses "harm" but nearly everyon can identify a reliable source or lack of onw. This case fundamentally lacked a source that was bound to be contentious. --DHeyward (talk) 06:11, 14 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Copied from Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Manipulation of BLPs. Last sentence added due to applicability to this case. ~ Rob^Talk 04:46, 8 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I do not object to the statement, however, it is incomplete. BLP applies everywhere, but the standards are not the same. Talk pages of articles are littered with examples which never make it into article space. One must use common sense in its application.

Moreover, since BLP allows unilateral action without consensus, and is exempted from 3RR, its use must be carefully circumscribed and reserved for clear-cut cases. In fact, this case turns substantially on the point of whether there was a BLP violation, because matters were inflamed by repeated edit-warring over exactly this point. A very large amount of Gamergate-related drama also flowed from this exact situation, where people even disregarded their topic bans to redact what they considered to be BLP violations. The statements made in evidence also show that BLP is poorly understood, even by admins and Arbs. It is no accident that there is an essay called WP:CRYBLP. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 06:25, 8 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, and I think whether there was an actual BLP violation will have to be a finding of fact. Principles are just broad statements on policies, guidelines, and community norms that apply to the case. The incompleteness of whether an actual BLP violation occurred here must be "filled in" with the findings of fact. I'm not interested in proposing findings of fact or outcomes, personally. I'm just suggesting appropriate principles based on past cases, mostly to make sure the arbs aren't missing any of the issues I see as central to this case. ~ Rob^Talk 06:39, 8 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I concur with both the statement, and the comment by KingsIndian that BLP is poorly understood (though we differ on the specifics), as included in my evidence statement. Issues that I see are the following are not well understood: a) that something can be both a BLP violation, and also not redactable; b) application of BLP to statements on Talk pages; c) application of BLP to links on Talk pages. - Ryk72 ^'c.s.n.s.' 08:08, 8 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Dear NE Ent, please explain to me how the Signpost is not "building an encyclopedia". The way I see it, it helps build community, just like user pages and user talk pages can do, and what builds community helps build a collaborative encyclopedia. Kingsindian, I think you put the cart before the horse--"poorly understood" suggests that there is a true and correct reading of BLP but we're just not getting it, though it also suggests that some people are getting it. I agree that "BLP applies everywhere, but the standards are not the same"; DGG has argued the same point, and I think practically speaking every admin (at least one who has read BLPTALK) will act accordingly. (Ryk72, I do not see why your item b. is an item--I think there is broad agreement on the applicability of BLP (and links) in "Talk" space, both article and user talk.) But WP:BLP is really only very specific about a. article space ("We must get the article right") and b. article talk space--though BLPTALK's opening sentence, "Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced and not related to making content choices should be removed, deleted, or oversighted, as appropriate", seems to apply across the board. If that is read strictly (and thus applied to the Signpost), satire would be impossible.
The more I look into it, the more I am beginning to feel that there are very different choices to make. One is to start a community-wide RfC on whether the Signpost should be more or less exempt and allowed to include satire (under some editorial, BLP-inflected control). Another is to simply posit "Signpost must adhere to BLP in the strict way" (also given its possible outside readership, indicated in another section by Jbhunley). The committee cannot "do" the first thing--an RfC is a community decision. We could propose the second thing, though as we've seen there's no agreement on that in the community nor, as I think is clear, in the committee. And I think a final question is, given the current lack of agreement--since I do not believe we can insist that the strict reading is right and the less strict one wrong--whether Gamaliel had an expectation that his supposed BLP violation would be judged as harshly as it was. (Whether he was correct or reasonable in his alleged tenaciously hanging on to his own interpretation is another matter.) Drmies (talk) 16:09, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Drmies: Whether or not the Signpost 'builds community' is debatable (ie. perhaps): witness, for example, this case. What one could perhaps say on firmer ground is it builds a sub-community but that's not the same thing. Then too, your elision of the encyclopedia and the community is indirect, and a sub-community even more tenuous. But what is most certainly incorrect is your statement that satire would be impossible, anywhere - it's just not true that satire has to violate BLP, or even deal with a living person. BLP demands care - there is no reason whatsoever that satire cannot have care when a living person is involved (that's neither strict nor liberal reading of BLP, just plain, and it is merely putting the risk where it belongs, with the speaker asked to take care) -- all the more so, since a satire (LP or not) is most certainly not the purpose of the Project. Alanscottwalker (talk) 18:20, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Alanscottwalker, I'm just asking questions. I didn't leave anything out, certainly not to weave sophistries, but I can't easily parse your "then too" sentence. Whether everyone reads the Signpost or not, whether it's "community" or a segment of the community, big or small, that's a side matter. My mention of "satire" pertains to this case--but satire of dead people, or fish, or mineral, I just don't know many examples of that. But I maintain that a literal reading of BLP disallows satire of LPs, yes, because satire, if it doesn't hurt, is not effective. But maybe I read too much Swift and Montagu. Drmies (talk) 21:35, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Drimies: I'm sorry, I most definitely did not think you were doing those things, please forgive me for giving you that impression. I was thinking of Swift (and I could not recall any LP in his own day in A Modest Proposal; or A Clockwork Orange; or many other examples of lampooning things other than LPs. (Could you imagine a satire on this process? No names please. And I think there are some humorous WP essays on some inanimate aspect of the project) . But yes, I agree with you that where an LP is the subject and the target, as opposed to perhaps a bit part, quotee, and non-target - a BLP quagmire ensues - can I get a witness!? - at any rate, I'm sorry again, I misread you, I thought you were speaking of all satire not just a small slice. Alanscottwalker (talk) 00:48, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Alanscottwalker, thinking over Swift and the BLP--you are more right than I was in at least one way; it's hard to pick out a living person satirized in "The Lady's Dressing Room", for instance. "Strephon" is just a generic name. I always follow that poem with (predictably...) "The Reasons that Induced Dr. S. to Write a Poem Call'd the Lady's Dressing Room", which is a pretty severe and righteous satire of Dr. Swift and a gross violation of BLP, haha. So I guess I could have been more clear/sharp at the beginning. But where do we find satire today that does not focus on a specific person? It seems to me that a publication like the Signpost will typically play on a specific, well-known person, if it does satire at all; we're just that topical these days. I do believe that a publication like the Signpost engages in community building--or at least tries to--since that's what newsletters do; they're not just blandly informative, they also celebrate community efforts. (I speak from some experience, though I am by no means a communications scholar.) Having said all that, I do think that a wider discussion on the Signpost is relevant, as is one on the BLP and its "strictness". If DGG is correct in his "as long as it does no harm" argument, that sets certain standards which differ from one space to another. I do think that we all agree to some extent or other that there are different spaces--some of which speak "in Wikipedia's voice", others don't, or to a lesser extent. Thanks for giving me the chance to clarify what I may have left murky. Drmies (talk) 14:10, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome, but Drmies, come now. If I may, modern satire on the real life missing bees problem (no LP) (for those unfamiliar with the 'straight' issue [10]); modern satire on the real God (is He an LP); modern satire on Government, who of course can make do all manner of unthinkable things including presumably doing away with LP's (no actual LP was used in this process); WP Admin problems (LP/not LP?) . . . s'ree-us-ly, now. Alanscottwalker (talk) 14:54, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

On the other matter, DGG is most definitely wrong by the letter and the spirit of BLP (and the position he argues for is a disaster for LP's, for the community, and for the encyclopedia project - making all BLP discussions about 'how much did you really hurt, let me repeat the hurt, to see if it hurts, does that really hurt' 'can't you hurt them, in this discussion about hurting them', If this hurts, does this hurt, but maybe that does not hurt' all in the service of the untrue and useless - and Arbcom has no power to interdict BLPTALK and BLPREMOVE, no matter how much its individual members like the useless statement (or the idea of the useless statement). I'm sure you know all the arguments by now, but BLP, demands care and DGG's position does not promote care (especially on the internet, which is one of the reasons blp exists) in addition to the fact that the project values neutrality, and truthfulness and does not value LP derision, mocking, etc. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 15:46, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I would be a little less extreme than DGG: material may violate WP:BLP without causing harm (for example, unduly promotional material about a living person). However, in deciding how to respond to a BLP violation, the degree of potential real-life harm is an important, if not the important, consideration in identifying a proportionate response. MastCell ^Talk 17:08, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

In part, but as you note, it's not "harm" in the sense of a vague personal feeling or individual belief - rather it is more defined, concerning accuracy, high quality sourcing, tone, balance - and yes we have different editorial responses: from rewrite, to redaction, to removal to del, to rev del and oversight, and different inter-operational responses: from advice, to reproof, to warn, to admonish, to block, to ban. Alanscottwalker (talk) 13:20, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes other principles than BLP also apply to articles on living people, including all other other policies ofWikipedia which you have just mentioned. They apply there as they do to all articles, with the important qualifier that they are many of them interpreted somewhat more strictly, such as proper sourcing. for example, I've personally deleted thousands of bios of living people based on speedy criteria A7 or G11, but those are not specific BLP considerations, and the same rules for reverting changes and BRD do not apply. If, for example, I remove what I think is a improper EL to a bio article, someone who thinks otherwise may ad it back, and then we must discuss it, not take it to a noticeboard. And of course there is one special provision that does apply to all Bios of living people, BLPPROD, that we do not permit unsourced articles on them. DGG ( talk ) 23:55, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Drmies You're asking NE Ent to prove a negative there. You need to rephrase your comments and ask NE Ent to challenge them. Absconded Northerner (talk) 21:18, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

NE Ent is advancing a controversial hypothesis without evidence. Drmies is asking for evidence. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 21:47, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

By JAQing off. Both are common ways of trying to derail an argument. Absconded Northerner (talk) 21:50, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I assure you it is not my intent to excite you; or maybe I misunderstand. (Both? what's the other? what was the one?) Ent proposes something in good faith, and I appreciate that, and then people ask questions. That's how things go. If you have any incisive questions or insightful commentary about this rather serious matter, I'm all ears. Drmies (talk) 21:55, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You asked NE Ent to prove a negative, and when User:Alanscottwalker challenged you on another point, replied that you were "just asking questions". Those are the two, as should have been abundantly clear. Absconded Northerner (talk) 04:53, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Drmies: Ryk72, I do not see why your item b. is an item--I think there is broad agreement on the applicability of BLP (and links) in "Talk" space, both article and user talk.
I concur that there is broad agreement that BLP applies in "Talk" space; but suggest that there is broad confusion on how BLP applies.
We have BLPTALK, which prescribes how we should deal with "contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced and not related to making content choices", but I have observed instances of sourced information being redacted, even revdeled; on occasion by very experienced Wikipedians. BLPTALK also prescribes a method to facilitate discussion of contentious off-site material, without introducing or repeating that material on Wiki; but I have observed instances of that method being followed stimmt, with resulting redactions and revdeletions (and more); on occasion by very experienced Wikipedians. BLPTALK also describes how it applies to Project space, where "leeway is permitted to allow the handling of administrative issues by the community"; but I have observed instances of relevant, sourced information; with resulting redactions & revdeletions; on occasion by very experienced Wikipedians.
A significant proportion of editors conceive that BLP (mainspace) stops at "sourced"; a significant proportion of editors conceive that BLP redactions (3RR exempt) do not stop at "contentious and unsourced/poorly sourced", but cover anything considered "harmful" to living persons. I know if I go through my own edit history I will find occasions where I have gotten both of these wrong; so I don't suggest that I'm some BLP guru; only that we could be clearer & more consistent, and written policy could be better aligned to community consensus.
I would humbly & respectfully ask that, as a FoF & Remedy of this Case, ArbCom request that the community review the written BLP policy for clarity and for alignment with community practice, and, as necessary & per consensus, revise it to ensure alignment.
Hopefully that, long-winded though it be, makes more sense. - Ryk72 ^'c.s.n.s.' 10:51, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ryk72, admins can disagree on what needs revdeletion and what doesn't. That's a bad thing; oversighters of course make more drastic decisions, sometimes. I can lift a corner of the veil and tell you that admins and oversighters, in their secret cabals and their hideouts on the Silk Road in the Dark Web, do discuss these things. Actually, it's no secret: Wikipedia:Oversight (I'll use that as an example) outlines that there is a process for reporting things that may need oversight, and the email list where these things end up is read, in principle, by all oversighters (including the arbs). And frequently I see these emails go by: "should this or that edit be suppressed?" Sometimes there's discussion, sometimes there are different opinions. Something came by the other day and I thought meh, it's nothing--a colleague, with more experience and wisdom than I, thought differently and acted on it, for which I am grateful, in hindsight. In this case, some background knowledge was necessary to realize the gravity of the offense--and my colleague's judgment, which was better than mine.

Anyway, to cut a long story short, perhaps we need some more qualification or precision. But I also believe that life is messy and edits can't always be categorized perfectly; judgment remains. If the community feels that someone does not, or no longer, has that judgment, the tool can be taken away, and that community can be ArbCom, for instance, which monitors revdeletion and oversight. And mind you, it's not always whether something is referenced or not--tone, word choice, etc. can be reasons for revdeletion or oversight. Again, DGG mentioned "harm" and this is one of the things we must judge; it is obvious to me, reading over this page, that there is serious disagreement about how much harm could have been done to the living person who was the subject of the supposed violation in the...blah blah blah you know what I mean.

Sorry, I need coffee. Yes, I personally advocate more discussion and perhaps a sharpening up of the specific strictness of the applicability of the BLP in different spaces; not as part of this case, though this is--for all intents and purposes--an excellent incentive to start (or continue) that. As it happens (another corner lifted) we are discussing this in our draft (much of the heavy lifting being done by Callanecc and Doug Weller, mad props), and it is one of the most difficult things to pin down, we found; we are also drafting two related items in our proposed remedies. Sorry, this is a lot of words. Thank you for your comments and clarifications. Drmies (talk) 14:28, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Drmies I agree that there is question as to the harm in this instance, and that the answer is likely "not much". Regardless of the harm, consensus eventually came down on the side that it should be removed. The nexus issue in my mind is not the severity or not of the blp issue. Such issues crop up all the time, and are a core part of the ebb and flow of wikipedia. Had the event ended there, we would not be having this case or discussion. The nexus issue is that once a blp concern is raised, policy is clear that we err on the side of caution until a determination and consensus is made. G unilaterally used his tools and position to subvert those processes while clearly involved. Now, I do not think that those issues rise to the level of needing to be deposed, or de-admined. But regarding "applicability of BLP", the answer is absolutely and unequivocally, blp and its associated processes apply. Gaijin42 (talk) 14:39, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@DGG: et al, Respectfully, reducing BLP to a first principles examination based on apprehension of "actual harm" is a terrible approach; such determination is far too subjective & coloured by editors' own biases about the living person (conscious and subconscious). To analogize: the principle behind road speed limits is reduction of harm (accidents resulting in injury & loss of life), but the enforcement is based on "how fast were you going?"; it is not an acceptable excuse to say "sure I was going 300kph, but 'no harm no foul'". If, however, the community would like a first principles approach to BLP, then I encourage them to implement such in policy. - Ryk72 ^'c.s.n.s.' 23:43, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Such an examination is a proper and necessary part of the examination of any question based on ethics, especially when the question is whether the principle applies in the first place. Please note that I think the appropriate more exact wording for the rationale behind the rules as we use them is not just preventing actual harm but preventing the possibility of harm, where I consider "possibility" to mean reasonable possibility. (I think I may once or twice have said it as plain harm, but I do in fact mean reasonable or plausible possibility of harm. An example of where there is such possibility but we can not generally know the actuality is giving the signature of a living person unless already widely distributed. There will therefore indeed often be the need for interpretation, which is what the article talk pages and BLP noticeboard n are for--if the rules needed no interpretation we wouldn't need them. And to use your example, if the speed limit is 100 kph, we normally (around where I live, anyway) give a warning to someone going 105 kph, give a moderately small fine to someone going 120, and charge someone going 300 kph with reckless driving and take away their license. If we used the full rigour of the law in every situation,in this example, we'd call it running a speed trap, not fair enforcement DGG ( talk ) 00:15, 14 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I would concur that an examination as to whether the policies and guidelines are supportive of their underlying principles is an important component of ensuring their well-working, and of ensuring that justice is served; and I am more comfortable with a phrasing of possibility of harm than a determination of actual harm. I would however, humbly suggest, that we should be examining the alignment of policy & guideline with principle aggregated across all applications of those policies, rather than within each instance on a case-by-case basis. That we should be examining whether prohibition of a type of behaviour is supportive of the principle; rather than whether prohibition of an instance of prohibited behaviour is supportive. Whatever we decide the policy should be, it needs to be consistent about the type of behaviour, not least so that editors are aware of community expectations; we can't be having one rule for some living persons that we like and another for those we don't.
And, to strain the analogy (potentially to breaking point): should I be pulled up at 120kph, and respond by telling the officer, "You can't stop me. I'll do what I like. Don't you know who I am. I have a right to drive how I like.", and all of the witnesses, "You're all part of a big conspiracy out to get me."; then I doubt that my main concern would be a moderately small fine for very long. - Ryk72 ^'c.s.n.s.' 04:25, 14 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It is certainly the case that the policy on biographical information about living persons applies everywhere, but to consider satire or opinion "biographical information" is not a matter of the jurisdictions to which it applies, it is a categorical error about the subject of the policy: this is not biographical information about living persons. ~ Ningauble (talk) 16:48, 14 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Administrators

4) Administrators are expected to lead by example and to behave respectfully and civilly in their interactions with others. They are expected to follow Wikipedia policy and to perform their duties with care and judgment. Occasional mistakes are entirely compatible with adminship; administrators are not expected to be perfect. However, administrators who egregiously or repeatedly act in a problematic manner, or administrators who lose the trust or confidence of the community, may be sanctioned or have their access removed. Administrators are also expected to learn from experience and from justified criticism of their actions or conduct.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Copied from Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Kafziel. ~ Rob^Talk 04:48, 8 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"repeatedly act in a problematic manner" -- the scope of this case is such that we can neither confirm nor deny whether this is applicable. NE Ent 10:03, 8 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This is not a suggested finding of fact, merely a statement on the principle of administrator accountability. That is clearly at issue here, whether or not the scope of the case allows a finding of fact that accountability was not handled properly. For the record, I think it could have been handled better, but it does not rise to the level of anything worthy of an ArbCom case. But I'm purposefully not proposing findings of fact/remedies because I have no desire to jump into that pit of despair. I'm much more concerned with the policy-based precedent set in this case, which is why I'm suggesting principles from past cases. ~ Rob^Talk 11:56, 8 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Proposals by Yngvadottir

Proposed principles

Purpose of Wikipedia

Wikipedia is an encylopedia.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Community

Wikipedia is edited by a community of volunteers. Respect for fellow editors (civility) and for the community (consensus and engagement in discussion) are important to enable collaboration and to facilitate the participation of many very different people.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Administrator responsibility

Editors with advanced responsibilities are expected to model collegial behavior, not to use their privileges to win disputes and to refrain in general from giving the impression that the rules and guidelines of Wikipedia do not apply to them, and to engage in discussion, particularly when an issue is raised concerning their interpretation of consensus. Holders of advanced permissions are subject to their removal "under a cloud" should they deviate seriously enough from the expected standard of conduct, in the case of administrators by the Arbitration Committee. Since all members of the Arbitration Committee have been administrators, WP:ADMINACCT applies to them irrespective of their having been elected to the committee.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

BLP

Wikipedia's objective of being a reliable and neutral encyclopedia and the risk of harm to living people have mandated the BLP policy, whose nutshell summary reads: "Material about living persons added to any Wikipedia page must be written with the greatest care and attention to verifiability, neutrality, and avoidance of original research."

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

April Fool's Day

April Fool's Day jokes are a widespread tradition in the English-speaking world, reflected on Wikipedia as an expression of community jollity and tolerated by established consensus supported by the outcome of various noticeboard and deletion discussions. On Wikipedia the convention has been to speedy close vexatious AfDs but otherwise (for example with joke RfAs) to archive soon after midnight UTC on April 2 with a "humor" template. April Fool's is a contentious tradition on Wikipedia, in part because it is not a fully international tradition.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Harassment

Harassment is deplorable and the community and the Arbitration Committee sympathize with victims of harassment. Harassment is not tolerated on Wikipedia and care must be taken not to further spread it by detailing it on-wiki.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

The statement "Harassment is not tolerated on Wikipedia" is false. Please reword (for example by changing "is not" to "should not be") to reflect reality. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:07, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Scope of this case

The scope of this case explicitly excludes the Gamergate controversy and editing conflicts related to it.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed findings of fact

Gamaliel's conduct has been unbecoming of an administrator

Gamaliel violated CSD policy and 3RR in defence of an April Fool's joke that was a BLP violation, after April Fool's Day, cast aspersions on those who raised the issue, and misused protection on a page that violated WP:POINT.

Comment by Arbitrators:

As it did no conceivable harm , and was not in article space, it is not a BLP violation. DGG ( talk ) 18:00, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

@DGG: there is no requirement to show "proof of harm" to determine a BLP violation, that would be a dangerous relaxation of policy. NE Ent 23:26, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

It would be great for a PD to have an explanation of the case timeline. Discuss-Dubious (t/c) 01:17, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Gamaliel's defence does not satisfy WP:ADMINACCT

Gamaliel's apology on the case request page and evidence on the evidence page argue that the issue has been raised primarily at the instigation of Gamergaters, which is a continued casting of aspersions not supported by adequate evidence, and his evidence statement expresses surprise that a statement of his that he now characterizes as "clearly hyperbole" was taken seriously. This falls below the standard of accountability to the community expected of an administrator.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

• The lack of self-awareness that led to edit-warring over dubious content and the lack of a proper apology is the reason there was a case at all. Gamaliel making everything into a Gamergate blame-game was pretty ridiculous but also illuminating. Carrite (talk) 16:59, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Signpost

The Signpost is a newsletter within Wikipedia, a private website, which has as its purposes the furtherance of community engagement and the provision of information concerning Wikipedia and other WMF projects. As such it has no special exemption from the community established conventions restricting April Fool's Day jokes and is specifically not exempt from WP:BLP. Editors who work on the Signpost also have no more exemption from community norms than those active on any Wikiproject.

Comment by Arbitrators:

I do not consider this to have been determined by community consensus,. DGG ( talk ) 00:45, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

BLP applies everywhere. The consensus would have to be that Signpost is exempt or else it applies to Signpost as well. I have not seen where the Community has exempted any spaces from BLP policy (or even a more tolerant WP:BLPSIGNPOST section). --DHeyward (talk) 03:24, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It's what the community decided BLP policy says: "signpost" is a subset of "everywhere." NE Ent 21:10, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

That should be a principle rather than finding of fact, but I agree. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 15:20, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

DGG, I think you may have this reversed. Any portion of Wikipedia is considered the same as any other part unless the community deems otherwise. You can't say "The Signpost is special and exempt until the community says differently". Otherwise, every Project here could claim immunity from policy and force an RFC to prove otherwise. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 09:36, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It's not immune, and nobody is claiming that. It's different in the degree of rigour to which some policies apply. If it were to publish a malicious untruth as fact, BLP would certainly apply, and i think everyone involved in the Signpost acknowledges this. . this was not malicious, and was not published as fact. DGG ( talk ) 18:03, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

DGG, your description of the application of BLP here, and above, in no way reflects what the various BLP related policy pages say nor how it's regularly enforced. It's rather shocking how off base actually. There are no qualifications that a BLP violation need be an untruth, harmful, malicious or anything of the sort. Contentiousness is the primary driver of the policy. Capeo (talk) 20:13, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

WP:Capeo, what is the fundamental moral reason we have the BLP policy? Why do we care more strictly about WP:V for BLPs than we do elsewhere? If you don't think it's because it's wrong to hurt living peoplewithout some particualy important necessary social reason, what is it? DGG ( talk ) 23:44, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Why do we particularly care about sources? Your position seems to care about no sources at all. But to answer your question: Respect. Respect for accuracy and human dignity, when you are dealing with peoples lives. Living people are not our plaything. Alanscottwalker (talk) 00:47, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

And who do you think has been hurt more by this whole debacle? Donald Trump, a fatcat who's not in any way part of the community, or Gamaliel, a person who's invested countless hours into the betterment of Wikipedia, who's had to put up with ceaseless harassment, and who in no way holds any real power? Izkala (talk) 13:58, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Gamaliel account freely (as we all do) took on the responsibility of BLP, (and as some do) admin, and arbitrator, and to answer to other editors for those things, in, among others places, this very forum. As for Donald Trump, sure you may dislike and think him immune from human dignity, all the more so reason to have BLP - and we have collectively taken on the responsibility to produce information about him, subject to BLP. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 18:35, 13 May 2016 (UTC) Your comment also raises a heretofore more background issue, that some seem to suggest we want and should expect better for Wikipedia accounts with our conduct policies than we do for LPs with our content policies, like BLP, when what we are all suppose to be for here is the content, the neutral, verifiable content. Alanscottwalker (talk) 19:24, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@DGG: Resepctfully, and per my immediately previous comment, I concur with Capeo on this. Reduction of BLP to first principles is a terrible approach. The equivocation of "contentious" with "harm" is also particularly troubling. We clearly do do "harm" to living persons in our articles (cf. Charles Manson, Timothy McVeigh); what we don't do is include unsourced or poorly sourced contentious information. This is not equivalent to "harm". - Ryk72 ^'c.s.n.s.' 23:51, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

WP:WEIGHT, and of course WP:VERIFY also come into play. Attempts at humor, even if adequately tagged as such, are not exempt so publishing as fact or fiction are meaningless. We regularly delete fake articles with claims at MFD. Keep in mind, I think the BLP issue is not a giant violation (not even worth the Arb case by itself), but I think you have to acknowledge that BLP does come into play, particularly since all GG related evidence was erased by Arb. If the BLP isn't the issue, we start running out of reasons to even accept the case. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 17:45, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Nonsense. I suggest you reread the acceptance rationales, which include comments like "Handing out BLP sanctions for April Fools Day hijinks is like handing out speeding tickets at the Indy 500" (from an arbitrator who voted to accept). --Andreas JN 466 12:37, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

- You need to read that more carefully. That was kelapstick's first response when he declined it. He later struck the vote and then voted to accept. Connecting the the statement to the acceptance is simply not supported by his actions. I would also note that an opening comment by an Arb has no authority in enforcement. It is what it is, an offhand comment based on first glance of the facts. Furthermore, the real issue isn't the BLP violation (which I've said was real but minor many times), it was the actions before and after. Still, the violation happened, and to deny that would be to grant Signpost a special position above policy, something that only the full community can do as Arb has no authority to create policy nor exempt anyone from policy. I believe two years ago, my solution was to lock the database for the whole of April 1, so we don't have to deal with the constant stupidity thrust on a global community. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 13:38, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  - You said above, "If the BLP isn't the issue, we start running out of reasons to even accept the case." We're not here because an egregious BLP violation occurredd – in the opinion of several arbitrators, including ones that accepted the case, there was no BLP violation at all – but because of the "Admin Accountability concerns brought up by Fram" and the "kerfuffle at AN/I", to use kelapstick's words (and other arbs used similar expressions, didn't they?). --Andreas JN 466 16:11, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

- - The real issue is accountability and use of the admin tools after what was (at a minimum) arguably a BLP violation. Even if an admin disagrees with interpretation, they can't edit war and/or use the tools in matter to which they are involved. I've never called it egregious. It was still a BLP violation/problem/poor judgement, whatever you want to call it, but not worthy of this case. The fact that his evidence wasn't posted until 3 minutes before evidence closed doesn't help either. On it's face, it doesn't look like a good faith effort to follow WP:ADMINACCT, although it would be helpful to have more info before jumping to conclusions. But as I've stated before, the BLP issue is minor compared to the other issues, I don't think we disagree on that point. It was the fuse that lit this powder keg, however. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 14:40, 14 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Violations of civility policy and edit warring by other parties to the case

Before, during, and after the AN/I discussion, there were violations of the policy against edit warring and the civility policy by other editors who are also parties to this case.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed remedies

Note: All remedies that refer to a period of time, for example to a ban of X months or a revert parole of Y months, are to run concurrently unless otherwise stated.

Gamaliel is removed from the Arbitration Committee

For conduct seriously unbecoming to a holder of advanced permissions on the English-language Wikipedia, Gamaliel forfeits his seat on the Arbitration Committee and to regain it, must submit to re-election, either by a special election or by submitting his candidacy in a future regular election.

Comment by Arbitrators:

I do not consider that there is precedent for doing this within a case, or that the arbs who are recused from a case would necessarily be recused from this determination. DGG ( talk ) 00:47, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

But we don't have to follow precedent, particularly when that precedent is "we've never been asked to do it or have tired to do it" and the fact that it's never been done before shouldn't stop it from being now. Although I very much doubt I'd support this. @Dennis Brown: I don't think there's disagreement about 2/3rd, the disagreement is whether that includes recused and inactive arbs including the arb in question, or whether it is 2/3 of all active and unrecused arbs. Doug Weller talk 18:01, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

While I don't think removal from the committee is appropriate per better remedies, I'll note there is a longstanding of arbitrators going inactive; every Wikipedian has a more important real life that sometimes don't allow for wikitime, and the number of committee members is designed to allow a few to be off at any instance while allowing the work of the committee to continue. NE Ent 13:29, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't seen any ArbCom behavioral issues that aren't also administrator/editor issues. My suggestion would be a post-1980 topic ban on American Politics. He'd be free to carry on with JFK stuff but not get involved in volatile current political events like Trump. --DHeyward (talk) 03:28, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

This needs support from at least 2/3 of the arbitrators to pass, per WP:ARBCOND.--Müdigkeit (talk) 18:45, 8 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

My immediate reaction to this was derision, but I do have to wonder whether it's appropriate for a current arbitrator to be under sanction. Gamaliel has currently been sanctioned against closing Gamergate related discussions at his request, but that request was certainly under a cloud. My gut still says this is a serious over-reaction and it almost certainly has no hope of passing, but I'm also not pleased with the idea of a sanctioned arbitrator continuing to serve in the position of highest trust you can have on this community. ~ Rob^Talk 19:06, 8 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

After thinking about this some more, I oppose this. I hate the idea of a current arbitrator being under sanction, but it's not proportional to remove him. Given the scope of the case, he wouldn't be under sanction if he hadn't personally requested it. ~ Rob^Talk 10:02, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure whether I can comment here - I would put this response on the talk page but that appears to be full of stuff related to the 11th-hour proxy posting of Gamaliel's evidence and the subsequent full protection of the evidence talk page. I see Fram has called instead for a desysop. I view that as a heavier punishment, and it would also leave Gamaliel in place as de facto the first non-admin arbitrator. That would cause problems for the functioning of the committee. Ideally, as others have said, Gamaliel would have backed down at a point prior to this. We're here at ArbCom because he didn't, and that also forecloses the possibility of a recall election. If his evidence had not continued to cast aspersions, I would have suggested he choose to step down either from Arbcom, from adminship, or even merely from the Signpost, whichever he preferred. Instead I recommend what I see as the least of the possible punishments. Yngvadottir (talk) 11:16, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Agree on all points, Yngvadottir, especially that losing Arb is lesser than losing the admin bit. It will require 2/3rds, but the vote can be done within this case. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 15:30, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

My only real questions here are (1) which specific provision of WP:ARBCOND has been violated, and (2) whether we want to basic make sitting on ArbCom a "one-strike-and-you're out" matter. I myself can't see how anything Gamaliel might have done prior to election would be relevant here, if that material were, at least theoretically, considered by those who elected him, and I am not sure whether any violation of ARBCOND here necessarily took place. Provision 1 seems to maybe apply, but I am not sure whether it can be established conclusively that Gamaliel acted without integrity or good faith in these matters, and the language of provision 2 seems to me to be less than clear whether the "trusted roles" referred to there necessarily relate to this matter. The last sentence of that section refers to "repeatedly or grossly" violates one or more of those terms is indicated, and I am not sure I see the specific data I would need to justify that. While I assume that the phrase in provision 2 is to implicitly include admin actions, there might be seen by some as being a conflict here between his "trusted role" as an admin and his "trusted role" as editor-in-chief of the Signpost, maybe, and, on that basis, there might be some question regarding how it applies here, maybe. John Carter (talk) 15:57, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Arguably 1 and 2. I'm not calling for him to be removed myself. I think there is enough outstanding that a vote should probably be had, and that the community would expect a vote and if he isn't remove, a good and valid explanation. I didn't even want a case, but since we are here I think we have to let justice be blind to any loyalties and process the case as we would any other. As Yngadottir points out, losing your Arb seat is much less a sanction than losing the admin bit. In my opinion, if they don't even put that option on the table, or explain why they aren't putting it on the table, it looks like favoritism. I know there are some behind the scenes problems we aren't aware of, but you can't just tell us plebs in the bleachers to eat cake, you have to have the same process you would for anyone else or provide SOMETHING in the way of rationale, or you have effectively reinforced the idea that there are multiple classes of editors here. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 15:45, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I don't disagree with you, and think that the matter of the vote for "cause" however it would be defined is sufficient, but do think that this sort of situation is maybe not one which was considered when the material was drafted, and maybe some sort of clarification or editing of the terms might be not unreasonable. John Carter (talk) 16:39, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I think at some point conduct reaches a bar where any possibility of serving on ArbCom is undermined. If there were just one or two isolated problems, I think we could get past it (not overlook, just get past). However, Gamaliel kept up a long stream of misconduct that simply can not be ignored. An admonishment within this framework is nothing short of a joke. If a real life judge were faced with proof of misconduct equivalent to their respective positions, there would be no question of the judge being removed. How ArbCom would be able to take themselves seriously by not removing Gamaliel is beyond me. Either WP:ARBCOND means something or it does not. Either Gamaliel is removed from the committee or WP:ARBCOND is removed from ArbCom policy. The gross dereliction of duty by Gamaliel is completely unacceptable. If he remains on ArbCom, any finding regarding the policies he has so blatantly violated should see him recused from voting. He has no basis on which to cast doubt on someone else's actions when his own under those policies have been so devoid of personal responsibility. As I've noted elsewhere, his conduct would have seen a new editor...indeed our most prized resource given the decline of the project...banned from the site. Enough is enough. --Hammersoft (talk) 15:46, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Gamaliel's inability to manage this conflict gives me no confidence that he can manage the conflicts he will be called on to deal with as an arb and admin. Beyond that, the harassment he saying he is subject to seems so severe that it effects not only his judgement as it relates to its locus (Gamergate) but colors his views on conflicts, like this one, which are unrelated. While it may be distasteful to allow harassers to 'run one out of town', it is only noble to resist by staying in ones position if one can continue to do the job.
I applaud Gamaliel for taking on such important issues and standing up to all of the harassment he is subject to but the simple fact that this case came about due his inability to separate Gamergate trolling from genuine concern by Wikipedia editors says to me he can not function objectively on matters that touch on or that he feels touch on those issues. This makes him unsuitable for ArbCom which is a position of community trust which requires objectivity. Jbh ^Talk 16:08, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I think Gamaliel (and perhaps the committee) need to also consider whether an editor who is, apparently, taking an indefinite wiki-break is able to function as an arb. I don't want to see a situation where GG-related harassment effectively removes a sitting arb; OTOH, how useful is it to have an arb who is going to be absent for a substantial portion of his term anyway?
That said, I think the evidence presented here justifies some sanction. Gamaliel clearly sees GG conspiracies in unrelated criticism of himself and can't step back and let the situation calm down. Edit-warring to keep a discussion about himself at ANI is so boneheadedly, obviously the wrong thing to do that the only explanation I can see is that he considered it all a conspiracy birthed by GG advocates. The question is what sanction would be appropriate. Removal from the committee seems to me the only feasible option; could an arb really function credibly having been desysopped? What would be the use of an arb who was blocked for three months (as others have suggested)? How can an arb function credibly when they're topic banned from certain cases? I just can't see how anything else could work. GoldenRing (talk) 11:05, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- It may interest you to know that Salvio for example was inactive on the committee for more than four months before returning to active status in April. --Andreas JN 466 13:14, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

DGG, unlike a legal body, Arb doesn't require precedent and only requires the action is within the spirit of policy. For all things, there is a first time. As for recused, even if you were voting outside of a case, it is completely logical that some Arbs would have to recuse if they were involved in some way. Recusal isn't based on the sanction, it is based on the involvement. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 09:44, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

As it's very name makes clear arb com is indeed an internal adjudicatory body, and therefore is morally bound to act fairly and consistently, as does any such body. It does this by following the rules the community has set for it, and interpreting them in a n equitable manner. It is grossly inequitable for the vote necessary for a particular sanction to vary from one case to another--such action would go far to justify the name sometimes given us in opprobrium, the "arbitrary committee". DGG ( talk ) 03:59, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

DGG, I completely agree that if a vote is taken, the 2/3rds rule should apply, just as it apply as a stand alone vote. As I stated earlier, I'm a bit on the fence re: his removal and haven't found a reason to think his admin bit should be taken. I do think there is value in some process for process's sake, however, and this is one of those time that a vote should be had to consider removing him with the 2/3rds vote. If it fails, I would hope the Arbs would explain their votes within the process, and perhaps that alone would persuade the majority. Again, losing the Arb seat is much less of a sanction than losing the admin bit, at least in most people's eyes. The level of accountability and expectation of conduct is much higher for an Arb, however. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 17:53, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Regardless of my thinking this step is necessary or called for or not, and I have expressed reservations about "one-strike-and-you're-out" justice already, I think that if nothing else it might be useful for the committee to indicate whether it believes it reasonable to in a sense establish this as an option which it thinks can, in at least some circumstances, be enacted by the ArbCom based on a case prominently involving an arbitrator, or whether it is more appropriate for any removal from ArbCom members only by some other, possibly more directed, means, like, perhaps, a decision by the full committee after the case is closed. I would myself lean toward no removal from the committee on this basis, if the recent events regarding the Signpost and Gamergate are the only matters involved. Given the fact that Gamaliel was only elected for a one-year term, the other option I might think maybe not unreasonable to take, requiring him to run again at the end of the current year, is a moot one. However, I would be curious whether the members of the Committee think that maybe, in some cases, particularly including Arbs with over a year of their term remaining, to maybe withdraw from the committee until the next election, maybe (or maybe not) allowing the person with the best results who didn't make it to the committee take the seat for the rest of the term, and allowing the person with the shortened term to run again in the next election, or, maybe, just indicate that their two-year term will be only one year. That clearly isn't relevant in this case, but it might be a useful option in some others. John Carter (talk) 18:05, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

- Disproportionate. Gamaliel has done himself no favours during this case, but at its heart the issue remains a storm in a teacup involving mild misuse of admin tools and a persistent refusal to acknowledge community concerns. It should have been resolved via a mild apology but its clear this is never going to happen; in its place the committee should consider an admonishment or at the outside some kind of minor sanction. But nothing in here rises to the level of this proposal, which would overturn the will of the voters for conduct that would attract topic bans and stern reproofs if objectively brought to ANI. -- Euryalus (talk) 11:14, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  - ? Mild??? Gamaliel violated WP:INVOLVED policy, abused his WP:REVDEL privs and violated that policy, violated WP:EW policy trying to quell discussion about himself, violated WP:CSD policy trying to prevent his page getting deleted, violated WP:3RR policy, violated WP:OWN, violated WP:ADMINCOND policy, violated WP:RPA policy, and violated WP:BLP policy. This is just the policies, not to mention the guidelines that he willfully violated. This wasn't done in a neat little one hour gone-off-the-rails moment, but spread out over a week. No less than eight policies willfully breached. At what point would you consider someone's actions to NOT be "mild"? As I've said before, a new editor...our most precious resource...would have been permanently banned from the site for any subset of the actions he took. This isn't mild by any definition, unless someone wants to claim that we ban people from the site for "mild" breaches of policy. This isn't mild. It's an appalling breach of trust across a large number of policies that Gamaliel knew better than to violate...and he did so anyway. --Hammersoft (talk) 15:34, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  - I'm not saying what the result should be, I'm saying Arb should at least propose it because it gives the opportunity for us to see the rationales either way, and the sum total of issues justifies it. Losing an Arb seat IS less severe than losing the admin bit. I don't think I've supported bit stripping him. Technically, I didn't support Arb stripping him, I supported proposing it and let each Arb vote independently, in full public view. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 16:31, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    - Dennis, "independently, in full public view"--of course. This is something we're obviously working on, as you can see from the discussion below about how this might work; it's not as simple as proposing a desysop or an admonishment. You said here, somewhere, "It will require 2/3rds"--yeah, but again, 2/3 of what? And "it can be done within the case"--personally I think that we can, but not everyone agrees on that. We can't propose something if we don't agree on whether it can be proposed in the first place. Admittedly this is bureaucratic but it's important because it sets a precedent of sorts; later ArbComs look at earlier ArbComs for guidance. But seriously, you don't have to keep stressing this "in full view" and stuff; of course we have secret backrooms and we're wheeling and dealing the entire time while thick clouds of cigar smoke (well, the younger ones are weed smokers, I think) come through the cracks of our velvet-covered doors, but in the end the vote will be there, publicly. That is, if there is agreement that this is something that can be voted on... Drmies (talk) 16:47, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      - Drmies, I think if the community sees that it was at least considered, and sees it being discussed, and if it isn't being proposed, there are a few Arbs giving their rationale and their reasoning is plausible, I think most would be satisfied. Arb is certainly a position of trust, higher than that of admin due to the access to sensitive material, which is why it has to be considered. I know you have to walk a fine line, I know you know things that none of us know, I know there is more than what is on these pages, but Arb has to give us something to at demonstrate that the concerns are acknowledged and are being explored. Sincerity in doing this goes a long way, even when people disagree with the result. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 18:07, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
        Dennis, we certainly understand that, and I am glad you understand that it is a fine line, one we are still walking. We know we're not going to please everyone, and we hope that the final result--whatever that may be!--shows that we have taken these considerations seriously. Drmies (talk) 18:18, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
        Whatever happened to the idea of proportionality? How can this incident be so egregious that it outweighs the years and years of productive service Gamaliel has provided to Signpost? Gamaliel is one of a handful of admins who, over the past 2 1/2 years, has been willing to offer administrative help in the Gamergate area, which most admins stay far, far away from. It has been toxic. For doing this, he has been maligned on Wikipedia and, primarily, in off-wiki forums. It boggles my mind that because of a dispute over a one-line April Fools joke, that Gamaliel would either lose his Arbitrator seat or bit. This is not about favoritism, it is about making a mountain over a molehill. This incident was an anomaly and not typical behavior. I think editors and admins are usually sanctioned for a pattern of conduct, not one incident (with the exception of outing). Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:22, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
        Liz, ArbCom wisely removed Gamergate from the case scope. This is entirely about a sequence of very bad actions by Gamaliel that went on and on. He is still casting aspersions in his evidence statement. This could have been a molehill if he had backed down. It may be partially caused by off-wiki harassment—who knows—but it is conduct incompatible with holding advanced permissions, the Committee has desysopped many good admins in the past, and I've proposed removal from the Committee because I view it as the least of the available and appropriate remedies. However, Gamaliel's friends do him no favors arguing that tarring fellow editors with the brush of Gamergate fellow-travelers with no justification is a trivial matter. It shows massive disrespect for the community. Yngvadottir (talk) 16:31, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
        Yngvadottir, you're evidently not in possession of the full facts here; it's hard to understand the situation without being aware of the level of sustained hostility and harassment directed Gamaliel's way. --Andreas JN 466 12:48, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
        Of course I'm not. I doubt you are, either. But slinging around accusations the way Gamaliel did even in his evidence is pretty hostile, and some of his friends have trotted out the same invidious assumption; I see you making a qualified version of such a statement below. It's unwarranted and a violation of policy. And this case is not about Gamaliel's previous behavior—about which I know very little, as a matter of fact—it's about his going on a lengthy tear of bad behavior. ArbCom gets to weigh the evidence, including what we don't know. But if we have policies and guidelines—if we have special regard for BLP, and if we are expected to be civil to each other, this cannot pass without something being done. Joe Schmoe would have been indeffed for a fraction of this. Admins have been desysopped for less than this. I'm pushing for what I consider to be the least of the available commensurate sanctions. But in the final analysis, if he's affected so badly by this harassment that he assumes pretty much everyone who raises a policy-based issue with his behavior is an agent of Gamergate out to get him, his judgement is too impaired for him to be trusted with advanced permissions on the project. You and the rest of his friends aren't doing him a favor painting that picture. I would rather he'd chosen what responsibility to withdraw from, but "Gamaliel broke multiple policies over a stupid April Fool's Day thing in the Signpost because Gamergate!" makes him look pretty bad. If he's a good admin, he will appreciate that policy matters and that he needs to step back. And that no, we aren't all "out to get him". Yngvadottir (talk) 15:18, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
        
        For one, evidence of a pattern isn't allowed by the scope of this case so claiming there is no pattern is as useless as claiming there is one. Secondly, admins have most certainly lost their bit over one incident... recently. As to being a molehill? An admin, let alone an arb, breaking a host of policies and even more guidelines over the course of a few days isn't a molehill. It didn't necessarily need to be a mountain, at least in the view of many, if Gamaliel showed even the least bit of accountability for his actions. To me personally the incident was enough to show that, in the least, Gamaliel does not have the temperament or ability to view things dispassionately enough to be an arb. To be honest I always thought that though. This latest incident just solidified my opinion. Many others though would likely have been satisfied with some acknowledgment of missteps from Gamaliel and an assurance to avoid them in the future. We got instead, after a long silence, a version of the "they made me do it" argument that a parent wouldn't accept from a child. On top of taking no responsibility for his actions he cast a bunch of respected editors and admins as being in collusion, wittingly or not, with Gamergate harassers for even questioning his actions. I'd say the presentation of his evidence (or complete lack thereof actually) pushed this incident into mountain terriory for a lot editors watching this case. Capeo (talk) 17:37, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
        I am quite convinced that without Gamergate we would never have gotten here. That's not to say that Gamaliel is perfect, nor does it exclude the possibility that Gamergaters and editors who've clashed with him over US politics articles years ago may have had legitimate grievances against him. But to some extent, some of the editors involved here appear – to me at least – to be motivated by a desire for revenge for all those perceived failings. In that sense, I believe this case serves as a proxy. Andreas JN 466 13:01, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
        Andreas, I agree in part with the statement without Gamergate we would never have gotten here, but perhaps for different reasons; I think it is unlikely that without that topic that Gamaliel's administrative actions would have been so far, for so long, and so recognizably, outside community expectations. But the suggestion that this is simply a proxy is not one with which I can concur. Absent an (fairly weak) assumption that Gamaliel has acted correctly in all matters administrative, that editors who have edited Gamargate & US politics topics have commented here would seem to boil down to "editors with experience of Gamaliel's administrative actions suggest that they are improper and driven by bias". I'm not really sure who else we should be expecting to come forward. - Ryk72 ^'c.s.n.s.' 00:32, 14 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
        Sure. What I am concerned about is that editors who feel that Gamaliel is a "bad egg" in general may be bending BLP policy out of shape in their discourse of the facts being considered here in order to obtain a result against him. By "bending policy out of shape" I mean zealously arguing for the most rigid and extreme interpretations of how BLP policy should be applied in project space, interpretations that they would not and do not apply to other pages in project space. For example, by the standards many advocate here, the WP:REICHSTAG essay has contained a BLP violation or "lie" about the Queen of England for the past decade. Andreas JN 466 12:11, 14 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
        
        @Liz: Respectfully, even given the extreme bonsai-ification of the Case scope and evidence, I do not conceive that it is within the realms of reasonability to suggest that this is an anomaly and not typical behaviour; even within the still extant evidence there ample display of a pattern. - Ryk72 ^'c.s.n.s.' 00:32, 14 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The best path forward, in my opinion, would be for Gamaliel to resign his ArbCom seat and to continue at the Signpost. Failing that, there is a 6-1/2 month clock running on his term and little if any prospect of re-election in December; removal for the current incident would be more disruptive than any potential benefit derived. Carrite (talk) 17:03, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The amount of time he has left on his term is irrelevant. Either he is trusted with the role, which includes checkuser and oversight..i.e. access to confidential information...or he is not. I think it's crystal clear he has egregiously violated trust. If ArbCom can't sanction one of its own, or worse is unwilling to, the community's trust in ArbCom (which is already low) will go through the floor. ArbCom isn't harmed by having one less arbitrator. He's already listed as inactive, and he's been gone from this project for just shy of a month now. I fail to see any disruption that would be caused by his forced removal. Any ideas that he would willingly resign are, at this point, moot and wishful thinking. It's been suggested by multiple people and he's not done so. It would go a long way to solving this case, but he's not shown much willingness to do anything to solve this case. --Hammersoft (talk) 20:53, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I think that it is useful to point out that GorillaWarfare (recused here) was in a finding just this past August, in which her administrative actions were criticized. She was neither desysopped nor removed from the Committee, and she was decisively reelected by the community a short time later. I have not followed this case closely, but it seems to me that the Arbs would need to establish that what Gamaliel did was sufficiently worse than what GorillaWarfare did, in order to decide to either desysop or expel in this case. --Tryptofish (talk) 01:24, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

From that finding, it appears GorillaWarfare violated 1 policy and DS. In this case Gamaliel has violated no less than 8 policies, and possibly more, plus possibly a number of guideline violations. --Hammersoft (talk) 13:54, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That is an incredibly silly and reductive metric. It's easy to imagine actions which violate numerous policies but which are relatively harmless and deserve no more than a slap on the wrist. Likewise, it is easy to imagine actions which would violate only a single policy, but which would be deserving of an immediate and permanent ban from Wikipedia. There has to be more than policy-counting at work in determining a proportionate response. MastCell ^Talk 17:13, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The metric we seem to use in other situations is much like what was used in heresy trials;the obstinate refusal to recognize that one is in error when ones error is clearly pointed out. Whether this is right or wrong it is how we measure whether an editor may be "forgiven". We do this all of the time. In this case Gamaliel has not recognized that he has acted badly - most lesser figures would end up sitebanned for obstinate refusal to recognize error, yet would be given ROPE based on a simple apology and a promise not to do it again. Our whole preventitive-not-punitive ethos hinges on people recognizing and accepting they have done wrong when it is pointed out. Jbh ^Talk 17:46, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Mastcell, I'm not saying the number of policies violated therefore dictates a response 8 times as severe. Come on. I'm making the (what should be) obvious case that there a serious violations here crossing a broad spectrum of policies. I was pointing out there is broad, broad basis on which to remove Gamaliel from ArbCom and desysop. The abuse of admin tools more than once, the greater than week long repeated breaching of multiple policies (so no claim of angered huff can be made), and as Jbhunley notes the failure to recognize any wrongdoing creates a very compelling case far, far more substantial than anything GorillaWarfare had. I hope that clarifies things for you and you will exonerate me of being "silly". --Hammersoft (talk) 18:38, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

re:Doug Weller - Common sense is screaming that it must mean 2/3rds of the Arb that are eligible to participate in the vote. You could open up the voting to the Arb who recused (and in most cases, I would expect them to recuse from voting again) I suppose, but like all things at Wikipedia, the spirit and intent trumps the written word. The written policy is only a mirror reflection of the actual policy. When it was originally put into place, was it *really* written so that if 1/3 of the Arbs were on vacation/sick/recused, it would be (quite literally) impossible to unseat someone? If find that hard to swallow. As always, I'm open to be persuaded, but you have already gone from 51% to 67% to insure a rash decision won't be made, I can't see the original intent being so short sighted as to make it impossible in controversial cases where several need to recuse. Occam's Razor applies, it would seem. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 18:32, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Gamaliel is admonished

For conduct unbecoming to an administrator and uncollegial and uncivil responses to community concerns in this matter, Gamaliel is admonished.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

An incredibly light slap on the wrist. It's the equivalent of saying "tut tut! Now there's a good boy!" Don't insult the community with such a ridiculously paltry response. --Hammersoft (talk) 21:11, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Look up at the item before this. Yngvadottir (talk) 23:12, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I have. My point is if this were the only sanction. I saw a sitting arbitrator once breach policy in an ongoing, longstanding disagreement while an arbitration case was going on. ArbCom's decision? A "reminder". I sincerely hope ArbCom isn't so stupid as to believe they can close this case with just an "admonishment". --Hammersoft (talk) 23:53, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Realistically, this is the probable outcome given the evidence allowed in this case. It is not the optimum scenario for ArbCom's reputation or for the health of the project, which would involve Gamaliel voluntarily departing the committee to resume work at the Signpost. Carrite (talk) 17:08, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Given what he has done, the sensible, responsible thing for him to do would be to step down from ArbCom. Instead, he's gone off this particular project. He has not edited en.wikipedia since a few hours before this edit by arbitrator Casliber, which switched that arb's vote from decline to accept. This placed the RFAR request into above the acceptance level. His last edit was late on the 14th of April. His only response to these proceedings has been a request (made off site) to be topic banned from gamergate. His absence from this proceeding, given he has remained active on other WMF projects (see example) and twitter (see feed), seems to be contempt to me. --Hammersoft (talk) 17:54, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That is an assumption that is totally off-the-mark and demonstrates complete bad faith in another editor. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:25, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No, it is not. If Gamaliel were just absent from the web, I would of course assume good faith that he has some real-life thing going on interfering with his ability to be here. However, that is not the case. He's been quite active in a number of other fora. His refusal to participate in these proceedings is a form of contempt. Indeed, in the real world failure to appear in court is considered contempt. I am of course willing to consider other possibilities. --Hammersoft (talk) 12:39, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I'm unusually well aware of the fact that inactivity is specifically considered grounds for sanctions against a sitting arbitrator, even when there's no suggestion that it's being done with malign intent. Note that I'm not saying G is acting from malign intent, just emphasising that it's the inactivity that's the issue. That said, since the committee have obviously been in touch with him and don't appear concerned, I assume there's a legitimate explanation. ‑ Iridescent 12:48, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

DHeyward is admonished

For incivility, including insulting statements and editing an established editor's userpage to make a political point, DHeyward is admonished.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

He definitely needs a metaphorical swat on the butt for disruption. Carrite (talk) 17:09, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Arkon is admonished

For incivility and edit-warring, Arkon is admonished.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

JzG is admonished

For incivility and lack of attention to the views of others in a discussion in which he fell below the standard of conduct expected of an administrator, plus unwarranted furtherance of a BLP violation in that incident, JzG is admonished.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

The Signpost editors are reminded

The editorial staff of the Signpost are reminded that it is not an independent newspaper, but an internal newsletter, is ancillary to Wikipedia's objectives, and is not exempt from either policy or the expectation of respect for the community and for consensus. As part of this reminder, they are urged to post future April Fool's Day jokes promptly and defuse, archive, or describe them as errors as soon as possible after midnight UTC on April 2.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Doing my damnedest to stay out of this trainwreck case, but this is an important point that needs to be hammered home (even if I'm not sure it's actually relevant to this case). Some (by no means all) of the Signpost writers lately appear to see themselves as an elite cadre above Wikipedia's rules, rather than a fairly low-importance project which exists purely to disseminate information about Wikipedia within Wikipedia. If they genuinely want to offer running commentary on Wikipedia without the need to abide by Wikipedia's policies, I'm sure Wikipediocracy can find a place for them. ‑ Iridescent 19:04, 8 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The two halves of this proposition don't match: newspaper or newsletter ... let's scramble to our dictionaries to determine exactly what agenda that embodies. And "is not exempt from either policy or the expectation of respect for the community and for consensus"—who's contending anything but this, except that I'm sorry to disappoint you: the Signpost serves the Wikimedia community, not the English Wikipedia, which simply hosts it. Tony (talk) 03:34, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NOTWEBHOST. If that's truly the view of the Signpost editorial board (and I sincerely hope it's not), there are other platforms you can host yourself on. So long as you host your content on the English Wikipedia, there are rules that apply. ~ Rob^Talk 05:56, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

<Shrug> Tony (talk) 09:02, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If the Signpost is unwilling to follow en.wp policy and views en.wp merely as a "host" then it needs to move over to meta. So long as Signpost exists on en.wp it must follow the policies here. I suppose the issue could be forced at RfC but since I know of no community consensus or Wikipedia PaG that supports the position of Tony1 I believe the default position would be comply or move. Jbh ^Talk 10:47, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Tony1: well not word by word as you asked [11] but by phrase: "community-written" and "...independent publication not affiliated with the Wikimedia Foundation" seem to be what you are hanging your hat on and neither those phrases nor anything at WP:Signpost/About says what you claim. Please provide links to anything that supports your claim that Signpost is somehow independent of en.wp. Jbh ^Talk 14:30, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Um ... did I really claim that, or the opposite? Tony (talk) 14:33, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) The statement "...except that I'm sorry to disappoint you: the Signpost serves the Wikimedia community, not the English Wikipedia, which simply hosts it" in response to this finding and your "<Shrug>" above, on plain reading, says to me that you are trying to claim a special carve out else why comment at all. If that is not your position then I suggest that, since I and the other editor responding to you both read your comments that way, you should rephrase. Snarky responses like <Shrug> and "you seem unable to read" [12] are neither productive nor an appropriate response when others may have misunderstood what you have written - the "<Shrug>" clearly indicated to me that you both accepted his interpratation of your statement and were dismissive of his concern. Jbh ^Talk 14:55, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

<Shrug> was really a way to express I way I feel about whether the rewards for doing the Signpost are worth it, personally. Occasionally they are, but too often it's a hard slog and a rush in covering complexthings I'm not particularly interested in, when I'd rather be doing other editing. One complies with the rules of the site on which you're hosted, yes; but it needed pointing out that it's only that the SP is written in English and gives more coverage to English-language sites than non-English that we have in common with our host (English-language WMF sites get more than 40% of the hits and are about 45% of the text of all 290 language WPs.) Beyond that, the attachment to the current site has grown ironic, I suppose, given the SP's international reach. Tony (talk) 15:15, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Frankly, none of us are going to give you any sympathy. Your attitude has been pretty arrogant from the start and only after it's been laid out to you that you must follow ENWP policies do you feign disinterest in the project because "the rewards are not worth it." Sorry, but we're not going to balk at core ENWP policy because you're feeling underappreciated. If you wanted to be appreciated, you should have followed ENWP policy and not put the SP as some sort of pillar above all other ENWP pillars. You're not journalists. You're more like a stay-at-home parent putting together a PTA newsletter than you are a Washington Post journalist. Hate to burst your bubble, but you'll not break the new watergate. At best, you'll break a story about bad editor behavior or a staff member getting replaced. At worst, you screw around and use articles to push a WP:POINT and smear a BLP flaunting your "journalistic integrity" the whole time while really making a mockery of such a thing.--v/r - T P 16:56, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I support this, particularly considering that I as an individual am less than certain that any further action is really necessary and in the best interests of the community. I do think that Gamaliel's conduct has been problematic, even perhaps to receiving some form of stricter censure, but, at the same time, have questions whether desysop'ing and removal from the committee are necessarily required. I know that admins are supposed to adhere to a higher standard of behavior than others, and support that. I suppose implicitly arbitrators are to be held to even higher standards than regular admins. Having said that, this seems to have been basically about one instance of less-than-high-standard behavior, and I am unsure that it is really in our interests to institute a "one-strike-and-you're-out" standard for any group of editors here. John Carter (talk) 14:51, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Signpost needs a very hard tug on the leash to remind them of exactly their responsibilities to the policy and guidelines that govern this project. Even still, they claim to be "an independent publication". They are not. If that is what they want, they should be encouraged to take their work offsite, where they can have all the freedom they aspire to. --Hammersoft (talk) 15:50, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think we care enough to respond to vague allegations of failure in terms of policy and guideline responsibility. Please keep to the theme of the case, which apparently concerns Gamaliel, an April Fool's Day joke gone wrong, and gamergate detritus. I haven't acquainted myself with any of these three issues—they bore me. But you should not make generalised attacks without evidence. Tony (talk) 08:47, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Oh bugger off. It was Signpost staff that made the claims of independence and immunity from Wikipedia policies. Don't get pissy at all of us that we've pushed back. Now you're trying to make it out like it was the community that started this. I already asked you once to quit with the martyrdom. Let me make it clear, the community is going to whatever the fuck it pleases with Signpost, with or without the "we" you're referring to, and you can either get on board or find something else to do.--v/r - T P 09:11, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

When this whole mess began, I assumed that the "We don't need it" comments were actually sensible. I thought they advised !voters who might assume that the page was critical to some function of the Signpost that it wasn't, so any objection made along such grounds could safely be withdrawn. Having seen the back-and-forth since then, however, it's pretty clear that the Signpost staff see themselves as having special rights. That needs to change. Absconded Northerner (talk) 21:24, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If it is so clear, could you please provide evidence that the writers and editors of the Signpost think they have "special rights"? If it is so obvious, that shouldn't be difficult. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:28, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The evidence is spread across the rest of this page, especially in this section in which Tony1, in TParis' words, makes "claims of independence and immunity from Wikipedia policies". Absconded Northerner (talk) 04:51, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That's a bit of a cop-out (ie to use a critic's words there)... Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 05:07, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Editors are reminded

Editors are reminded that an accusation of harassment or of association with harassment is serious and must be supported by appropriate evidence, privately submitted to the Arbitration Committee if necessary, and that careless generalizing about the motives of fellow editors is disparagement and uncivil, harms the editing environment, and contributes to the devaluation of the charge of harassment as well as suggesting a lack of respect for fellow editors' concerns.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Arbitrators especially should be mindful of this. Rhoark (talk) 02:17, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Proposals by User:NE Ent

Proposed principles

Wikipedia is an encyclopedia

1) Wikipedia is an encyclopedia: It combines many features of general and specialized encyclopedias, almanacs, and gazetteers. Wikipedia is not a soapbox, a vanity press, or newspaper. ref WP:5P1

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

This appears to serve as a wishy-washy substitute to an actual principle on what the limits of the Signpost are - or might be - while it remains under the umbrella of Wikipedia and the WMF, a topic we can't agree on. If I were feeling charitable, I'd say its only purpose is to keep up appearances. Izkala (talk) 19:37, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I would rather disagree. There aren't a lot of basic "principles" which go further than this one does. It does seem that the question as to whether the Signpost is part of wikipedia or not is involved in this dispute, and clarifying as I think this does that is not a newspaper as per WP:What Wikipedia is not#Wikipedia is not a newspaper, as is done above, is relevant. I acknowledge there might be a question as to the extent to which such a principle applies in this case, but that is up to the arbs to decide, not me. John Carter (talk) 19:45, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This is very short-sighted. For example, Wikipedia hosts hundreds of essays in project space, which are explicitly designed to serve as soapboxes (and a form of vanity press, if you wanted to be really uncharitable). Wikipedia is not just an encyclopedia; it's a community. Andreas JN 466 13:07, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No freedom of speech

2) The First Amendment of the US Constitution forbids government censorship of expression; it does not prevent a public charity such as the Wikimedia Foundation from deciding for itself what words and images will be presented on its websites, and how. ref WP:FREE (amended 02:57, 14 May 2016 (UTC))

Comment by Arbitrators:

But we do have an equivalent suited to our nature and purposes, that is the manner that this same general moral concept is applied at WP: NOT CENSORED. I would further say that WP exists in an environment which assumes the general concept of free speech to be a important human and social value--though not linked to any particular legal code. DGG ( talk ) 04:17, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The number of Amendments to the United States Constitution that apply to me personally is exactly 0. For example, I don't have the right to bear arms while editing Wikipedia, I don't have the right to avoid self incrimination while editing Wikipedia, nor does my status as a Wikipedia Editor provide me protection from quartering troops during peace time. Suggesting that (specifically) the First Amendment applies to me, a Canadian citizen, is ridiculous. Of course because the servers are largely hosted in the US there are some laws of which we must abide (copyright for example). What does not apply is the limitation of government censorship, which is what the First Amendment is about. I like Alanscottwalker's summary, and I wish that people would stop throwing around First Amendment as though everyone who edits this website were sitting in the US, and as though the Amendment covering government restriction on speech actually applies to a private website (understanding that NE Ent's statement above is specifically saying that it does not). --kelapstick^(bainuu) 05:35, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

WMF terms of use makes it clear some activities are prohibited. NE Ent 12:46, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

This should be common sense, but agree it would be best to post the principle here, given how much the issue came up. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 15:22, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Any editor pushing the opposite idea is either intentionally misleading others and should be asked to leave the project, or is too incompetent to understand, and should be asked to leave the project.--v/r - T P 16:58, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The ArbCom does not deliver legal rulings, no matter how trivial. Izkala (talk) 01:57, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

WMF Legal does, however, since they work for the corporation that owns the place. Arb can restate what WMF Legal has already stated for clarity. If WMF hasn't made this point clear previously, then Arb needs to ask them to do so. I'm thinking WMF has. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 11:48, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

For whose benefit? It's not a point of contention. Izkala (talk) 14:28, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at the evidence (including deleted) clearly shows it is a point of contention. That is what principles and proposals are based on, the evidence presented. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 15:03, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Well, they aren't gonna consider deleted evidence, are they? NE Ent, Coretheapple and Alanscottwalker agreed that the First Amendment is irrelevant. Montana made reference to First Amendment principles and freedom of the press, but did not otherwise appear to suggest the First Amendment applies to Wikipedia. So, again, this appears to serve no actual purpose. Izkala (talk) 19:19, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I would suggest striking this proposal and replace more with Policy and application: "Wikipedia is free and open, but restricts both freedom and openness where they interfere with creating an encyclopedia. Accordingly, Wikipedia is not a forum for unregulated free speech." (WP:NOTFREESPEECH). Because of English Wikipedia's purpose, form, and method, practically all Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines -- content, conduct, etc. -- variously govern and relate to written or visual expression on the Project. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 13:41, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That is acceptable, although I think stressing the fact that the First Amendment doesn't apply to Wikipedia is helpful, although not required. Saying so may require a direct comment from Legal anyway. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 15:05, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia being an international project, his should be clarified to, say: "The First Amendment of the United States Constitution forbids ..." and "a US-based public charity such as the Wikimedia Foundation". Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:19, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Fair point; tweaked a bit. NE Ent 02:57, 14 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No special privileges for projects

3) The project namespace or Wikipedia namespace is a namespace consisting of pages with information or discussion about Wikipedia. A WikiProject is a group of contributors who want to work together as a team to improve Wikipedia. WikiProjects are not rule-making organizations. WikiProjects have no special rights or privileges compared to other editors. This obviously includes WP:SIGNPOST. ref WP:PRJ, WP:PROJ

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Not entirely sure how the Signpost qualifies as a WikiProject per se, but I agree with the implicit statement that the rules that apply to all other groups apply to the Signpost as well. John Carter (talk) 14:36, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I think that "Project" is the best analog here. Anyone can start a project and do a similar newsletter, so while it might be a little more sophisticated, for our purposes, it is equal to a Project. I agree with this proposal, which clarifies that the Signpost is equivalent to a Project. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 02:12, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed findings of fact

Role of the Signpost

The Signpost provides a valuable role in building the Wikipedia community. By collating off wiki references to and research about Wikipedia; by interviewing individuals, both within the movement and outwith, regarding their viewpoints, it provides information about how Wikipedia fits in the larger world. By publishing opinions on topics relative to the project, in provides a focal point for community discussion and improvement. That value is diminished when it strays from that role.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

In other words -- we need Signpost to be Signpost, not gawker-lite or The Onion wannabe. NE Ent 22:29, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

I don't buy the argument that the Signpost's value is diminished by running joke material 1/365th of the time. The Signpost publishes straight news and opinion 99.8% of the time. The fact that we can't manage to laugh at or ignore the remaining 0.2% of its yearly content says more about us than it says about the Signpost. Moreover, plenty of reputable outlets publish jokes (or, to use the overwrought parlance of this case, "lies") on April 1st. For example:

Nature, the most prestigious scientific journal on Earth, published an article arguing that dragons were likely real, and that climate change might pave the way for their resurgence ([13]).
Archives of Internal Medicine published a study questioning whether daily apple consumption prevents physician visits, with an approving editorial on April Fool's jokes (article, editorial).
Discover published an article on the discovery of the "bigon", a putative elementary subatomic particle the size of a bowling ball ([14]).
National Public Radio regularly carries satirical and false "joke" content on April Fool's Day ([15]).
The Guardian likewise regularly publishes phony stories on April 1st (for instance, here's one about Radiohead and Ted Nugent collaborating on a pro-gun musical—zOMG political satire involving living people!! ([16])

I don't think we can argue, with a straight face, that we have higher editorial standards than Nature, or even than The Guardian. The Signpost is the Signpost 99.8% of the time. It can try to be The Onion in its remaining 0.2%, and we can choose to laugh, to shake our heads at it, or to ignore it, the same way people respond to April Fool's material in Nature, on NPR, or in newspapers. The idea that we're somehow above this sort of petty triviality is characteristic of the Wikipedia "community" in its self-important provincialism and exceptionalism. MastCell ^Talk 17:31, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Or, to add to Mastcell's excellent points, in the same way Wikipedians respond to April Fool's Day by ignoring our own main page for 24 hours. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 18:19, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I third MastCell's comments. I have said from the beginning of the case that there was no BLP violation, and anyone who claims that there was is not minimally consistent (though it is ok if people think otherwise, who am I to tell them). However, there have been no complaints, barring this bizarre incident, that the Signpost has a BLP problem. The focus of this case should be on Gamaliel's behaviour. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 18:48, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@MastCell: Thanks. --Andreas JN 466 13:13, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I do think that we can argue, with a very straight face, that we have a different purpose than Nature, or even The Guardian. The Guardian's purpose, at least to this reader, is to present factual news co-mingled with opinion supportive of a particular political viewpoint (in this it is no different to many other publications). This is not the purpose of The Signpost, or of Wikipedia more generally. I, and many other editors, are supportive of individuals' rights to present political comment; but they should do so off-Wiki. The Guardians purpose does include political satire. Wikipedia's purpose, and therefore The Signposts, does not - a collation of various instances in which publications have satirized a political figure, however supported by references, and puerile dick size jokes about political figures, however humorous they might seem, are not what we are here to do. - Ryk72 ^'c.s.n.s.' 00:13, 14 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Presenting "factual news co-mingled with opinion supportive of a particular political viewpoint" is not an entirely wrong description of what the Signpost is there to do (if you read "political" as restricted to Wikimedia politics). As for April Fools' jokes in publications, their purpose is to entertain – to provide a light-hearted diversion on April Fools' Day. You may feel that the Signpost should not attempt to entertain its readers, and that fun should not enter into it, but I'd say that's an extreme view. --Andreas JN 466 08:04, 14 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Nice strawman!!! Presenting "factual news co-mingled with opinion supportive of a particular political viewpoint" is not an entirely right description of what the Signpost is there to do (if you read "political" as broadened to politics generally). Neither I nor any other editors here has suggested that The Signpost should not be fun, provide light-hearted diversion, or otherwise entertain. What editors have suggested is that it should not present, promote or promulgate a partisan political position outside matters which directly affect Wikipedia. Compiling & publishing a sourced list of instances where partisan news media have mocked, made fun of, or otherwise satirised a politican figure is not within the remit of The Signpost; it's not even borderline. Satire may be humorous, but it is not only so; it is also intended to be cutting, scathing, attacking, derisive. If the editors of The Signpost cannot see the difference between humour and satire; or the difference between self-satire and partisan political satire, then they have no business producing what purports to be a "newspaper". - Ryk72 ^'c.s.n.s.' 08:27, 14 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If we're writing a humorous piece for the Signpost, we should ask ourselves "Who is the butt of the joke?". If the answer is not "the Wikipedia community" (or "myself"), and especially if the answer is "a living person external to the Wikipedia community", we should stop writing! - Ryk72 ^'c.s.n.s.' 08:38, 14 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I'm glad to read that you're not opposed to fun in principle! I thought I had read several contributors arguing for a "Just the facts, Mam" approach on this page, and that satire = lie. I agree with you that involving a political figure was a mistake, simply because of the by now well demonstrated potential for divisiveness, and that involving other living persons outside the Wikimedia sphere in Signpost satire would be inappropriate as well. Speaking of harm, though, the biggest casualty here, unfortunately, is the Signpost itself. Andreas JN 466 12:43, 14 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not opposed to fun in principle, either. Currently streaming Angie Tribeca -- I'm finding it hilarious, no doubt others would find it pointlessly stupid. Whatever damage is occurring to the signpost is self inflicted, as discussed above. Page wasn't needed, wasn't important, could have been easily replaced with a blue link generating redirect, but instead we got Take it to BLPN! (showing ignorance of WP:BLPRESTORE) and It's an evil gamergate plot!! And had Gamaliel's wiki friends stepped up, or stepped up more, they would have said "Dude, let it go, it's not important," this would have ended far sooner. Instead they double downed on drama by engaging in battle ... The simple solution to this is let Wikipedia be wikipedia -- encyclopedic and a little bit boring. (I'm not suggesting friendly user take page chat should be banned, community building is important, but this nonsense isn't community building). Let the rest of the interwebs do satire / joke thing. NE Ent 12:58, 14 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There may be a case to be made for admonishing The Signpost's editors to refrain from "excessive content unrelated to Wikimedia". However, I think it is beyond the committee's remit to prescribe or rewrite The Signpost's statement of purpose as a finding of fact. ~ Ningauble (talk) 17:00, 14 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed remedies

Gamaliel temporarily banned

1) Gamaliel is banned from the English Wikipedia for a period of three months.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Reading all the other, overly complicated proposals -- some combination of removals from Signpost and/or admin and/or committee, I'm struck by these thoughts: Gamaliel obviously cares about the project, used to be a pretty solid admin, has obviously Jumped the shark, and there is much wisdom in the 10 year old WP:OWB#51 Beware lest you begin to enjoy too much the blocking of vandals, the crushing of trolls, and the banning of troublemakers; spend too much time ridding the project of monsters, you risk taking on the characteristics of those you drive off. Too much troll-fighting can be destructive for one's attention span, sensitivity, and taste. It should be no surprise that the most experienced at troll-fighting often have the shortest tempers. The best way to counter this tendency is to do other things regularly, such as having a life outside Wikipedia. ^[1]. The Ent version of that is The best antidote to Wikipedia is real life. Ideally, Wikipedians realize that on their own ^[2] but sometimes a stronger impetus is necessary.

There will be some objection that a full site ban is "too harsh" -- as if a wiki-vacation is a "hard time" prison sentence. It's not, really, and nothing much changes in that short a time, anyway. No, a clean break would be best, much better than some incremental restriction which just kicks the can down the road.

Note: three is just a number -- anywhere in the range three to six would be fine.NE Ent 22:09, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I think an indefinite topic ban for tools and edits in American Politics is more fitting. This covers GamerGate and Trump. I don't think there are any issues outside that topic area. It would still allow full participation in all other areas. --DHeyward (talk) 23:33, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ In Gamaliel's case, I suspect his GG efforts were more about duty, than enjoyment
^ ideally without melodramatic "retirement" templates

There will be some objection that a full site ban is "too harsh" -- as if a wiki-vacation is a "hard time" prison sentence. -- can I call it or what? I find it very telling about wiki values that a three month hiatus is considered disproportionate, especially when compared with something like a desysop, which is effectively a lifetime loss of status. NE Ent 21:24, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

In contrast, I find it telling that you attach such significance to adminship. I don't see the loss of adminship as a huge deal. Some of the best admins I know have voluntarily relinquished the tools (whereas I seriously doubt they'd agree to a 3-6 month ban). Frankly, if I weren't addicted to the convenience of being able to view deleted pages and to block vandals without going through the tedium of WP:AIV, I'd have given up my own toolset long ago. I think that for people who focus largely or solely on Wikipedia-space politics, adminship seems like a huge status symbol and losing it seems like a fate worse than a ban. But for people who enjoy editing articles and discussing content, those things are just as easy, if not easier, without the burden of the administrative toolset, whereas a ban would be by far the harsher punishment. It's probably a matter of perspective. MastCell ^Talk 17:37, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Based on observation of some editors post desysop behavior I've inferred that viewpoint is not necessarily widespread. NE Ent 00:14, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

In the context of other sanctions handed down by both the "community" and by ArbCom, this is incredibly excessive for the actual misbehavior in evidence. Separately, presenting this as something we're imposing for Gamaliel's own good comes across as patronizing and paternalistic. MastCell ^Talk 22:45, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This is silly, Gamaliel may have gotten caught up in some of this - but he was not intentionally malicious or nefarious. A ban is far greater than the alleged crime.--v/r - T P 01:29, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Concur. There are some serious issues at play here, perhaps requiring real sanction, but a ban of any length is inappropriate. A token block? perhaps. At the extreme end of possibility perhaps losing the bit. But this was nowhere near disruptive enough to require a ban. Gaijin42 (talk) 01:50, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Rarely do I get to read presumptuous drivel of this scale. You did not even stop short of suggesting Gamaliel does not have a life outside Wikipedia. Izkala (talk) 01:55, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe Gamaliel needs to take a break, maybe he does not but that is for him to decide. None of the evidence supports a block or ban. The question is whether his behavior was inconsistent with holding advanced permissions on Wikipedia, not whether it was inconsistent with being an editor of Wikipedia. He does good work as an editor and I have seen nothing to cause doubt that he will continue to do good work as an editor. Jbh ^Talk 02:47, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Clearly excessive and disproportionate, even assuming a finding of misconduct. Newyorkbrad (talk) 23:44, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Disproportionate. -- Euryalus (talk) 11:20, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Though less equal pigs are frequently permanently banned from the site for a subset of the gross misconduct Gamaliel has engaged in, I think this may be disproportionate. I think remove from ArbCom and removal of admin status for abuse of tools and serious, multiple breaches of trust is sufficient. --Hammersoft (talk) 15:39, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Disproportionate. Carrite (talk) 17:10, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, far too harsh. GAB^Hello! 22:21, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Disproportionate in the extreme. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 02:07, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Proposals by User:Jayen466

Proposed principles

Application of Wikipedia policy to The Signpost

1) The Signpost is the Wikimedia community's online newspaper, staffed by an editorial board composed of volunteers. It is hosted in project space on the English Wikipedia and contains original reporting attributed to its authors by a byline, in much the same way as contributors sign posts on talk pages. Wikipedia policies do not apply to Signpost articles in the same way that they apply to articles in Wikipedia mainspace. Along with other pages in project space that host community views and discussions, Signpost articles are permitted some leeway to present and discuss issues of interest to the community – including for example issues that have not previously been covered by reliable sources – and to express and relay contributors' personal opinions on matters affecting the community. While Wikipedia policies do not apply to Signpost articles in the same way that they apply to mainspace articles, the Signpost's editorial board has a duty of care to ensure that Signpost content is in line with the letter and spirit of Wikipedia policies, as applied to pages in project space. Editors may flag Signpost material they believe to be in violation of policy – for example WP:BLPTALK policy, as applied to pages in project space – and administrators may delete Signpost content if there is consensus at an administrators' noticeboard or equivalent venue, such as WP:MfD or WP:BLPN, that the material is indeed in violation of policy.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

WP:BLPRESTORE: If it is to be restored without significant change, consensus must be obtained first. " (emphasis mine). It's really not that difficult a concept. When The ed17 incorrectly protected the page and Ryk72 pointed out BLPRESTORE to him [17], it took Ed a grand total of two minutes [18] to grok it. That signpost editors are still arguing the point after five weeks indicates -- I don't know what it indicates, but it's obviously wrong. NE Ent 21:39, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Would have liked a ping on this if you're going to mention me. I unprotected the page out of an overabundance of caution so that something like this case wouldn't happen to me, nothing more (ergo why I simply said "fair point"—I try to not take chances, given my job). Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 02:41, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Proposed, using some principles from WP:BLPTALK. Something along those lines is needed. --Andreas JN 466 01:01, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

More or less agree with the above, although it might help a lot if it were a bit clearer whether the above also gave a bit more indication of exactly what sort of leeway should be given to non-article pages. John Carter (talk) 14:39, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

While the nature of Signpost requires applying Wikipedia policies differently from the way we do on articles or talk pages it is not exempt from following policy. For example editorials and op-eds may not need to follow NOR but claims of fact should still follow WP:V. The locus of this dispute, BLP, however is not one of the policies where Signpost should be allowed leeway. Some have claimed that BLPTALK may be a good guide but, since Signpost is a published reader facing page, - just like our articles, it should fully comply with BLP. At best, in an opinion piece, it may be possible to say balancing tests like DUE/WEIGHT may be relaxed but making shit up is right out. Jbh ^Talk 15:21, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Can I use this proposal as evidence that a clear FoF is needed demonstrating the opposite? It's clear that Signpost editors have this opinion and that needs to be fixed.--v/r - T P 17:00, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I can't see any reason why you can't at the very least use this as at least basis for saying that the community should clarify policies and guidelines in such a way as to remove any ambiguity regarding such matters. In general, in the past, the ArbCom has given the community the job of clarifying such questions, but I do agree that it would be in everyone's interests if the matter were clearly resolved somehow. John Carter (talk) 18:03, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Mildly, it doesn't need clarifying, because there is no ambiguity in it; the premise of this proposed FoF is fundamentally wrong. EN-WP policies apply to all pages on EN-WP. There is no special exemption for The Signpost, and no special exemption for Signpost editors. -- Euryalus (talk) 21:00, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The final sentence of this proposal Editors may flag Signpost material they believe to be in violation of policy ... fundamentally misunderstands, and is incompatible with, WP:BLP@WP:BLPREMOVE. I concur with Jbhunley that the published nature of The Signpost means that its articles should do better than comply with WP:BLPTALK only. - Ryk72 ^'c.s.n.s.' 18:37, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Since BLPTALK begins: Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced and not related to making content choices should be removed. . ." This proposal appears unsupported by current policy, especially given that BLP includes BLPREMOVE and thus, this cannot be done by Arbcom. Alanscottwalker (talk) 19:14, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- The section on pages in project space specifically says, "administrators may delete such material", not "editors may delete such material"; and admins are expected to act in accordance with community consensus. --Andreas JN 466 19:27, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Editors can never "delete" so that is not relevant, what editors do is "remove." Alanscottwalker (talk) 19:44, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Specifically, blank the page and request revdel if necessary. Only in death does duty end (talk) 19:48, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost is a Project. It exists in Project space. It should simply be held to the same standards and expectations as any other Project. Unless you can point to a policy that specifically gives it special privilege, then none exists. I don't think this proposal accurately represents consensus of the greater community, nor good practice. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 02:15, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Proposals by Rhoark

Proposed exclusion of findings/remedies outside the narrowly construed case scope

Whereas the Arbitration Committee and its clerks explicitly limited evidence and discussion outside the scope of actions on or after April 1, any findings of fact or remedies outside that same scope would be on unsound foundation.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Should be reworded: "Whereas the Arbitration Committee prevented evidence that would prove any history or pattern of activity reaching back more than 17 days from case opening, in an unprecedented restriction never before seen, any findings of fact or remedies that require, by policy, evidence of a pattern of bad behavior (such as WP:ADMINACCT: 'Administrators who seriously, or repeatedly, act in a problematic manner or have lost the trust or confidence of the community may be sanctioned or have their access removed.') are immediately rescinded to protect an Arbcom member. However, any and all aspersions, unfounded or not, may be thrown at 'and others' in any way deemed necessary to make this case appear very different than reality." That'll make it more accurate.--v/r - T P 17:10, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed remedies

Signpost editors and contributors commended

The Signpost is a valuable resource to the Wikipedia community, and the regular production and editing of its content a demanding responsibility, for which Gamaliel and all other contributors are to be commended.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

That's just what Wikipedia needs. The highest authoritative community body, the Arbitration Committee, explicitly commending the signpost for perpetuating and propagating the clear defamation of the Republican Presidential Nominee for President of the United States of America. Nothing in the world will prove how neutral and reliable we are better than that.--v/r - T P 17:04, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Let's not get carried away—this case already has more than enough overwrought commentary. There's no way that this joke constituted "clear defamation". To constitute defamation, one would have to show, among other things, that Trump sustained actual damages as a result of the joke. Obviously, he hasn't. There are a variety of cases to be made for the notion that Wikipedia has a lib'rul bias, some more compelling than others, but this is among the very weakest. MastCell ^Talk 22:49, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

As I said, a commendation from Arbcom would make it much stronger.--v/r - T P 01:28, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

TParis, your overwrought and hyperbolic posts are getting old fast. Tone it down, please? Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 02:42, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The absurdity of those flaunting Signpost independence and freedom of speech on this project got old from the start. Excuse me if I'm a bit shocked at what I see. But, if you're fed up with me, I'll find something else to do for awhile.--v/r - T P 03:14, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You know I respect you, TParis—but IMHO you're really straying into dead horse territory, if you know what I mean. Best, Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 06:14, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, I know I get carried away sometimes and I appreciate being set straight.--v/r - T P 07:38, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Proposals by User:Fram

Proposed principles

Expectations for administrators

1) Administrators are users trusted with access to certain tools on the English Wikipedia. They are expected to observe a high standard of conduct, to use the tools fairly, and never to use them to gain advantage in a dispute. (the nutshell summary of the WP:ADMIN policy)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Conduct of administrators

2) Administrators are expected to follow Wikipedia policies and to perform their duties to the best of their abilities. Occasional mistakes are entirely compatible with adminship; administrators are not expected to be perfect. However, sustained or serious disruption of Wikipedia is incompatible with the status of administrator, and consistently or egregiously poor judgment may result in the removal of administrator status. (from WP:ADMINCOND

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Admin accountability

3) Administrators are expected to respond promptly and civilly to queries about their Wikipedia-related conduct and administrator actions and to justify them when needed. Administrators who seriously, or repeatedly, act in a problematic manner or have lost the trust or confidence of the community may be sanctioned or have their access removed. In the past, this has happened or been suggested for: *Failure to communicate – this can be either to users (e.g., lack of suitable warnings or explanations of actions), or to concerns of the community (especially when explanations or other serious comments are sought). *Repeated or consistent poor judgment. (relevant parts from WP:ADMINACCT

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Involved admin actions

4) In general, editors should not act as administrators in disputed cases in which they have been involved. This is because involved administrators may have, or may be seen as having, a conflict of interest in disputes they have been a party to or have strong feelings about. Involvement is generally construed very broadly by the community, to include current or past conflicts with an editor (or editors), and disputes on topics, regardless of the nature, age, or outcome of the dispute. (from WP:INVOLVED)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Conduct of arbitrators

5) Arbitrators are expected to: Act with integrity and good faith at all times (from WP:ARBCOND)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Signpost is about Wikipedia and Wikimedia

6) The Signpost is a community-written and edited newspaper that covers stories, events, and reports related to the English Wikipedia, its sister projects, the Wikimedia Foundation, and the Wikimedia movement at large. (first line of Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/About)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

I think this is on the right track, as a basis for admonishing The Signpost's editors to refrain from "excessive content unrelated to Wikimedia". However, lest the committee give the appearance of mandating The Signpost adopt a dry and stodgy style, some cognizance should be given to the importance of entertainment in The Signpost's statement of purpose (itself too lengthy to quote in full). ~ Ningauble (talk) 16:40, 14 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed findings of fact

Gamaliel violated WP:INVOLVED

1) User:Gamaliel has used admin tools despite WP:INVOLVED: rev-del of a link to an external discussion of his actions[19] and protection of a page he created after it was blanked as a WP:POINT violation[20]

Comment by Arbitrators:

Blandly describing the contents of this link as "an external discussion of his actions" is, in my view, inappropriate. I would prefer we all follow NYB's advice in a thread below on this issue. Opabinia regalis (talk) 19:12, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

The standard exception for involved reads "on the basis that any reasonable administrator would have probably come to the same conclusion. " Since Fram is a) an administrator, and b) reasonable, that he's not coming to the same conclusion is telling. NE Ent 22:26, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Taken as a whole, it's hard to see how he was uninvolved. Play word games with the policy all day long, but the smell test is whether it escalates or deescalate a situation. If it escalates, it's likely INVOLVED and "reasonable admins" step back because if it's clear cut, the case is taken up by others. --DHeyward (talk) 03:42, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Swapped diffs. Discuss-Dubious (t/c) 17:09, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

An admin doesn't need to grab another admin to rev-del a link to their being shittalked on an online shitboard; common sense should prevail. Protecting a topical page in their userspace was a provocative act, but is it seriously a violation of WP:INVOLVED? Izkala (talk) 22:12, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If this is the "meat" of the case against Gamaliel, it's incredibly weak sauce. The first diff shows Gamaliel removing and deleting a link to a Reddit thread disparaging named living people—in other words, it shows Gamaliel upholding WP:BLP and shows one of his accusers (Ryk72) violating it. <Insert exploding head emoji>
The second diff shows Gamaliel protecting a page within his own userspace, something that admins are permitted to do by custom and commonsense (I've done it dozens of times in my own userspace). Please, tell me there's more "there" there, given the magnitude of the shitstorm you guys have managed to kick up here. MastCell ^Talk 22:54, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Not a violation. Posting of links in non-article space is explicitly permitted by WP:BLP@WP:BLPTALK - What was redacted from Wikipedia was "[21][22]"; which contains no information about living persons, and consequently does not violate BLP.
To be clear, the background here is that Gamaliel represented that there were discussions on Reddit that warranted the imposition of "500/30" protection on an article and its Talk page. At the time that this protection was applied, the only two active Reddit threads discussing that page both focused solely on another editor, strongly associated with Gamaliel, removing a discussion of their potentially having a COI. Respectfully, how would esteemed editors here suggest that an editor raise this issue and satisfy both their view of WP:BLP and WP:ASPERSIONS (which requires that evidence be presented)? - Ryk72 ^'c.s.n.s.' 18:35, 10 May 2016 (UTC) - amended Ryk72 ^'c.s.n.s.' 19:35, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Go back and read WP:BLPTALK again. It authorizes posting potentially dubious links for the express purpose of discussing whether such material belongs in an article. It doesn't authorize free-for-all posting of anonymous abuse against other contributors. That should be obvious as a matter of common sense and editorial competence. This sort of cluelessness and lack of understanding of WP:BLP is profound, and so is the irony that people with such a poor understanding of the policy are trying to bring a BLP case here. MastCell ^Talk 19:44, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Respectfully, I fundamentally disagree with your interpretation on this point. I did not post "free-for-all abuse". I stated that "Reddit threads" did not support the imposition of "500/30" on an article & its Talk page, and clearly provided the links to the only active Reddit threads discussing that page in the context of that statement only. Editors are invited to examine the linked discussions again and advise of any comments made prior to the page protection which they believe justify that protection. I maintain that if these Reddit threads are the ones alluded to by Gamaliel as justification for the page protection, then they do not justify it, and show evidence of involved and biased admin action. I also invited editors to review the last sentence of WP:BLP@WP:BLPTALK, and WP:REVDEL@WP:CRD#2 - Ryk72 ^'c.s.n.s.' 20:06, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Editors should be aware that some content has mercifully been deleted from the Reddit discussions in question, so if anyone goes there to assess the justification for the revdel, they should be aware that what they see there now is not what would have been displayed at the time. Andreas JN 466 16:07, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Having reviewed the Reddit threads, I concur with Andreas that some content appears to have been deleted; I note one particularly evocative comment in particular is no longer present. However, by my reckoning, the removed comments were all posted after the imposition of the "500/30" protection as mentioned in my comment above (20:06, 10 May 2016); this would suggest that they cannot be justifying of it.
Again, I invite editors to review, and to advise of any comments made prior to the page protection which they believe justify that protection. I maintain that they do not. - Ryk72 ^'c.s.n.s.' 20:52, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The silence on this question speaks volumes. - Ryk72 ^'c.s.n.s.' 00:43, 14 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Ryk72: It would help if you made clear which page protection you are talking about –? --Andreas JN 466 07:52, 14 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Izkala: So the standard you want to set is that admins can revdel material about themselves that they don't like? If that's the standard you want to set, well, I'm sure there are a lot of admins who would support you.--v/r - T P 22:57, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No: the standard is that admins can delete material that violates WP:BLP, even if that material happens to involve them. This standard is entirely in keeping with the profound importance and respect which the commentators here claim to attach to WP:BLP. MastCell ^Talk 23:08, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Whoa whoa, I take that as criticism of me and my opinion. I'm a living person. I best go revdel your comment.--v/r - T P 23:27, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I know that you're smart enough to understand the difference between our back-and-forth on one hand, and linking/re-posting personal abuse from reddit on the other. That you're choosing to conflate the two for rhetorical purposes is disappointing. MastCell ^Talk 15:22, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It's not about what I know, or you know. It's about 1,307 administrators and all future ones. The standard of "involved" is supposed to remove all doubt about biases and pejudice. It's a good standard. You can argue that you and I may share some sense of judgement, but you can't argue where all 1,307 admins judge the lower end of the threshold allowing them to revdel material critical of themselves.--v/r - T P 16:49, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The material was posted on an infamous Gamergate forum. You're framing it as if it was a couple of nobodies' reasoned - albeit vulgar - disagreement with Gamaliel. It was a link to a Gamergate subreddit. That alone warrants revdel'ing, never mind the insults towards Gamaliel. Izkala (talk) 17:55, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm doing no such thing. You're saying A > B. I'm saying ~B. Just because I am ~B doesn't mean I am also ~A. I oppose this silly proposal of yours because it implies that when an admin is heavily involved, they are rational enough to make a decision about policy - a particular policy that makes the material itself outside the vetting of the community. Deletion and revdel are some of the most important tools to be careful with. Because unlike blocking and protection, other people can't see what was deleted. This case might be clear, but your blanket statement is going to cause more harm just so you can save Gamaliel. Yes, every admins does need to grab another admin. And it isn't hard to do. There are IRC channels, noticeboards, admin talk pages, etc. There are 1,307 admins, 400 are active in the last 30 days, I'm sure 1 can be found with some haste to revdel material. Gamaliel has my email address, I'd have been happy to do it.--v/r - T P 18:00, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Izkala: It was a link to a Gamergate subreddit. That alone warrants revdel'ing - by which policy? - Ryk72 ^'c.s.n.s.' 18:35, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

... No, what I was suggesting is that grossly insulting, degrading, or offensive material can be revdel'ed by the person said material is directed at. Do you doubt that the deleted material was grossly offensive? Izkala (talk) 01:46, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Not at all. What I doubt is that "common sense" is common and that when you leave it up to every admin to determine what they consider to be "grossly insulting," that you're opening the matter up to a whole new level of subjectivity never before seen. That's why we require uninvolved admins.--v/r - T P 01:57, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm an uninvolved admin, and I would have blanked and/or rev-deleted this material in a heartbeat. (I probably would have also warned Ryk72 for violating WP:BLP). If that's the bar, then this issue can be put to bed. MastCell ^Talk 15:24, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

But the slopes, they are slippery. Izkala (talk) 16:25, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Great, MastCell, then next time you should be there so no other admin has to act while involved. I can't even believe anyone would argue differently. WP:INVOLVED is a bright-line rule. You don't cross it except in the most exceptional cases of the most severe harm to the project. So, yeah, Izkala, apparently we are on a slippery slope because we've already slipped down from "exceptionally grave damage" to "assholish trolling".--v/r - T P 16:59, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No, WP:INVOLVED is actually the opposite of a bright-line rule. It's got all kinds of exceptions, including one for cases where "any reasonable administrator" (admittedly, a group of about 4 or 5 people at this point) would act similarly. I'll try to be more available in the future. MastCell ^Talk 19:46, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@MastCell: I'm sorry, do you want to run that by me again? This time quote the entire sentence, instead of just trimming the bit off the end and presenting it out of context. You're starting to greatly alarm me with your concept of WP:INVOLVED.--v/r - T P 20:12, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I linked WP:INVOLVED so that people can read the entire sentence if they like; I don't think I've altered its context. I'm happy to compare our understandings of this policy elsewhere (like on my talkpage), as this workshop is cluttered enough already. I will say that I've been editing and adminning controversial topics for 10 years now—everything from abortion, to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, to various forms of quackery and fringe medical claims, to climate change, to American politics, and so on. I don't know anyone who's done what I've done, for as long as I've done it, with a clean record like mine. I think my understanding of WP:INVOLVED has been road-tested more than once and is as sound as anyone's. MastCell ^Talk 23:45, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The thing that comes from reading that again for clarity, and considering the initial action of applying 500/30 on a GG-related article, requires us to evaluate how involved or uninvolved Gamaliel was in relation to GG, which is now where we have the problem that ArbCom has decided GG is out of scope, given that this issue is a side administrative action compared to the Signpost part. While INVOLVED does say administrators acting purely in an administrative role are not involved, there's been several questions raised well before and during this case of how much Gamaliel was involved (if any), in terms of their inconsistent application of previous topic bans (this was documented by various statements that have been removed by the clerks as deemed out of scope by ArbCom). If Gamaliel was involved in the GG topic beyond a purely administrative role, then they should have never placed 500/30 on said page, but instead provided the evidence that there was potentially an editing threat from these off-wiki sites and asked the community to evaluate the seriousness of the threat. The thing is, only until the self-requested topic ban of administrating GG, Gamaliel has acted like they were not involved despite several editors pointing this out to them, and places blame on GG for the Signpost complaints. Unfortunately with how its been determined this case is going, its difficult to get into evaluating if Gamaliel was involved or not (at this past time) to make this administrative actions. --MASEM (t) 00:06, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Mastcell: I probably would have also warned Ryk72 for violating WP:BLP. And I, respectfully, would have directed you to WP:BLP, WP:NPA and WP:REVDEL and requested that you demonstrate, with reference to those policies, how the redacted information is in violation of them. The information redacted (ie. the link, not the contents of the linked page) is clearly and explicitly permitted by BLP; is clearly not a personal attack; and is clearly not revdel-able. - Ryk72 ^'c.s.n.s.' 18:35, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I have no doubt you would have responded like that. MastCell ^Talk 19:47, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I have no idea what that is intended to mean; though it seems unnecessarily personally directed. Should editors wish to maintain that the inclusion of the links, in the context in which they were provided, is a violation of policy, would they please demonstrate, with reference to those policies, how it is so. - Ryk72 ^'c.s.n.s.' 20:08, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

MastCell, great posts. What's really amusing is how BLP rules apparently no longer apply when it comes to posting content about Gamaliel. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 02:44, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Respectfully, BLP does not prevent discussion of an editor's on-Wiki activity. - Ryk72 ^'c.s.n.s.' 00:43, 14 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Gamaliel repeatedly reclosed an ANI discussion about himself

2) User:Gamaliel has edit-warred to keep an ANI discussion about himself closed[23][24][25]

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Gamaliel violated CSD policy

3) User:Gamaliel removed a CSD tag from a page he created[26]

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Gamaliel violated 3RR

4) User:Gamaliel violated 3RR[27][28][29][30]

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Gamaliel belittles concerns

5) User:Gamaliel belittles the concerns many editors have expressed and clearly sees no problem with his actions so far, failing ADMINACCT, ADMINCOND an ARBCOND [31]

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

This proposed finding of fact might be an actual BLP violation. Really, he 'clearly sees no problem with his actions so far', and fails ALLTHECAPSTHINGS on the basis of one diff from the day it all erupted? Izkala (talk) 22:19, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Or you could read the actual evidence and workshop page and the discussions. Not all evidence needs to be repeated here, it is available to the ArbCom and everyone else. Just read his last-minute reply in the evidence section for example. He still hasn't addressed things like his 3RR violation, his wp:own revert to keep deleted pages from 2016 in an archive index from 2010, and so on. Fram (talk) 07:04, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Gamaliels falsifies history and has WP:OWN issues

6) User:Gamaliel falsifies Signpost history pages[32][33] and shows severe WP:OWN issues in keeping this[34] (edit summary "Stop messing with our templates please"), even reinserting redlinks to test pages.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

To apply WP:OWN on the Signpost appears to me quite inappropriate given that the Signpost has editors-in-chief. --AFBorchert (talk) 18:31, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If one uses his position to edit-war to keep pages that were both fake (as in from 2016, not from 2010) and already deleted (one through MfD for BLP reasons) in a 2010 archive index, then yes, one has WP:OWN issues. Being editor-in-chief or whatever title a project decides to give to an editor among them does not elevate one above policies. Note that the OWN issues didn't appear at the then-current Signpost anymore (the test page never appeared there, luckily). If an editor believes that being editor-in-chief gives them absolute power to do with archives, deleted pages, ... whatever they want, then they need to step down as editor-in-chief. WP:OWN has no exceptions for editor-in-chief or other similar positions. "All Wikipedia content − articles, categories, templates, and other types of pages − is edited collaboratively. No one, no matter how skilled, or how high standing in the community, has the right to act as though they are the owner of a particular page." If he doesn't want anyone to correct the errors he makes in "their" templates, he should take them off-wiki. Fram (talk) 18:42, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Irregardless of anything else here, it's worth noting that [35] and [36] were done to generate that sidebar that was used in the Signpost article. Basically, it was a solution to a technical issue. No conspiracies here, folks. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 02:49, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Which are not the diffs under consideration, plus no claims ofconspiracy have been made, plus your second diff was not done to generate the sidebar anyway. So no idea why you considered this "worth noting" or even relevant to the FoF. Fram (talk) 06:41, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

They're not? Funny, I copied them straight from the FoF above. The second diff was, I can only assume, a test of the sidebar. I'm simply explaining that this isn't 'falsifying history' or anything conspiratorial like that. Don't badger. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 07:00, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No, not funny (for me), very stupid (of me). No idea what I was thinking when I replied to you, nothing very intelligent apparently. I'll shut up for a while before I make things worse. Fram (talk) 07:27, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

My apologies for the sarcasm, I thought you truly meant to say that the diffs weren't relevant and I was (understandably, I think) a bit incredulous. The possibility of a mistake didn't occur to me. :-) Best, Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 07:49, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No problem, I would have reacted the same way if someone else had made such a stupid reply as mine. Fram (talk) 08:22, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Gamaliel misuses his position at the Signpost

7) User:Gamaliel misuses his position as editor-in-chief of the Signpost to continue the dispute and attack other editors in a blatant WP:POINT violation by creating Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2016-04-14/Gallery, the first such gallery of 2016

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

To publish a gallery in the Signpost that refers to all those who had no other business than keeping badgering him happens now to be considered as a misuse? And, how unthinkable bad, it is even the first gallery in this year! Please. Of course, a contribution to the Signpost can be WP:POINTy and thereby a good read. The Signpost is a journalistic medium within our wiki and it needs some obvious freedom to fulfill its function. Applying the full system of rules of our regular spaces to the Signpost would actually kill it. Galamiel might not have been in his most wise mind when he closed his own ANI thread etc. but please be careful not to suggest restrictions that leave the Signpost as casualty in this unfortunate affair. --AFBorchert (talk) 18:54, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it is a misuse. The fact that it is the first gallery of the year is added to show that this is not a typical part of the Signpost which I just happen to interpret in the wrong way, but an especially revived one to use for a wiki-internal message. If he wanted to write a pointy text about the situation, he could have proposed an op-ed. But he choose an apparently neutral environment to post a personal message which has nothing to do with the purpose of the Signpost and everything with his individual problems as an editor and admin. Yes, that's a quite blatant misuse of his position, and doesn't change anything about the normal functioning of the Signpost (well, they may end up with one editor-in-chief less, but that's hardly a reason not to present this FoF). Fram (talk) 07:13, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Gamaliel violates ADMINACCT

8) User:Gamaliel violates WP:ADMINACCT (see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Gamaliel and others/Evidence#Evidence presented by Fram section ADMINACCT

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Gamaliel vilifies critics

9) User:Gamaliel blames all problems on Gamergate, not recognising the problems with his own actions and the concerns uninvolved (not Gamergate) people have.[37][38][39]

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Gamaliel doesn't take chances to de-escalate the situation

10) The above findings of fact happened over a longer period, during which there were repeated requests to calm down, self-revert, and let things cool off before it got out of hand. Instead of reflecting on the situation, Gamaliel repeatedly throws fuel on the fire and deliberately provokes further problems (his Gamergate comments, the Signpost gallery, edit-warring on ANI closes or the inclusion of deleted 2016 Signpost pages in a 2010 Signpost history page). When things eventually end at ArbCom, he avoids all genuine discussion of his actions by only posting his "evidence" (or getting it proxy-posted, not the first time in this case) at the very last minute.

Comment by Arbitrators:

The last day is true, but the last minute was due to real-life interruptions on my end, not anything to do with Gamaliel. That said, this is basically the core issue. No individual decision on his part was really so bad, and all were understandable if not optimal when considered individually, and we don't have month-long arbcom cases over the occasional unforced error. But unfortunately, the collective effect has been to escalate a dispute far out of proportion to its original subject matter. Opabinia regalis (talk) 19:01, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

I think this is the fairest criticism of Gamaliel's actions: there were multiple opportunities for him to de-escalate this dispute, even by doing nothing and simply ignoring provocation, but his actions instead escalated it. MastCell ^Talk 22:57, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Opabinia regalis: I'm not sure you can describe edit-warring an ANI discussion about yourself closed as "understandable if not optimal." It's the sort of thing we expect from newbie vandals and sock-puppeting trolls. That anyone who'd been here for more than two weeks to seriously build an encyclopaedia thought it was in any way a good idea, let alone an experienced admin and an arb, beggars belief. Some of the content of that thread from others was pretty sub-optimal, IMO, but I just can't see how anyone thought what Gamaliel did would end up anywhere other than here. Especially when other uninvolved admins were already attempting to close it independently (if not exactly in a way to calm the waters). GoldenRing (talk) 11:49, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Gamaliel makes incorrect claims in his evidence

11)"Fram has been repeatedly dismissive of the BLP-violating content of the link and has attempted to justify it on the grounds that it allegedly contains allegations of a conduct violation on my part. Instead of reposting the link, the responsible approach would have been to post the substance of this conduct violation without including the link. Fram insists that the allegations of conduct violation exist somewhere in that discussion but has yet to identify exactly what those allegations are." (from Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Gamaliel and others/Evidence#Evidence presented by Gamaliel section "Fram")

I posted on the Case request page on 14 April the following, in reply to a similar request by Gamaliel:

(start of quote) As for "Are you seriously making the bad faith accusation that I deleted this BLP violation to cover up a "conduct accusation"? I have no idea what accusation is being made there about my Wikipedia conduct.", let me quote a few things to refresh your memory: "I like how within 2 hours Mark's guard dog Gamaliel decided to extend the 500/30 restriction to the article. 'How did this guy get administrative privileges?' Because everything he's done is always done an "uninvolved" with his own actions. How someone can not be involved with what they do is a classic wikipedia Gordian knot" and further "Neutral and independent and randomly coincidental arb Gamma rolls in to town, and invokes a rule designed for protecting the most controversial pages on Wikipedia like Israel, GamerGate and er... Brianna. Which coincidentally solely restricts the one editor questioning Mark!!! Much neutral. So wisdom. Truly gamma." This is about half of that discussion. Only the last post in it contains the oh-so-offending innuendo that prompted your rev-del, and even then it is only insulting to you, not to those people you supposedly tried to protect. If you really have reread that link and still had "no idea what accusation is being made there about my Wikipedia conduct", then I call bullshit. It's a thread solely about you and your protection of MarkBernstein. It may be completely offbase and nonsense, but your defense of your actions is severely lacking here. Fram (talk) 07:04, 14 April 2016 (UTC) (end of quote)

Gamaliel was perfectly capable of finding these things for himself of course, but claimed that even after rereading the link (" I have no idea what accusation is being made there about my Wikipedia conduct. I've gone and reread that link just now and it seems to be about the alleged sexual proclivities of myself and several other living individuals, including two subjects of articles here.", from Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Gamaliel and others#Statement by Gamaliel. If he is unable to see that that discussion is about him (initially at the time of the revdel, and after it has been pointed out to him and he has reread the link), then he lacks the objectivity and self-awareness needed in an admin. If he did see that it was about him but tried to bluster his way out, then he lacks the honesty needed in an admin.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Can you actually stop quoting reddit shitposters? What is wrong with you? In a bit you omitted, the second commenter compared Gamaliel to a Nazi. Are these the people he - or any of us - are supposed to listen to? Izkala (talk) 22:32, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Izkala: Having just reviewed the two threads which were originally linked at WP:A/R/M [40], I am unable to find any comments comparing any persons to Nazis. There is a reference to a Wikipedia essay which is named after a German building, but it would be a disservice to that nation to suggest that they, or their buildings (or their delightful superhero costumes) are all Nazis. Perhaps it is possible that you have the wrong threads. Should you wish to communicate them to me, I will be happy to confirm if they are those which were linked. Alternately, any admin who can view the revdeleted edit could confirm the same. - Ryk72 ^'c.s.n.s.' 12:37, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If you want a perfect illustration of the hypocrisy of this case, of the fact that those accusing Gamaliel of violating BLP wouldn't know an actual BLP issue if it bit them on the ass, Fram has kindly (if unwittingly) provided it. MastCell ^Talk 22:58, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Damned if you do, damned if you don't? Gamaliel claimed that a) nothing in that discussion involved accusations about his actions, and b) I hadn't provided any quotes to show him wrong. Both a and b were wrong, and I repeated the quotes to show this (as I can't present the actual link). These are not BLP violations, please reread the BLP policy. Is he supposed to listen to these people? No, not at all. Do they even have an actual point or are they making things up? No idea, don't care. Those things are not under discussion. The questions are "was that discussion about admin conduct by Gamaliel" (yes, clearly, despite his claims to the contrary) and "should he have rev-deled it?" (no, per WP:INVOLVED). Please, Mastcell, explain how I should have discussed my claims that he was involved here and shouldn't have done the revdel without providing these quotes (requested by Gamaliel!)? I am not allowed to repost the link, so there aren't many options left. Fram (talk) 07:20, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I think you're asking the wrong questions. You should have the basic common sense and competence (particularly as an admin) to recognize an obvious BLP issue, or at least not to repeat and amplify an obvious BLP violation while prosecuting a BLP claim against someone else. If there's an actual issue with "admin abuse", then there's a process for addressing it. That process does not involve re-posting personal abuse from random reddit threads against named private individuals. If the deletion of this reddit link is a key part of your "case" against Gamaliel, then it says a lot more about your competence and understanding of BLP than it does about Gamaliel's. MastCell ^Talk 15:37, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Well, you berate me for repeating the quotes (which are about admin conduct, not about some "private individual", you are aware that BLP has an exception for discussions of admin conduct, right?), and Izkala berates me for excluding a more egregious personal attack from the discussion, and repeats it here (a fact none of the people berating me seems to have a problem with). I'll focus my attention on somewhat more objective commenters in the future, seems more worthwhile. Fram (talk) 06:57, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Neither of those quotes even approach BLP violations. They're claims of admin misconduct. They could've been posted on WP with no issue with, maybe, a couple lines removed that arguably fall into NPA territory. The point is Gamaliel claimed the discussion didn't address his conduct when clearly it did. Capeo (talk) 16:18, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The links contained anonymous personal abuse from a hostile reddit forum. That sort of thing has no place in a serious internal discussion of "admin misconduct", for which defined processes exist. An admin-abuse case that relies on GamerGater reddit posts is not a serious case. And a case that seeks to punish an admin for removing such links isn't a serious case either. MastCell ^Talk 19:35, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You do realize Gamaliel was using his reading of GG reddits as a reason to put an extreme protection on an article right? It's your contention that asking for evidence of such supposed coordination and showing contrary evidence is a BLP violation? So it's okay for Gamaliel to use reddit as an excuse without offering proof? Capeo (talk) 20:09, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

First of all, putting a GamerGate article under 500/30 protection isn't an "extreme" action; these pages are subject to a high level of abuse and are under discretionary sanctions, and applying that protection level was well within permitted administrative discretion. Asking an admin to justify his or her action is fine; posting links to personal abuse from a GamerGate reddit forum is not. If you cannot manage to do the former without doing the latter, then that's something you need to work on. MastCell ^Talk 23:50, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Putting a Talk page under 500/30 protection as the immediate next edit following a highly partisan editor deleting a discussion as to their potential COI is a questionable action; where of all editors active on that Talk page the protection only affects the editor raising the COI concerns it is a highly questionable action; and it is an action which was questioned. Responses to those questions were varied and inconsistent, but finally resulted in reference by the admin to "a discussion about this page on Reddit" and "off-site coordination targeting the article of a BLP in a topic area where there has been frequent off-site coordination from the very same forums". An examination of all active Reddit threads resulting from a search for "<article title> wikipedia" shows only two; both of which, at the time of the protection being applied, only discuss the deletion of the COI discussion. There is no discussion of offsite coordination targeting the article of a BLP.
Either: the "Reddit" reason is bunkum; the "off-site coordination..." reason is a clear misrepresentation; or the Gamergate illuminati manage to discuss disrupting Wikipedia without actually discussing disrupting Wikipedia. I cannot look at the evidence available here and on Reddit and reach any conclusion other than the standards of WP:ADMINACCT have not been met. - Ryk72 ^'c.s.n.s.' 00:20, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Reddit does not have the same norms as Wikipedia, so of course there will be stuff which contains abuse and so on. However, Gamaliel's characterization of the thread as simply innuendo against Gamaliel is plainly wrong. The thread mostly contains policy-based criticism (whether it was valid is not the issue here), and those are the parts which Fram quoted. However, there can be a case made for rev-deling the material (even with WP:INVOLVED) because it does contain abuse and unfounded accusations. It would have been better if Gamaliel had left it to another admin, but I think that it was likely that another admin would have taken the same action (assuming they are not Fram). Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 05:24, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I have never claimed that the original links shouldn't have been rev-deled, only that Gamaliel was not the one to do so. His later claims that he could see no discussion of his own conduct in that link shows a disturbing lack of clue (claiming that BLP trumped involved in this case, like some others have done, could have been a defensible position: but his claim that it wasn't about him and so involved simply doesn't apply is absurd and hasn't been addressed by any of his defenders so far. Fram (talk) 06:57, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It should be readily possible to resolve this case without further reference to this material. Newyorkbrad (talk) 23:54, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Were one to substitute "repetition" for "reference", I would concur. - Ryk72 ^'c.s.n.s.' 00:20, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Care to explain, Newyorkbrad, how one should resolve an alleged WP:INVOLVED violation without referring to the material, considering that Gamaliel claims "I have no idea what accusation is being made there about my Wikipedia conduct. I've gone and reread that link just now and it seems to be about the alleged sexual proclivities of myself and several other living individuals, including two subjects of articles here." The fact that Gamaliel claims that he has "no idea what accusation is being made there about my Wikipedia conduct" (and thus his revdel wsa not an involved action) is the essence of this FoF, and can only be discussed in comparison to the actual text of the link. Like Ryk72 says, there is no need to repeat it again (it is available for everyone here, that's enough), but we can hardly not reference it. Fram (talk) 06:57, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Given that a number of editors appear to be familiar with the material linked, could any uninvolved administrators among them advise if they are able to find anything in the two active Reddit threads (or any other threads) which would justify implementing "500/30" protection on the article which was protected, or which fits the description "off-site coordination targeting the article of a BLP in a topic area where there has been frequent off-site coordination from the very same forums"? If so, would they be so kind as to provide a time stamp of any such posts ? - Ryk72 ^'c.s.n.s.' 12:48, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The silence on this point speaks volumes. - Ryk72 ^'c.s.n.s.' 00:46, 14 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Inappropriate actions by JzG

12) JzG has repeatedly closed an ANI discussion in an inappropriate manner. This close points to a "consensus" which clearly doesn't exist in the discussion so far (and even less in the discussion afterwards), and does this in a needlessly belittling and aggressive manner. Treating good-faith concerns where discussion is ongoing and no consensus has been formed in such a manner doesn't help the atmosphere at ANI in any way and gives the impression of admins protecting fellow admins or Arbcom members.

Despite having his clearly incorrect closuse reverted, he decides to again close the discussion the next day, with a different summary but again only blaming the OP[41]. Comments elsewhere in the discussion clearly show his bias[42]. Admins should neutrally weigh opinions and facts before closing discussions, and if challenged shouldn't reclose it a day later with another one-sided biased view of the discussion. When challenged by uninvolved editors about their closure[43], they should reply (per WP:ADMINACCT)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Signpost is not above policies

13) When a signpost page is up for deletion (for BLP reasons), it doesn't matter one bit whether deleting that page would break a Signpost page or not (and that argument shouldn't be used when such a deletion doesn't in reality break anything at all, it just created a redlink instead of a bluelink). This argument was used multiple times, e.g.

Keep. [...] This is part of a live article and deleting this would break a template in that live article. Gamaliel (talk) 21:10, 6 April 2016 (UTC) Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2010-03-17/News and notes

Comment: On behalf of the Signpost: this dummy page is no longer needed; we have no objection to its deletion. --Andreas JN 466 13:32, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[44][reply]

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

People are allowed to give whatever argument they want for deletion. I see this as partially an attempt to want to find a different technical solution than deletion (a workaround was eventually found). There is certainly no implication that the Signpost is above Wikipedia policies. There has been no evidence presented that there are any BLP issues in the Signpost outside of this case, so this implication is unwarranted. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 14:49, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

They can look for whatever technical solution they want, that has no bearing at all on the deletion or not of a page (and certainly not when claims that the deletion would break anything were completely false, all the deletion did was create a redlink where previously you had a bluelink). Jayen and others gave the impression that deletion would break the Signpost (false) and that permission of "the Signpost" (a nebulous group of editors who apparently communicate these things off-wiki) was needed before deletion could be allowed (also, obviously, false). The "permission" was posted by Jayen both at the MfD and at the ANI discussion, as if anyone was waiting for it or as if that was the main problem. The implication that they are above policies and consensus, and that policy application has to wait until they are ready for it, is certainly there. On the other hand, you state "There has been no evidence presented that there are any BLP issues in the Signpost outside of this case, so this implication is unwarranted." but no such claim or implication has been made, so I don't see what you are arguing here. I have made no claims about any other situation. Fram (talk) 15:06, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I don't read the statement by Jayen466 as "permission" but a statement meaning exactly what it says: there is no objection to deletion from their side. Nobody asked Jayen466 for permission, nor do they have power to grant it. The MfD could be (and was) closed as delete whatever the feelings of Jayen466 or Gamaliel. If they had edit-warred to overrule the consensus of the MfD, then I would call it wrongdoing. Making arguments which are bad (or those you deem are bad) aren't the same thing. If their arguments are bad or not based in policy, they can be disregarded, as arguments at AfD frequently are. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 15:34, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There is no objection for deletion because they no longer need it, which is irrelevant (and was false in the first place). That no one asked or needed their permission is clear to us, but apparently not to the Signpost editors, who felt the need to explicitly grant it. So making it clear that no, their permission is not needed or wanted, is apparently necessary. Fram (talk) 16:05, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Jayen466 puts Signpost before policies

14) When a signpost page is up for deletion (for BLP reasons), no permission from the signpost is needed to delete this. Jayen466 gave this permission twice, at the MFD and at the ANI discussion:

Comment: On behalf of the Signpost: this dummy page is no longer needed; we have no objection to its deletion. --Andreas JN 466 13:32, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[45][reply]

Since the main interest of the (so far unnamed) editors of the Signpost was in keeping the links blue and the Trump text on the Signpost, they did not take any interest in whether the text was a BLP violation (or at least whether a significant part of the communitysaid so), but only in how they could keep the links blue if the page was deleted. Jayen466 implemented this solution[46] which was removed as a BLP violation 19 minutes later. As is clear from his reply at ANI concerning this, he didn't see this as a BLP violation and apparently didn't care or consider that many people had expressed their different view at the MfD already, and he also didn't believe that BLP should apply to the Signpost that strictly, not taking into account the difference between reporting about WMF / Wikipedia matters (discussing editors, board members and the like) and edits about people completely unrelated to the WMF / Wiki.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

See discussion below. --Andreas JN 466 16:30, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I have to seriously object to the wording of this proposal, particularly the section heading. I also find the conclusion about motivations and reasonings to be maybe insufficiently supported by the diff provided as evidence. And, at worst, a single instance of perhaps an insufficiently-thought-through or potentially mistaken conclusion about the application of policies and guidelines in this single instance does not at least to me provide sufficient cause for the more broadly stated conclusions made above. John Carter (talk) 17:25, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The discussions now, the responses by Jayen466 given below, indicate that this is not a single instance, but a standard position which came to light in this instance. Jayen (and others) clearly still see the Signpost as an entity removed from enwiki in most aspects, which only grudgingly accepts applying policies after a very clear consensus has been shown, but only because "Keeping the dummy Signpost pages is not a hill I'd want us to die on", not because they care about BLP; this is also evidenced by the subsequent bluelinking of the text which previously pointed to the deleted page, because some people (but not the majority by far) only had a problem with the line as a separate page, and not as a violation as such anywhere. If this was a one-off, fine, but nothing indicates this. Fram (talk) 17:36, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Pointlessly over-specific to one, unlikely to be repeated, incident. Make it "no one project or grouping has veto powers over any deletion discussion" and I'd consider it. ‑ Iridescent 17:31, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This is a FoF. What you propose is a Proposal. It may be better, but it isn't the same thing. Proposals are general, FoFs are specific. I would like to make a more general discussion, but since Jayen466 has decided to be the mouthpiece of an unnamed group of editors described by him as "The Signpost" which discusses their position off-wiki, the fallout is on him and not on that group. I can only present FoFs against editors who have done anything on-wiki, I don't know who is also behind this otherwise. Fram (talk) 17:40, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah sorry, I wasn't clear; I don't think it needs a specific FoF since this is such an unusual incident it's unlikely to be repeated, but a general "nobody has veto power" finding would be a useful reminder to certain projects which like to invent their own notability standards and insist everyone else follows them. ‑ Iridescent 17:47, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed remedies

Note: All remedies that refer to a period of time, for example to a ban of X months or a revert parole of Y months, are to run concurrently unless otherwise stated.

Gamaliel desysoped

1) User:Gamaliel is desysoped. He may only regain his admin tools after a community RfA.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

I think this is rather harsh when, in my experience, it's only post-1980 American Politics that cause this behavior to manifest itself. That would include Gamergate and Trump --DHeyward (talk) 03:47, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Gamaliel was a pretty decent admin once, I'd much prefer a solution that was likely to return things to that state. (He's not going to pass another RfA). For clarity, neither this nor anything else I've suggested is for his benefit, it's for the project's benefit. NE Ent 21:38, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

The evidence of tool misuse presented seems consistent in severity with what has resulted in other de-sysops. Gamaliel's persistant inability to accept having done anything wrong, doubling down and continued attempts to say "Gamergate made me do it" (I offer no opinion on harassment he recieved, I am sure it is long term and bad, it is just not an excuse for misbehavior) rather than addressing the issue shows he is likely to misuse his tools in the future when subject to similar stresses and circumstances.

The events leading to this case were dumb and all of this could have been avoided by saying 'ooppss, I lost my cool for a bit, sorry, won't happen again'. His inability to manage such a small issue/conflict as this one lends me no confidence that he will be able to manage the greater ones he will be called on to deal with as an admin and arb in the future. Jbh ^Talk 15:40, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I concur with Jbhunley. This event was small, and would have likely escaped all notice anywhere, but for Gamaliel's actions. Gamaliel's actions grossly violated a very large set of policies and were solely responsible for the severe escalation of this incident to the nightmare mess it became. If it were isolated to a single day, I could get past it. I wouldn't like it, but I could get past it. Everyone has bad days. But this went on for many days, and each day Gamaliel was involved it escalated even further. His ability to have the judgment necessary to be an administrator is not just questionable, but answered quite in the negative. --Hammersoft (talk) 16:00, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

* Moving Gamaliel away from problematic areas (contemporary politics and Gamergate-related content, with him optimally leaving ArbCom under his own volition) strikes me as more fitting than a desysop, but there are real issues about edit warring, article ownership, and tool abuse that need to be addressed at some level. Carrite (talk) 17:15, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The committee has previously removed the tools from those who have committed far fewer deliberate transgressions. This isn't about competence, it's about misuse of the tools and or position. Knowingly and willfully misusing the tools or position should be grounds for a desysop. However, since this case scope does not permit the submission of evidence prior to the most recent event in question, an overall pattern of performance either good or bad cannot be examined. Looking solely at this particular event, the performance was well below the threshold of minimal expectation for an editor granted higher level permissions.--MONGO 16:22, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed. It will be interesting to see if the committee is capable of desysoping one of their own. You are correct that a number of administrators have lost their tools for less. This admin lost their bit just for violating WP:SOCK policy. What Gamaliel's done far exceeds the abuse by that admin, which apparently didn't even involve abusing admin tools. Gamaliel did. --Hammersoft (talk) 18:58, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

JzG admonished

2) User:JzG is admonished for his actions at the ANI discussion.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Signpost editors admonished

3) User:Gamaliel and User:Jayen466 are admonished for putting the Signpost above Wikipedia policies and community consensus.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Absolutely no sanction for Jayen466. Since when do we sanction editors for being wrong? If even stubbornly, egregiously wrong? This is a Wikipedia discussion, not a "safe space" from good faith disagreements. NE Ent 21:44, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

An admonishments is not a sanction. Fram (talk) 06:58, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I think there were two schools of thought - one looking for a solution (productive), one edit warring to keep their preferred implementation (unproductive). I wouldn't lump the two together. --DHeyward (talk) 03:51, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'd also point out a slight clarification to Jayen466's statement that the humor tag wasn't added until ~~a third party~~ Mdann52 removed the CSD tag on April 3rd and added the humor tag. ~~I am not sure they are~~ Mdann52 is part of Signpost team. I didn't add a CSD tag to any pages marked "humorous" (edited to reflect Jayen466's information.) --DHeyward (talk) 03:57, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

I'm not sure that I see any specific evidence presented which indicates that Jayen466 has done anything to specifically merit admonishment. John Carter (talk) 14:40, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I also don't see what evidence Jayen466 doing anything wrong has been presented. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 14:50, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"On behalf of the Signpost: this dummy page is no longer needed; we have no objection to its deletion." and similar comments. The leading editors of the Signpost should know and acknowledge that WP policies (like BLP) take precedence over the Signpost (or move the Signpost off Wikipedia), not act as if anyone needs permission from "The Signpost" to remove a page. Consensus to delete a page (or admin opinion that a page blatantly violates a core policy like BLP or copyvio) is all that is needed, no objection or permission of "the Signpost" (which apparently deliberates their position off-wiki?) is needed or even wanted. All Jayen466 (and other Signpost regulars who commented) seem to care about is the Signpost, and enwiki, community consensus, policies, ... as a distant second only. See also e.g. the comments by Tony1 throughout this situation. Fram (talk) 15:00, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That works, but maybe adding a Finding of Fact specifically relating to Jayen466 might be a good first step. He is, at present, the only individual other than Gamaliel you mention by name, and having some specific indication of what he personally did specifically wrong to merit such attention might be useful. John Carter (talk) 15:03, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I think the record shows that within 30 minutes of my posting that, the page was deleted, with the close "The result of the discussion was Delete per WP:SNOW and Andreas's comment that the Signpost no longer needs the page. 28bytes (talk) 13:58, 7 April 2016 (UTC)". This is was what the community wanted, and I could frankly see their point. What I don't quite see is how my removing a perceived obstacle to the implementation of community consensus equates to "putting the Signpost above Wikipedia policies and community consensus". At the time, I was trying to talk my Signpost colleagues, who were freaked out and defensive, off the Reichstag. What I said, specifically, was:

Practical point: these pages only exist because we want the items in the sidebar to show blue links, right?[07 April 2016 09:24]
We could work around this by generating the sidebar manually (rather than from the Signpost index) and linking the sidebar items to April Fools' Day, i.e. Donald Trump threatens to sue Wikipedia over image of his "small hands". I think that would address any BLP concerns.[07 April 2016 09:41]
Keeping the dummy Signpost pages is not a hill I'd want us to die on.[07 April 2016 09:44]

Clearly, we have died on that hill

--Andreas JN 466 15:59, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Based on the statement above by Jayen466, I am perhaps even more convinced that a specific finding of fact regarding what he specifically did to call for such attention to him here be presented. John Carter (talk) 16:09, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

FoF 14 added to make this clearer. Fram (talk) 16:25, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

(ec)Can you link to where that discussion happened? I looked at your contributions prior to your "permission", but couldn't find it. And that one admin waited for your permission is their problem, with the consensus on that page it would have been deleted no matter what you said. That you (as a group and individually) didn't realise that keeping that text there after the linked page was deleted as a BLP violation would be seen as problematic as well, and that your only concern at that discussion was to keep those links blue, not whether you had violated BLP and needed to do anything about this, is rather telling of course. Even if you didn't see the BLP violation, listening to what the community had to say about it would have been much better than what you did pre- and post-deletion. It's indicative of the "Signpost first, policies second" mentality which warrants this admonishment (where you, as the one that posted the permission and turned the redlink blue again, are named but the unnamed others may consider themselves included as well). Fram (talk) 16:13, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That discussion happened on Skype, so I can't link to it. The community never expressed the view that the wording [(Redacted), expressly hyperlinked to April Fools' Day, on a page explicitly marked "This page contains material which is kept because it is considered humorous. Please do not take it seriously." and dated "1 April 2016" was a BLP violation. The community however did express the view that a standalone page with that text in Wikipedia project space, with a dummy date obscuring the April Fools link, was a BLP violation, because the link to April Fools' Day was not explicit enough. I sympathised with that view. As I explained in our discussion at ANI weeks ago, I thought using a falsely dated dummy page with that content was a mistake. Andreas JN 466 16:24, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Most editors at the MfD believed it to be a BLP violation, without the "because it is not clear that it is part of an April 1 Signpost page" part. You clung to that bit as it gave you an excuse to bluelink the text again. Not even considering that much of the opposition was against the text in itself, the "joke", and not specifically about the location of the "joke", is one of the telling aspects of why this admonishment for the Signpost editors involved in this is needed. Fram (talk) 16:30, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I bluelinked the text, linking it to April Fools's Day. In my view, that was an improvement. I read consensus at the MfD differently from you. Here are some of the comments I had in mind:

Delete - Had this been an April fools joke then yeah I'd let it slide ... However it's not!, It's not remotely funny and serves no purpose to the project, I could create a subpage saying "Obama has a small (Redacted)" and stick a humour tag it ... Would that kept ? ... Obvious answer is no... so nor should this. –Davey2010Talk 02:04, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
Delete. A page that only falsely claims someone made a legal threat isn't very funny, and is a BLP violation. In my view it's a more serious BLP violation than the small hands thing. Also, why is this listed in "news and notes" for March 17, 2010? —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 07:34, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
Delete or userfy, this is a joke but it's in a location where readers would not expect one, so needs to go from there. Guy (Help!) 09:26, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
Delete It's beyond April 1. We could make up various funny and fake articles but beyond April 1, they become offensive. Backdating fake articles as if they ran earlier misses the April 1 aspect of the joke. [...] --DHeyward (talk) 23:36, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
Delete as a plausible hoax. Not funny, and not obviously a joke. Geogene (talk) 23:56, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

So a good number of the delete votes in the MfD took explicit note of the fact that this was a falsely dated standalone page that was not immediately recognisable as a joke (despite its humour template), and advocated deletion on those grounds. As I said, I understood and symphathised with that view. I suggested at the time that people concerned about the April Fools' Signpost article itself this could start a thread at BLPN about it. No one ever did. If that discussion had happened, I would have argued against the view that the text in the Signpost article itself rose to the level of a BLP violation: because it was a joke, clearly identifiable as such on that page in multiple ways ensuring that only the proverbial "moron in a hurry", as some judge once called it, would fail to recognise it as a joke, riffing on a theme that has received widespread mainstream coverage and was raised by Trump himself during a widely reported campaign debate. To me, it's a matter on which reasonable people can differ; and while I would have argued against your view at BLPN, if that discussion had happened, I would have had no problem whatsoever complying with a BLPN consensus going against my view. Andreas JN 466 17:10, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) Cringe. Jayen466, can you honestly not see what stating that "we held an off-wiki discussion to agree on our party line" (and I see no other way to read the above) looks like when you're trying to refute the allegation that the Signpost see themselves as an elite who exist above Wikipedia's standard practices? ‑ Iridescent 16:32, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm simply telling you what happened. Are you really surprised that the Signpost staff hold off-wiki discussions? Andreas JN 466 17:10, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, yes we are. How are you not aware of the history behind this? If you want to email someone and say "Hey, my article is posted" then we're not going to bat an eye. But when you say "we hold off-wiki discussions to plan our on-wiki stance - so we provide a unified front" then yeah, we're freaked out.--v/r - T P 17:13, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Bizarre. I didn't say "we hold off-wiki discussions to plan our on-wiki stance - so we provide a unified front". We talk on Skype, and are free to disagree both there and here on-wiki. Andreas JN 466 17:18, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I have to agree that, while it may be less than sub-optimal in the eyes of outsiders, that it probably does make sense for individuals like Signpost editors who regularly collaborate in real-time on articles or who want to hold a discussion without the possibility of edit conflicts to hold discussion on skype or similar means. I've been over the years involved in one or two such discussions regarding, I think, WP:1.0 and similar. In this particular case, there seems to be a possibility as per the quote from Jayen466 above that individuals may be able to see such discussions as in some way nefarious. I suppose in some instances that could be the case, but, given the reputations of Gamaliel, both an arb and an admin, and Jayen466, with whom I may have at times disagreed with in the past, maybe seriously, but whose integrity I have no reason to question, I think that it might make sense to WP:AGF on this one. Having said that, it might make sense for Signpost editors to post comments on the talk page of the draft story or however that's done rather than skype in the future if they think that there is any really serious chance that similar questions may arise in those cases. John Carter (talk) 17:59, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

In mundane questions where there is no dispute. But where disputes are involved, we need a clear history of the dispute and that requires that it be contained on-wiki. At this point that this became an issue, all communication off-wiki should've ceased.--v/r - T P 22:26, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

At this point that this became an issue, all communication off-wiki should've ceased. Do you think that's practical or even desirable? Consider that most people posting here have talked about aspects of this case off-wiki – be it on Reddit, Wikipediocracy, Facebook, Twitter, in emails or to their spouses in the kitchen. Is it really your view that they're not entitled to do that? What if you are involved in an on-wiki dispute, and a wiki-friend sends you an email saying, "Calm down, mate. You're going over the top." Are other editors entitled to view that contact as inappropriate because "we need a clear history of the dispute and that requires that it be contained on-wiki"? Andreas JN 466 02:06, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Do you or do not you feel that off-wiki coordination has been problematic in the past? Because if you do, then you shouldn't have to ask those questions. --v/r - T P 02:14, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, if you're talking about things like the Eastern European mailing list case. But this is not the sort of discussions we are having, and not the sort of on-wiki work we are doing. I haven't the faintest idea what Wikipedia articles other Signpost contributors are editing. What we talk about are things like when each of us has free time in their personal work schedule to write something for the next issue, when we publish the next issue and what segments it will contain, which segments are ready and which ones are late, in what way the publication bot has screwed up this week, what news should go in NAN, who knows anyone who attended a recent Wikimedia conference and could be roped in to write an article about it for us, scheduling audio or email interviews with Wikimedia folks, drafting questions for those, discussing the merits of op-eds submitted to us, and so forth. Some of those things are not appropriate to discuss in public. Andreas JN 466 03:09, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I can certainly imagine that some of the op-eds might well be of a kind which would not merit public discussion. Particularrly if those opinion pieces might make dubiously reliable statements or inferences about others. Or, perhaps, editors who might be perhaps commonly known among a certain group but have not necessarily been made publicly available by them who may have, for instance, attended a meeting such as you describe. And, on a practical level, particularly with deadlines to consider, there seems to me to be no way to bring in an "observer" from out of nowhere to "monitor" things in the event people start thinking that there might be a problem and maybe still have a chance of meeting deadline. John Carter (talk) 18:23, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

(another edit conflict) Yes, of course; I think it's grossly inappropriate, except in exceptional circumstances where there are genuine reasons not to hold a discussion publicly (e.g. discussing whether a particular allegation is publishable). If you can't see why holding secret discussions to discuss what particular pages should say is against fundamental Wikipedia principles, it makes me think that those arguing to send the Signpost the way of Esperanza have a valid point. ‑ Iridescent 17:18, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"Holding secret discussions to discuss what particular pages should say" is part and parcel of preparing a newsletter for publication ... that's what an editorial board does. Do you feel the writers of the WMF blog should share with the public their internal discussions about what to publish and when? --Andreas JN 466 17:32, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

And I personally can see lots of cases when what one person considers "grossly inappropriate" another might not, and even some cases where some discussion some might consider perfectly normal others, perhaps those being discussed in particular, might consider "grossly inappropriate". Discussion of obvious dramah queens in the real world and online is a problem that a lot of us face regularly. John Carter (talk) 18:23, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. It is a Wikipedia newsletter. If you do not want your editorial process open to examination then Wikipedia is not the place to be. After all the editorial decisions that lead to every article we host can be seen by every person in the world who cares to look. Why should Signpost be any different?? Jbh ^Talk 17:51, 9 May 2016 (UTC) Ooppss... this is meant to mean that Signpost should not be keeping their editorial decision making off-wiki. Jbh ^Talk 18:08, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Just like there are no off-wiki cabals making editorial decisions about articles, right? Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 06:18, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe start a community-wide RfC on whether the Signpost as currently run should be hosted on en:WP or not? If the community is clear that it would prefer the Signpost discontinue publication on the English Wikipedia, I – speaking for myself only here – would have no problem with that (though other Signpost editors might disagree). --Andreas JN 466 18:13, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Considering the total lack of concern being expressed by those members of the editorial staff to people's attempts to get the Signpost to comply with en.wp PaGs that is, regrettably, the likely next step if ArbCom chooses not to address matters here. Seems to be needless drama to me but it looks like the editorial board has started placing their work above en.wp policies.

I find it interesting that far more text has been written here about dealing with Signpost than about the arb at the center of this case. Jbh ^Talk 18:25, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

What's there to regret? If the community feels the Signpost as hosted on en:WP fulfils a useful function for the community, then great. But if not, then I think the honourable thing would be for the Signpost to cease publication on en:WP. Andreas JN 466 18:43, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure that I think the issue is whether the Signpost fulfills a useful function, but rather whether the policies and guidelines of the project appeal to it in basically the same way as other content on the site. The two things aren't necessarily identical. As someone who knows that there are other sites which discuss wikipedia, sometimes in fair depth, I think that it might not be a bad idea to, maybe, have clear guidelines regarding what sort of material to be included in the Signpost, what material might be better hosted elsewhere, maybe off-site, and, maybe, if at all possible, start a way in which editors here can reasonably be allowed to post and link to off-site conversations or discussions, in at least some cases, maybe even including talk-page notices of new issues of main page articles off-site? John Carter (talk) 18:58, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Andreas - it is regretable because once editors/groups start proposing 'my way or the highway' solutions or claiming special exemption to policies that endeavor is inevitably shown the door by the community. Then we loose good editors and that is sad and detremental to the project. Letting those same groups set themselves above policy, on the other hand, leads to long term, intractable, conflicts which costs the project more in time, effort, and editors then they bring in benefit. Either way, Wikipedia looses. Jbh ^Talk 19:10, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The WMF blog is not a part of Wikipedia, and can run things however they like. If you want your newsletter hosted on our site, you can have the decency to at least pay lip service to our rules and customs. (And will Signpost people please knock off calling themselves "journalists"? It's a low-traffic internal blog for users of a website—the typical article averages 200-250 views per day during the week it's live, which is roughly the same as British Rail Class 700—not the Financial Times.) ‑ Iridescent 17:40, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Double cringe: Why this seemingly bizarre need to keep a lie about a living person on Wikipedia? The only reason can be so any and all BLP's can have joke-easter eggs attached to lies about them. What a silly thing to defend, let alone debate 'is it ok for us to lie about living people under BLP'. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 17:07, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The arguments keep morphing, but the conclusion remains the same. Andreas said above that they wished to de-escalate, by saying that even the Signpost team didn't mind deleting the article. This is read, absurdly as "giving permission to delete", which is meaningless because their permission is not required in the first place. Nobody has given an example of the Signpost disregarding Wikipedia policies: even Gamaliel did not say that BLP does not apply to the Signpost; they disagreed that it violated BLP -as they had a right to do (they didn't have a right to edit-war over this, but that is a different matter). If the Signpost team had violated MfD consensus to keep the article, that would be disregarding Wikipedia policies. Arguing your own side in a case is not violating Wikipedia policies. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 17:19, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"The arguments keep morphing, but the conclusion remains the same" = the evidence keeps mounting but I refuse to rethink my opinion. Just saying, that's what it looks like you're saying.--v/r - T P 17:23, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

(multiple ECs) Nothing absurd in that reading. You know, we know, that said permission isn't needed or even meaningful. They apparently didn't. In the discussions about the page, their only care was keeping the disputed text on the page and as a bluelink; no care at all was given about the perceived BLP violating status. No, they didn't say that BLP doesn't apply, they just acted that way from beginning to end. They may disagree that it violated BLP, but in that case they needed to start a BLPN discussion, as the rule is "BLP is out until consensus decides it can stay in", not the other way around. Cherrypicking a few ambiguous statements from a much longer discussion, or using the fact that no one else started a BLPN discussion (when the link was removed less than 1/2 hour after Jayen466 turned it blue again anyway, removing the need for a BLPN discussion) is hardly convincing that they care about BLP (or at least that they care more about BLP than about the Signpost). Fram (talk) 17:32, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I don't care any more about the one than the other. (And I wrote parts of BLP.) What I do object to is the proposal that any editor crying BLP, even if fully convinced of the righteousness of their cause, can remove Signpost content. Just like special care is applied to editing others' talk page posts, I would like this to be restricted to administrators acting on demonstrated community consensus, as proposed above. --Andreas JN 466 17:34, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

(ec) The BLP policy specifically allows that in order to prevent precisely this situation. As amending the BLP policy is outside ArbCom's remit you would need to start a community discussion at the BLP policy page to change the wording. Or convince an admin to full protect every signpost page once it goes live. You are intelligent enough to realise neither of those is going to meet with any success. Given your's, Tony's, Montanabw's and Gamaliel's comments throughout this case, if someone doesn't propose a topic ban from all BLP content outside article space, I will tomorrow. Only in death does duty end (talk) 17:57, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Be my guest. --Andreas JN 466 18:51, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

And I would oppose this. BLP problems need to be removed swiftly and readded after there is consensus that the text is acceptable, not the other way around. Removing BLP violations from other's talk page posts may be done by everyone without any demonstrated community consensus, so the exception you ask for the Signpost is not the same at all. "What I do object to is the proposal that any editor crying BLP, even if fully convinced of the righteousness of their cause, can remove Signpost content." This is not a proposal, this is current and long-standing policy. The only exception, and the reason the Signpost hasn't had a flurry of BLP removals, is "Although this policy applies to posts about Wikipedians in project space, some leeway is permitted to allow the handling of administrative issues by the community,": Signpost posts about Wikipedians (and Wikimedians-at-large) have some leeway; Signpost posts about others don't. They never had, and as long as the Signpost is hosted on enwiki they never will. For someone who wrote parts of BLP, you have a terrifyingly poor understanding of it. Fram (talk) 17:50, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Well now, it's probably not that hard to understand: you commit yourself to this small side-project, you see a need for mission creep, it becomes to you just as important as the Project itself (eg. the side-project is just as important as BLP) , you have canvassing and meat meetings to try to protect your side-project from the Project . . . and it blows-up. Alanscottwalker (talk) 18:00, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Well, BLP policy also says, "Note that, although the three-revert rule does not apply to such removals, what counts as exempt under BLP can be controversial. Editors who find themselves in edit wars over potentially defamatory material about living persons should consider raising the matter at the biographies of living persons noticeboard instead of relying on the exemption." So the idea of going to BLPN is hardly controversial. The talk page guideline – which I believe has a bearing here, given that Signpost articles are akin to talk page posts in being signed or "owned" by the people who make them, and editing others' comments is widely frowned upon, says, "Cautiously editing or removing another editor's comments is sometimes allowed, but normally you should stop if there is any objection." In my view, going to BLPN would have been the appropriate thing to do. You're right to cite the project space exemption; I share the same understanding with you on this point. And of course you're right that Donald Trump isn't a Wikipedian (getting him involved wasn't my idea ...); on the other hand, I personally was satisfied that anyone reading the April 1 Signpost piece would recognise that it was a joke. And people did recognise this, as borne out by the comments the piece got on the talk page. The potential of harm to Donald Trump – and BLP policy is founded on the principle of doing no harm – was non-existent, especially given that the story was an old hat that had been widely discussed in mainstream media for decades. Andreas JN 466 19:11, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) See my comment above re inappropriate editorial secrecy. These concerns should be discussed on-wiki before they are published, I guess the closest model may be WikiNews, so once an edition "goes live" there is a consensus which can be pointed to for any controversial content decisions. Jbh ^Talk 17:51, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

What I do object to is the proposal that any editor ... can remove Signpost content. ... I would like this to be restricted to administrators acting on demonstrated community consensus. The methods by which to achieve this, as I see them, include: i) successful RfC amending WP:BLP to repeal WP:BLPREMOVE; ii) successful RfC amending WP:BLP to exempt Signpost articles; iii) migration of Signpost outside the scope of WP:BLP (off en.Wiki); iv) Signpost editors not publishing articles which contain unsourced or poorly sourced material about living persons. The last of these would seem the most easily achievable. - Ryk72 ^'c.s.n.s.' 19:01, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Fairly long experience in the Israel-Palestine area has convinced me that few, if any, people change their mind. Good luck with your attempt to get a finding against Andreas or an admonishment about some wrongdoing which I cannot understand. I'm out. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 17:48, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The discussions with Signpost editors re proposed decisions makes me think this remedy is necessary. If it were merely the evidence presented on the evidence case page I would be less inclined to think this remedy is necessary but the threads on this page are their own evidence that there is something out of sync between the community and the editorial board that must be addressed. Better it be done now rather than be allowed to fester into some worse incident. Jbh ^Talk 17:57, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@DHeyward: That was Mdann52, who's part of the Signpost team. I'd also like to state here, for the record, that while one may quibble over the nature and extent of the BLP violation, as I have done here, the April Fools' article as written was at any rate ill-advised, and the ensuing controversy poorly handled. I wouldn't like to see the Signpost ever publish an article like that again. --Andreas JN 466 05:27, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Gamaliel admonished for Signpost edits

3) User:Gamaliel is admonished for making WP:BLP, WP:POINT and WP:OWN violations at the Signpost and thereby misusing his position as editor-in-chief.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

There are other policy related issues. Here's a copyvio that was deleted by commons (for copy vio) and then re-uploaded to Wikipedia for a Signpost article by Gamaliel.[47][48]. The argument provided by Gamaliel is less than convincing at shows a disturbing lack of understanding of copyright violations. It was uploaded after commons deleted it [49] for Signpost.[50] (note: it "broke" the signpost story when it was deleted from WP too). Signpost isn't exempt from Copyright either. --DHeyward (talk) 14:29, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

I don't know whether ArbCom has the authority or not to do anything more forceful than this wrt the Signpost. I'm open to an ArbCom resolution removing Gamaliel from his position as editor-in-chief, but if that is not something they can decide then it makes little sense to include it here. Fram (talk) 08:49, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

They could conceivably topic ban him from Signpost but I do not think the evidence supports that even though I feel that being editor-in-chief is incompatable with being an arb. The evidence supports this finding as written. Jbh ^Talk 15:03, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

See my comment above. They could (should) topic ban the entire editorial staff from BLPS outside article space - it's clear that as a group they think (in error) they are exempt from site wide policies. I will post a proposal as such tomorrow if there isn't one by then. Only in death does duty end (talk) 18:04, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I can see how that would be worth considering. I started this day uncaring about what Signpost gets up to in general. Now, after the last couple hours of reading some of their editoral board members' comments here I think this one incident may be indicative of a culture at Signpost that needs to be addressed. Maybe they are all having a bad day and just feel attacked or some such and will take on board the concerns which have been raised on this page. So much drama could be avoided, ex this case, if people would not dig in their heels but rather address problems. Oh well... Jbh ^Talk 18:37, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That is incredibly far outside the scope of this case. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 07:10, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yet it is true both true and an issue which has been highlighted in this case. In my fantasy world the Signpost editorial board will take on board and work to address the criticisms which have been presented by many editors. My expedtation, based on the responces by Signpost editors here, however, is that sooner or later we will end up with a community wide RfC or Arbcom case on these matters and proving my point about drama. Oh well... Jbh ^Talk 17:33, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed enforcement

Template

1) {text of proposed enforcement}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

2) {text of proposed enforcement}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposals by User:Anthonyhcole

Proposed principles

1) Outside of article and article talk space, mocking politicians is not, by itself, a BLP violation.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Personally, I feel this does to some extent represent the normal expectation of discourse in the world, BLP should be interpreted in context of what is generally considered acceptable--not what is within the extreme limits of acceptability, for which our policy is NOT TABLOID, but within the context of what is done by responsible publications. DGG ( talk ) 00:39, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe, DGG--but in this case we're not talking about reporting things based on some publication or other. I'm in some agreement with you that we regard (and police) the BLP differently in different places (obviously we have BLPTALK), but I think this, although well-intended, is not the way to go. I think it probably describes practice, given the examples laid out below by MastCell, but those edits can't be said to be foundational for our policy. Drmies (talk) 02:49, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Absolutely not this. The opposite of this. --v/r - T P 03:55, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Irony? At any rate no, this is not BLP policy. Alanscottwalker (talk) 09:53, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Anthony is obviously correct; I can find dozens, if not hundreds, of more egregious examples of mockery, starting with other April Fool's Day jokes about Donald Trump himself and moving on to the talkpage of nearly any prominent politician's biography. Most of these off-hand comments are ignored; very few, if any, are treated as all-out BLP violations. The selective outrage about this particular joke is sort of incomprehensible, assuming that you-all have actually been on Wikipedia more than a day or two and have a grasp of context. MastCell ^Talk 19:27, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@MastCell: I'm intrigued. Please do. I'd be very interested in what types of BLPs the community finds it acceptable to mock.--v/r - T P 20:15, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No. If someone wants to show at length how terrible Wikipedia is just go edit Wikipedia Controversies or write a book. Because actually, Mastcell's statement is a useless 'other-stuff' type argument. This sad-sack appearance of being shocked that BLP is not perfectly done on Wikipedia is silly (almost nothing is perfectly done). Anyone, who has been on Wikipedia for about two hours can see that the project does not always live up to what it wants, like NPOV, NOR, V, BLP, not to mention behavioral policies. Get it together, and next time you see this kind of NOTTHEM argument, just say sorry, it does not work. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 20:43, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree, Alan. If MastCell wants to say that there is way worse stuff out there, then I invite him to do it. It's an undertaking I had planned to do sometime in the future, and since MastCell claims he already knows where these mockeries are, I'd like to see them.--v/r - T P 20:54, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Go to the Case Talk Page. Mastcell already made this ineffective argument with his list in his opening statement opposing the opening of this case. Alanscottwalker (talk) 21:35, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You took the words out of my mouth. (Well, except for the "ineffective" part. The jury is still out on that, since you weren't its intended audience). My case statement contains numerous examples of other "BLP violations", taken only from April Fool's Day and primarily about Donald Trump. Editors repeatedly mocked Trump's hairdo, described Trump as "a pumpkin topped with a dead badger", called Ted Cruz a "serial killer", opined that Trump "has no intention to be president, and is merely running to troll the entire country", that he has a "poor command of the English language", that Trump is "complete idiot [who] doesn't deserve the Presidency much less a Wikipedia article".

All of these are worse than what Gamaliel is accused of doing (that is, making an unfunny joke about Trump's well-known litigiousness and stubby baby-hands). Diffs and links are in my case statement. In the interest of intellectual consistency, I look forward to you prosecuting these "BLP violations" with the same vigor and self-righteousness which you've displayed here. MastCell ^Talk 23:57, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Intellectual consistency is that the ctte reject the proposal you rise in support of, here, regarding the letter and spirit BLP (ie., approval of derision, and the untrue, concerning living persons). Your "evidence" demonstrates further intellectual inconsistency as you are eager to cite a handful of posts while ignoring the mountain of posts of Users who did and do nothing of the kind. As for your last sentence's misuse of words in an apparent attempt to silence, they miss the mark (although since you seem to make broad claims about people who disagree with you in this case, it's hard to tell your mark). -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 13:27, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I concur with the premise. BLP was intended to be about BIOGRAPHIES OF LIVING PEOPLE, making sure that mainspace is clear of libelous and POV attacks. This implies that the associated talk pages may not be used as an adjunct for such attacks. There are many who have an overbroad interpretation of the principle. Carrite (talk) 14:08, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed finding of fact

1) Gamaliel played an unfunny, obvious April Fools Day prank that seems intended to mock a politician.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Too vague and ambiguous. "Mock" seems to be used as a euphemism for "lie", here. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 09:53, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Well, no, actually. "Lie" would be appropriate if there had been any intent to present the content as factual. Whatever the merits of the joke, it was clear that it was intended and understood as a joke. And you know that very well, so AGF herewith bids you good-bye <plonk>. --Andreas JN 466 13:05, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not the one who is discussing intent, the proposal is "intent to mock" (a mock is fake, a lie). Regardless, whatever, you wish to call untruth, it is still untruth. If anyone accepts this silly tenuousness with things true, all the project's living person commentary can now be, 'Just joking, but [living person] [did something untrue]. Ha. Ha.' 'I'm lying, but [living person] [did something untrue].' <plonk> <plonk>. Whatever the mind can imagine, it's all just a joke. <plonk>. Way to build the reputation and elevate the Project . . . as National Lampoon. <plonk> (Also, re-read (listen to) some of the comments in the MFD you participated in and why it was seen as misrepresenting something untrue as true -- that was the joke, right? -- and thus was a problem.) Alanscottwalker (talk) 14:06, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I've heard some ridiculously out-of-touch slippery-slope arguments in my time, but this one is in the top ten. MastCell ^Talk 19:29, 10 May 2016 (UTC

As your arguments indicate an attempt to get Arbcom approval of exactly that kind of stupid and useless claim on Wikipedia about a living person because 'it's just an untrue joke' or 'just intentionally false', your comment is nonsense (in addition to being plainly devoid of substance). Alanscottwalker (talk) 20:03, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not asking ArbCom to "approve" anything. I'm asking them to treat this unfortunate episode with a sense of proportion and common sense. MastCell ^Talk 23:59, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This, here, is a place to discuss a proposal to get Arbcom to do something. Alanscottwalker (talk) 00:51, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed remedies

1) None.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposals by Callanecc

Proposed principles

Applicability of the BLP policy

1) There is widespread agreement in the Wikipedia community regarding the importance of the biographies of living persons policy. The policy has been adopted and since its inception repeatedly expanded and strengthened by the community. In addition, the Arbitration Committee has previously reaffirmed the values expressed through that policy. Fundamental norms concerning biographical articles have been emphasised in a resolution of the Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees. However, there is no clear community consensus on how strictly the policy should be applied to edits outside article space.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

While Signpost is not per se article space it is published material intended for consumption beyond the Wikimedia community. Jbh ^Talk 13:24, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not an avid reader (sorry Ed et al) but I never thought of it this way--I always thought of it as a sort of internal newsletter. I see now that it's much more than en-wiki, but still. Drmies (talk) 14:38, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I did a 2 minute Google search and found examples of Signpost being used out in the world. An article about its content Wikipedia Signpost Report Peers Into the Pop Culture Trends that Drive Big Traffic, Freedom of Panorama is Under attack "There is an excellent article in this week’s Wikipedia Signpost" and as a citation in a book [51]. It is read by more than just Wikipedians and commented on outside of the project. It may be minor but it is unquestionably public facing like an article rather than production/private facing like a talk page. Jbh ^Talk 15:21, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Gotcha. Thanks. Funny, though--if we're playing the RS game, this book calls it an "internal newsletter". This one says it addressed "the community". But this one (Sams is an imprint of Pearson) calls it "a community-written Wikipedia online newspaper". So these sort of run the gamut, but I think your point is made. That still does not fully answer whether the BLP should apply as strictly as does in article space, but it's an indication that there is a broader readership than, for instance, article talk pages. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 15:40, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I think that there is room for debate for how and to what degree BLP applies to the signpost. There is also reasonable debate about if the Trump jokes constitute an actual BLP violation or not. But I think what is not up for debate is that the process regarding determining answering those two questions definitely applies. That process requires consensus for restoration, and certainly requires following other editing policies and norms eg edit warring and involved. Gaijin42 (talk) 17:10, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is not a battleground

2) Wikipedia is not a place to hold grudges or insult, harass, or intimidate those with whom you have a disagreement. Editors should approach issues intelligently and engage in polite discussion. Editors who consistently find themselves in disputes with each other when they interact on Wikipedia, and who are unable to resolve their differences, should seek to minimise the extent of any unnecessary interactions between them. Interaction bans may used to force editors to do so.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Edit warring

3) Edit warring is unconstructive as it causes ill-will between editors and makes it harder to reach consensus. Users who engage in multiple reverts of the same content but are careful not to breach the three revert rule are still edit warring. Editors engaged in a dispute should reach consensus or pursue dispute resolution rather than engage in edit warring.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Edit warring and BLP

4) In the case of edits which are covered by the biographies of living persons policy, exemptions are made for removing BLP violations. Restoring what is perceived to be a BLP violation, instead of discussing whether it is a BLP violation or not, is unwise and can lead to censure.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Questioning of administrative actions

5) Administrators are accountable for their actions involving administrative tools. As such, they are expected to respond appropriately to queries about their administrative actions and to justify them where needed. Criticism of the merits of administrative actions are acceptable within the bounds of avoiding personal attacks and civility. The policy requirements of administrator accountability do not apply to actions taken as a regular editor.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Decorum

6) Wikipedia users are expected to behave reasonably, calmly, and courteously in their interactions with other users; to approach even difficult situations in a dignified fashion and with a constructive and collaborative outlook; and to avoid acting in a manner that brings the project into disrepute. Unseemly conduct, such as personal attacks, incivility, assumptions of bad faith, trolling, harassment, disruptive point-making, and gaming the system, is prohibited.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Fair criticism

7) Editors are encouraged to engage in frank discussion of matters affecting the project, and are encouraged to share even those facts and opinions which demonstrate the shortcomings of the project, its policies, its decision making structure, and its leaders. Such discourse is limited by the expectation that even difficult situations will be resolved in a dignified fashion, with evidence and without resorting to personal attacks. Editors who have genuine grievances against others are expected to avail themselves of the most appropriate dispute resolution mechanism.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Involved administrators

8) Administrator tools are not to be used in connection with disputes in which the administrator is "involved". Where there is an appearance that an administrator is involved they should not take administrative action themselves but rather refer the issue to other adminstrators at the appropriate forum. In limited circumstances, such as blatant vandalism or clear, bad-faith harassment, an involved administrator may act, but such exceptions are likely to be rare and best practice (except where the situation is urgent) is to refer the issue to another administrator.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Conduct on arbitration pages

9) The pages associated with arbitration cases are primarily intended to assist the Arbitration Committee in arriving at a fair, well-informed, and expeditious resolution of each case. Participation by editors who present good-faith statements, evidence, and workshop proposals is appreciated. While allowance is made for the fact that parties and other interested editors may have strong feelings about the subject-matters of their dispute, appropriate decorum should be maintained on these pages. Incivility, personal attacks, and strident rhetoric should be avoided in arbitration as in all other areas of Wikipedia.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

April Fool's Day

Based on Yngvadottir's proposal above

10) April Fool's Day jokes are a widespread tradition in the English-speaking world, reflected on Wikipedia as an expression of community jollity and tolerated by established consensus supported by the outcome of various noticeboard and deletion discussions. On Wikipedia the convention has been to speedy close vexatious AfDs but otherwise (for example with joke RfAs) to archive soon after midnight UTC on April 2 with a "humor" template. April Fool's is a contentious tradition on Wikipedia, in part because it is not a fully international tradition. April Fool's Day jokes are not exempt from the BLP.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Exactly; had the page been simply deleted April 2 ... I might have found a source for Death roll by now. NE Ent 21:43, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

I like this one. John Carter (talk) 00:50, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Removal of arbitrators from the Committee

11) Arbitrators may be removed from the Arbitration Committee by a two-thirds majority of active, non-recused arbitrators for repeatedly or grossly failing to meet the expectations of an arbitrator.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Just noting that no one has decided whether to pass or propose the associated remedy! Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 11:51, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm still of two minds here. I was of one mind: "2/3 of active, non-recused arbs", because (as is pointed out below) some of the arbs recused for what we'll loosely call "involvement". At the same time, it's a pretty draconian kind of decision, suggesting that perhaps the entire arb population needs to vote on it, and indeed policy doesn't specify "active, non-recused arbs". (I don't take to this reading as strongly as some others, BTW.) The problem with that is that...well, I just noted it. Drmies (talk) 16:18, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
In the two previous relevant instances, Iridescent and Elen of the Roads, the standard used was 2/3 of the entire committee. Varying it here for a particular case is unfair and unreasonable. If the committee wishes to changethe standard, it is only fair to do so outside of the venue of any particular case. DGG ( talk ) 17:43, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
As has been noted a number of times, we don't have to follow precedent. In the Elen of Roads case it is clearly stated that it was an opinion. ARBPOL says "Decisions are reached by a majority vote of active, non-recused arbitrators." Yes, for removal of an Arb it does say we need 2/3, but if the intention was to include recused or inactive Arbs, ie all Arbs, it should have said so specifically. Doug Weller talk 18:38, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I'd like to hear feedback from former arbs and others familiar with the past situations. My reading of the record is that "2/3 of the full committee" has been the historically stable interpretation of this policy. (Note that this does not mean recused arbs have to vote, or should; it only means that they count against the majority, so 10 votes are required for removal.) Opabinia regalis (talk) 19:19, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- @Jbhunley: It's not "my idea"; it's just a description of how this particular bit of policy has been interpreted in previous relevant situations. Opabinia regalis (talk) 21:42, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with this interpretation and note that we are not bound by precedent.
Trying to put it simply, the policy says that "Decisions are reached by a majority vote of active, non-recused arbitrators". And, unless there is clear evidence in the text of this specific clause that it refers to something different (and, as far as I'm concerned, there isn't), then the 2/3rds majority has to be calculated on the basis of active, non-recused arbitrators.
After all, the point of a recusal is that the arbitrator recognises that he can't be (or can't appear to be) impartial and, therefore, cannot take position on a given issue; consequently, in respect of that single issue, it is as if he was not a part of the committee. It seems unwise to me to simply count recusals against the marjority, especially when there is no clear support for such a unique conclusion in the text of the policy. Not to mention that such an interpretation could very well make it mathematically impossible for a removal to pass, regardless of what the arbitrator has done, if more than a third of arbs recuse on a given issue... $Salvio$ ^{Let's talk about it!} 14:10, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It's something I'd like to see cleared up at some point. We're now at the point where we are unclear about the voting requirement to remove an Arb and there are issues with our desysop procedure, issues brought up last year but never taken to the point of action. It's relevant that the only Arb removed agrees that 2/3 of all is not a good idea. Doug Weller talk 15:37, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Newyorkbrad, "disproportionate and an overreaction" it may well be, but it's something that needs to be cleared up. This is taking up a lot of our discussion time, and that's even outside of the particulars of this case. You taught us (or me, certainly) to be careful, and I think that's what we are trying to do here. Thank you, Drmies (talk) 17:06, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

The cited policy does not say anything about "active" or "non-recused". The wordings and precedent both shows that it is an absolute two-thirds majority required, i.e. 10 votes out of the 15 current members. -- KTC (talk) 12:39, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

With respect to this case the recusals were made for the express reason that those Arbs felt they could not judge or sanction Gamaliel objectivly. Revoval from Arbcom for cause is a sanction ergo...
There are no inactive Arbs in this case so there is no need to address that question in this case. Jbh ^Talk 13:32, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A simple way to address this is to treat recusals as abstentions. In Arbcom voting abstentions do not count as no votes they change the absolute number of votes required to pass. In this pass requires 2/3 rather than a simple majority. Again, there is no need to address how to handle inactives as there are none. Jbh ^Talk 13:37, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't matter how you classify them. "two-thirds of arbitrators" means here two-thirds of 15. Yes, that count includes any target of suspension or removal. The bar is high, but it's high deliberately so someone can't be removed from a position they were elected to because they've made a few enemies or unpopular decisions. -- KTC (talk) 14:46, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The problem with that is nearly 1/3 of Arbcom has recused because they feel INVOLVED with respect to Gamaiel. I suppose, proceduraly they could vote ~~but I for one would open a case against any currently recused Arb who voted anything other than Abstain.~~ (I guess that would be pointless.) We are talking ethics here, these people have officially declared they can not act objectivly to the standards required by their positiin with respect to Gamaiel. As far as I have seen the members of Arbcom are ethical and conciousis people so I do not understand why the question of recused Arbs voting on this is even an issue.

If removal from Arbcom can not be addressed within the case then what is the process and venue for the discussion? ( The principal of least drama says do it here. Another process would use the same evidence and arguments. Jbh ^Talk 18:29, 11 May 2016 (UTC) Ammended Jbh ^Talk 18:40, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Opabinia regalis: your idea that recused/abstaining arbs do not reduce the required numbers of votes it ethically odious. What you suggest allows Arbs who have said they are "Involved" to effectivly vote No while maintaining the fiction that they have not voted. Please say you just did not consider the implications of your comment - I truely can not believe you intended to give an ethical fig leaf to allow "Involved" Arbs to vote No without actually voting No. Jbh ^Talk 20:24, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

PS Allowing the Arb being voted on a vote seems objectivly silly. Jbh ^Talk 20:32, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree with you on that last point, Jbhunley: I think the most reasonable interpretation is that all non-recused arbs should be able to vote on the removal motion, including giving Gamaliel one more opportunity to resign this one position. His vote can easily be placed on his behalf by another arb, as his evidence and previous statement were. Yngvadottir (talk) 21:39, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I can see your position and if in the other cases the "accused" Arb could vote then it would be unfair to change it for this case but it should be changed for all future cases. Jbh ^Talk 22:30, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Opabinia regalis: In those cases were there any Arbs which had already recused thenselves with respect to the substance of the accusations/case? If so then do it that way out of fairness and change the policy for future cases because it an ethical nightmare that can only lead to drama and loss of moral authority for Arbcom. If there were no previously recused Arbs in those cases then they are irrelevant to this situation. (Could you please provide links to those cases?) You all are in an ethicaly sticky situation which I do not envy but I firmly believe allowing recusals to be No votes is the wrong thing. If that is to be the case then the recused Arbs should be required to case a Yes/No vote so there is no hint or perception that they are casting passive No votes to avoid criticism. I guarentee that is how many will see such votes and that would just lead to drama and more splintering of the community which would be sad. Jbh ^Talk 22:30, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Given the prior precedent I agree it would be potentially unfair to switch the rules for this instance. But such an interpretation seems asinine. In a hypothetical case of obvious and gross misuse of position, where none-the-less 1/3+1 arbs had recused/deactivated, and stayed so, this interpretation would mathematically prevent needed action. That makes no sense. If the interpretation is going to stay this way, then the interpretation should require all arbs to vote on the matter and not abstain or recuse. Gaijin42 (talk) 21:55, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Jeez, this place is silly at times. I know this isn't a court and that recused for arbs doesn't seem to mean what it means for, well, every other instance on the planet where the word is used but are people actually suggesting that the 2/3s majority would include recused arbs' votes? I'm not even saying that's the right action to take but if it heads down that road allowing recused arbs to vote on it is ludicrous. Recusal is supposed to mean that, for what could be many reasons, the recused cannot be, or appear to be, impartial towards the accused. So they are not impartial enough to vote on any sanction aside from a particular one at which point their recusal becomes meaningless? Capeo (talk) 22:58, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Doug Weller: In Elen's case, the “opinion” was on the question of whether the proposed motion constituted a removal or suspension from the committee, there were no dispute that if it were considered a suspension/removal, it would requires two-thirds of all arbitrators. Your quoted part talks about majority decisions, which is clearly unrelated to a clause requiring two-thirds.

This is all hypothetical at the moment of course, but there's no requirement for a motion to suspend or remove to be part of the decision of the case. If it decides to, the committee can give a finding that Gamaliel's conduct has been unbecoming of an arbitrator, and then outside of the case votes on a separate motion to remove on that basis. This way, recused arbitrators who felt they were unable to objectively decides on the evidence can vote based on the decided findings that i.e. someone whose conduct has been found to be unbecoming should be removed.

@Jbhunley: Silly, possibly, but not actually unusual. For example, you will find that James Heilman voted against his own removal from the Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustee.

It's not a question of whether the “accused” or recused arbitrators can or should vote on a removal/suspension motion, but whether an arbitrator conduct has fallen to such a low standard that two-thirds of the committee are persuaded that they should proactively make the extraordinary decision to remove/suspend one of its member. -- KTC (talk) 23:37, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

KTC You make a good point re Heilman and you also present a reasonable way forward by presenting a finding of fact that Gamaliel's conduct was unbecomming an Arbiter and a remedy which triggers a public vote of Arbcom following the case on whether he should be removed for "conduct unbecoming" In that case all Arbs could vote however I still strongly recommend that abstentions reduce the required number of votes in the normal way. I can not stress enough that allowing an Abstain to be a passive No is something I can see no way to consider proper. Jbh ^Talk 23:49, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

To my knowledge, the answer to the question about precedent on whether recused arbitrators count in calculating two-thirds is that there is no precedent one way or the other that I participated in formulating. In the case of Iridescent, whose seat was vacated because he was inactive and unavailable for several months leading up to an election and not for any other cause, there were no recusals. In the case of Elen of the Roads, there were several recusals (including myself) because the subject incident occurred during an election in which we who recused were candidates. An announcement was posted that the number of recusals made it impossible for the motion to pass, but given that I was recused, I wasn't consulted about that announcement and I don't recall thinking at the time about whether I agreed with it, because the community was about to decide the issue in the election in any event.

The obvious argument in favor of "two thirds of all arbitrators" is that removing a sitting, community-elected individual from a position of trust is a serious action that, if taken without ample justification, can shake faith in the importance of community participation. (Obviously I am thinking of another situation as I type this, although I'm not opining at all on the merits of that other situation.) The obvious argument in favor of "two thirds of the non-recused arbitrators" is that the happenstance of recusals (or lengthy inactivity or whatever) shouldn't make it harder to remove someone who needs to be removed than it already is. For example, if there were three recusals (including the subject arbitrator himself), then a two-thirds requirement (10 of 15) effectively becomes a five-sixths requirement (10 of 12). If there were five recusals, it becomes a unanimity requirement, and in the unlikely event there were six recusals than it becomes impossible to vote at all.

It should be noted that the issue disappears if the recusals are case-specific rather than person-specific, i.e. if the recused arbitrators could cast a disinterested, unbiased vote if the removal question were posed outside the context of the case. But I do not believe that is the case here.

All that said, in my view, the calculation issue should be moot in this case because removing Gamaliel from the Committee would be disproportionate and an overreaction to what has occurred. Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:37, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

As the only person still (vaguely) active on Wikipedia who's actually been expelled from Arbcom, I feel I probably ought to comment here even though I can't really see grounds to apply the procedure to Gamaliel in this case—compared to some of the whackos who've been allowed to sit out their terms, even if he's found guilty of every accusation made against him it would still be small beer. While I can appreciate the "two thirds of the total" arguments, I disagree and feel it should be "two thirds of those not recused", otherwise it would be literally be impossible to remove someone from the committee if they had five close friends/sworn enemies who were honest enough to admit they didn't feel able to make an impartial decision. This particular hypothetical situation, of recusals making the committee inquorate, is possibly one of the rare occasions where Jimbo ought to be called on to use a dictatorial override, although I'd personally prefer to see either a "should this person remain on the committee?" poll or a full snap re-election if Arbcom genuinely can't come to a decision.
That said, this is really not something that ought to soak up this much time discussing it. Arbcom is nowhere near as important as it thinks it is and its importance has been steadily dwindling for years—its significance is at least as much as the symbolic constitutional anchor of Wikipedia policy as for any actual power it exerts—and it doesn't really matter who's on it provided they at least try to work in the interests of Wikipedia's readers and editors. ‑ Iridescent 11:50, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Also, I guess, there is a question of "activity" in this context. If I, as someone who's never been there, were to "become inactive" at the time a decision is being called for, only to really quickly become "active" again as soon as the vote is made, would that maybe raise lots of eyebrows regarding whether allowing straightforward "recusal" would be acceptable, and also, presumably, whether that sort of blue flu "inactivity" might itself be something that, if done, would be seen as being possibly problematic for an arbitrator. John Carter (talk) 18:56, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed findings of fact

Gamaliel

Gamaliel and Gamergate

1) Gamaliel has been involved in GamerGate to such an extent that he has painted many opponents with the same brush, leading to an erosion of confidence in his objectivity. See, for example, Kingsindian's, Fram's and Gamaliel's evidence.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Gamaliel requested that he be prohibited from enforcement in Gamergate topic area

2) At his own request the Arbitration Committee "indefinitely restricted Gamaliel from taking any action to enforce any arbitration decision within the GamerGate topic, broadly construed" in this announcement.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

For a case with unchanging scope that specifically excludes Gamergate, committee members are referencing Gamergate an awful lot. NE Ent

Comment by others:

Gamaliel and The Signpost page

3) As part of April Fools Day events Gamaliel created a fake Signpost news report related to Donald Trump. The page was tagged for speedy deletion as a hoax. Gamaliel reverted the addition of a CSD notice in contravention of the criteria for speedy deletion policy. Gamaliel engaged in edit warring and violated the three revert rule (Fram's evidence) on the Signpost page [52] after others had reverted on the basis of the biographies of living persons policy. Gamaliel was incivil and disruptive ([53] [54] [55] [56]) in his edits to the Signpost page.

Comment by Arbitrators:

"Fake" implies a deliberate lie. An extravagant satire is not a deliberate lie. The standard for hoaxes is not reasonably applicable to such obvious april fools jokes outside article space, (and we in the past have allowed them even on the main page in article space) and was misuse of the speedy deletion policy. Nor does it fall under BLP,which is based on WP not doing harm to living people. This material is innocuous, not harmful. DGG ( talk ) 17:40, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- What wording would you prefer. "Hoax"? Doug Weller talk 15:41, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  - "Satiric"? Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 18:33, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

In response to the CSD tag, I'd note it was placed on a page dated in March 2010 with no reference to April 1st. It had no humor tag. Only a title that said Trump was suing wikipedia. If left intact, it indeed did meet the "Hoax" criteria as it was false and also that Trump had sued over this issue before I believe. It was perfectly fine to remove the CSD by a third party after they added the humor tag. That tag was not there when the "Hoax" CSD was applied. --DHeyward (talk) 21:07, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Was the "Trump/Wales 2016" piece controversial? I think a good FoF should mention that a large amount of controversy was over a page mentioning a lawsuit that was backdated because the SP editors did not have a "News & Notes" in time. Discuss-Dubious (t/c) 23:10, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I can't speak for others, but I submitted the original MfD (without realizing the shit storm it would kick up). I didn't find the Trump/Wales 2016 piece objectionable. I objected specifically to both the "small hands" reference, which criticized a living person based on their appearance, and the fake lawsuit bit, which places a living person in an extremely unflattering light in the name of political satire. The former is a BLP violation, and the latter is a strong example of what a neutral encyclopedia is not. ~ Rob^Talk 08:19, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes; highly so; largely with respect to the question of whether Wikipedia should be publishing partisan political satire. - Ryk72 ^'c.s.n.s.' 11:19, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I see. It seems that it was a minor question (based on the amount of noise generated compared to the N&N). Discuss-Dubious (t/c) 17:00, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Discuss-Dubious, I agree that a number of editors appeared more focused on the "back dated" N&N stub, as it is a clear technical, redactable BLP violation. I did however, try to make it clear that there was a wider objection to the whole series of "political satire masquerading as an April Fools gag" articles. See at ANI: Wikipedia is WP:NOT a publisher of political satire. If editors wish to write and have published political satire, they should seek out a publisher of such material; or alternately take advantage of the many opportunities for self-publishication that the Internet provides.[57]; Wikipedia is not a publisher of political satire, and The Signpost is not exempt from BLP policy.[58]; and at MfD: Satire as it is traditionally used on Wikipedia is both amusing and an important restraint on our propensity for collective hubris; it is also, most importantly, self-satire. We should be utterly ruthless in our acceptance of such self-deprecating humour. We should not, however, accept that this implies that satirical writings about living persons are acceptable.[59] - Ryk72 ^'c.s.n.s.' 23:20, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@DGG:, you keep saying harm is the underlying basis of BLP when that's not found to be true by reading any related policy. Something being contentious is though, and the idea that a joke piece about an already controversial current presidential candidate wasn't going to be contentious stretches credulity to the breaking point. Capeo (talk) 22:34, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Much to my surprise, I disagree with DGG and think Capeo might be right here (only the first part there is surprising, Capeo - no insult intended). This person is already controversial enough, and, whatever the intentions might have been, it would certainly be possible that the material in the article could be used by some opponent of Trump (possibly over half the planet I would think) against him, in a grossly perjoratively edited way, to bring harm to Trump or his campaign. Most of us here don't think much of our own reliability, granted, but unprincipled outsiders could use it against the subject. That would be harmful to him. I myself might not mind that particularly, but it could generate some harm, something like the bad Atlantic article on Eric Corbett may have done to him. And, with Trump's earlier threat to sue Cruz, it could even, potentially, cause harm to the WMF or individuals.

There is a bit of a line between satire and attack, and to my eyes this clearly was satire, but I am a fairly frequent person here and I know the rules here. A lot of outsiders, particularly if the material is prejudicially quoted or misrepresented, might not see the satire as quickly, and that is possibly something we should guard against as well. John Carter (talk) 23:14, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Gamaliel and userspace page

4) Gamaliel created a userbox in his userspace and placed it on his userpage [60] which continued the dispute after the Signpost page had been deleted by community consensus. After an anonymous editor blanked citing WP:POINT, Gamaliel applied full protection. While this protection was technically in accordance with the protection policy it prevented the addition of a deletion discussion notice and perpetuated what other editors believed was a BLP violation. Gamaliel deleted the page himself and removed it from his userpage.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Gamaliel's use of admin tools

5) Gamaliel revision deleted [61] links to off-site pages which were about/referred to him on the arbitration motions page. WP:INVOLVED provides an exemption for actions "on the basis that any reasonable administrator would have probably come to the same conclusion". However, best practice would have been to alert another administrator or oversighter and ask them to take action. Gamaliel also pre-emptively salted two pages (example and example2), seemingly in contravention of the protection policy.

Comment by Arbitrators:

We should not be implying that anyone on Wikipedia is expected to tolerate the kind of thing present in that link purely on vaporous "even the appearance!" grounds. There are enough substantive concerns about judgment to discuss here; there's no need to implicitly make it more difficult for editors to manage offsite harassment and abusive behavior by calling this out as an example of poor administrative practice. Opabinia regalis (talk) 19:57, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'd argue the policy is fairly clear on this, especially with something like this where sending a request for oversight, to ArbCom or the clerks were all viable option which would have been dealt with quickly. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 06:38, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

I do not by any means condone the content of the off-site pages linked, nor do I intend to engage in victim blaming, and I do honestly wish that I had found a better way to raise the same questions of involved administration; but we should perhaps be clear that those off-site pages would not have been linked without Gamaliel's suggestions that "Reddit threads" and "off-site coordination targeting the article of a BLP in a topic area where there has been frequent off-site coordination from the very same forums" were the reason behind what appears to be a particularly glaringly biased imposition of "500/30" protection; and those reasons appearing, on even rudimentary inspection, to be bald-faced misrepresentations of truth.
Again, without condoning those contents, I also note that off-Wiki evidence exists to suggest that Gamaliel would have already been familiar with the contents of those "Reddit threads", at least post March 11th if not before; and also that the denizens of that den of iniquity's attitude to Gamaliel would have also changed after that date, for off-Wiki reasons. I am happy to provide that evidence to you, Opabinia regalis, on the sole proviso that my email address is not disclosed to any other persons.
If we're performing a strict accounting of involved usage of tools, please add edit warring with IPs on my User Talk page on March 24th; revision deletion of those IPs' edits, and semi-protection of that page in pursuit of that edit war[62][63][64][65].
And, finally, and again without condoning or justifying the statements made in those "off-site pages", it's probably worth mentioning that it does seem a fair bit rich for someone who has had what amounts to a week long tantrum about an impingement of their absolute and inalienable right to make puerile, thinly veiled dick size jokes to also complain about having been insulted offsite, egregious though that insult might be. - Ryk72 ^'c.s.n.s.' 00:59, 14 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Ryk72: If you have something relevant to share in private, feel free to email me (or any arb) and we can pass it along to the committee without your email address. The on-wiki actions you cite, though, appear to be Gamergate-related actions from March, preceding the conflict this case is about. BTW, I'm not sure why, but your ping didn't ping. Hopefully this one does. Opabinia regalis (talk) 05:21, 14 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Gamaliel cast aspersions

Based on Fram's proposals above

6) Gamaliel belittled the concerns many editors had expressed and tended to blame problems on Gamergate (by dismissing the views of other editors as they had edited Gamergate), failing to recognize that his own actions were problematic and that many concerns were expressed by people not involved with Gamergate [66] [67][68][69]. Gamaliel's conduct was below that expected of an administrator (WP:ADMINCOND, WP:ADMINACCT) and an arbitrator (WP:ARBCOND).

Comment by Arbitrators:

This needs to be judged in context with the actual attempts to interfere off-wiki by those claiming to be mainly concerned with GamerGate, interference which extended to threats and libel on unrelated issues. DGG ( talk ) 17:36, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

There's really two stories here. Yes, Gamaliel possibly unfairly judged a few people for heavily editing Gamergate. But he was also viciously and maliciously targeted for being one of the few admins willing to police the area, and I know Arbcom has a wealth of private info on that. Judging based on only the public info, which this does, would be absolutely ridiculous. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 19:00, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Gamaliel repeatedly cast aspersions against all (or in one comment, "90%") of editors who raised issues about a series of policy-breaking actions by him. And we do judge editors by their on-wiki behavior. Harassment is deplorable, but holders of advanced permissions are held to higher standards of behavior than regular editors; basic behavior under WP:CIV includes not misidentifying all editors in a disagreement as harassers. Furthermore, it is below the standard expected of an administrator and arbitrator to say that we should have taken any statement as "hyperbole" and not as a seriously meant aspersion. Off-wiki harassment or not, this is far worse than "possiblky unfairly judg[ing] a few people". Yngvadottir (talk) 19:31, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I thought it was obvious that the 90% figure was hyperbole, but YMMV. I'm in no way saying that Gamaliel is blameless; what I am saying is that this FoF does not tell the whole story. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 20:04, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Gamergate is out of scope. Even if it were not, how is hyperbolically accusing a large number of editors in an AN/I discussion of being Gamergate trolls appropriate for an admin, let alone an arb? I don't see it as at all appropriate for an admin to make any hyperbolic statement that they assume we will not think they really mean—let alone one that's a grave insult. This is not fit conduct. It's unacceptable. If there was some personal exonerating cause, basic civility on the project, let alone his responsibility as an admin, required he step back from the issue if he had no better control of his words than that. Yngvadottir (talk) 16:43, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It could be argued that this FoF wording is actually somewhat lenient on Gamaliel. Some of his statements claimed that some unspecified editors criticizing him had intentionally joined the discussion under direction of an offsite campaign organized on "multiple Gamergate forums". Such accusation, if proven true about a specific editor, would be probably strong basis for a siteban.--Staberinde (talk) 16:49, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@DGG: If I understand the circumstances to which you allude (and I fear that I have stared into this particular abyss for long enough to so do), then we should be clear that the person or persons behind the interference which you mention did not take any part in the Signpost MfD, the ANI, or in this Case; in fact they are prohibited by sanctions from such involvement. While the interference alluded to is disgracefully abhorrent, and I broadly & unequivocally condemn it, it is not justification for or mitigation of the aspersions & incivility towards Wikipedians in good standing that we have seen. In short: My boss may be a bastard, or some random fruitloop on the train may have screamed obscenities & threatened me, but I still don't get to come home and shout at the family & kick the dog and think it justified. - Ryk72 ^'c.s.n.s.' 05:15, 14 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I have no way of knowing for sure, but it does seem clear that most (and very probably all) of the people taking part in the present case on-wiki are not involved in the off-wiki harassment. Were there evidence otherwise, action would already have been taken. But in the plainest possible terms, we don't kick people when they're down, even though they might deserve it. If a WPedian's misdeeds are deemed particularly outrageous, it would not stop me or anyone on the committee from taking our normal action to protect the encyclopedia; if they are deemed just ordinarily inappropriate, they might well cause us to hold back a little, but still try to find something that would protect the encyclopedia. Human feelings are involved, and I do not think society or WP knows a better way to evaluate this sort of balance than to rely on the common conclusion of a group of ordinary but dispassionate people--a jury, or arb com. In all such cases there is generally a diversity of views on the committee, and we by our normal processes of discussion and voting find some sort of balance. And in all such case normally not one single involved person will agree with whatever is the final decision. DGG ( talk ) 06:17, 14 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

ANI discussion

7A) There was a discussion on ANI regarding the Signpost page and the creation of the page in Gamaliel's userspace (see the timeline). There were 14 different closes, reverts and re-closes over a period of a approximately two days, the suggestions at WP:CLOSECHALLENGE were not followed. The tenor of discussion was largely uncollegial and incivil.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

ANI discussion (Gamaliel)

7B) Gamaliel edit warred to re-close the discussion, which was about him, making three reverts (to JzG's version of the closing statement). [70][71][72]

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

ANI discussion (JzG)

7C) JzG's close of the ANI discussion indicates a standard of conduct below that expected of an administrator. The close was needlessly inflammatory and belittling, and perpetuated the perceived BLP violation [73].

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Less than ideal but occasional departures from expected decorum are generally forgiven. Any remedy beyond a reminder would be excessive.--MONGO 14:35, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

ANI discussion (Arkon)

7D) Arkon violated the three revert rule and WP:CLOSECHALLENGE to revert JzG and Gamaliel in their attempts to close the discussion, which he started [74] [75] [76] [77].

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

WP:CLOSECHALLENGE doesn't address ANI; it's kind of a wild west milieu. NE Ent 21:51, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Not a policy, or even a guideline from what I can tell. Arkon (talk) 21:57, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Given that JzG and Gamaliel's closures were so wildly inappropriate, this seems a curious thing to focus on. It is technically accurate, but it does not rank in the top 10 problems in the matter. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 13:52, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Doesn't really give one a license to edit-war. Either way, this is pretty mild given the rest of Arkon's mudslinging there and elsewhere. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 18:57, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Considering the BLP removal exemption mentioned above, it sorta does. However, I'm fine with the edit warring label. Now, what "mudslinging there and elsewhere" are you referring to? Arkon (talk) 19:02, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Oh please, the BLP removal policy doesn't apply there. On mudslinging, from just the ANI thread, nowhere else: "Your actions are shameful." "You can fuck right off." "#IPLIVESMATTER." "Yay it's Mark! He's here to tell us how to be civil, listen carefully folks." Your comments led to an entire section discussing your lack of civility! Whether or not you were right (you know where I stand on that), this entire site would be better off if you learned to conduct yourself in a more collegial manner. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 19:08, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Firstly, your declaration of BLP removal policy not being applicable is clearly at debate here, if you were to read. Secondly, sounds like you should have posted some evidence if you felt so strongly. Thirdly, all sections regarding my supposed lack of whatever were closed, without action, and with your view being in the obvious minority. Perhaps if you hadn't protected a page with a BLP violation we wouldn't have been here at all. Arkon (talk) 19:11, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

All red herrings. First, I wasn't aware your reverts were done under the BLP removal policy—you'd think you would have linked to the policy in your edit summaries at the time, rather than trying to ascribe motivations after the fact. Second, see #1. Third, of course they were closed without action. None of those remarks are strong enough to be actionable under our current and useless civility policy. However, if you'd re-read my post, none of what you've said cogently argues against my underlying point. You can be a dick without breaching CIV. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 20:10, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hard to get past the first sentences here, but come on ed, see the first reversion, with the edit summary "Blanking as blatant BLP vio"? Do you need to be linked to BLP directly to make the connection? As to me being a dick, yeah, maybe. Why you feel the need to make that a point here, when your actions could be said to have spawned this monster, I don't know. Arkon (talk) 20:15, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yo, I'm talking about the ANI close edit-war (ie the edits referenced in this FoF), nothing more. Can I make that clearer? :-p Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 23:48, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I did misunderstand which sequence of reverts you were referring to in regards to the BLP exemption, sorry about that. However, considering the close repeated a key portion of the text I removed previously with the BLP reasoning, I believe the intent should be clear. Also in regards to supposedly "abscribing motivations after the fact", 20 minutes after the first close, I make the comment here, which considering the wonderful edit conflicts at the time, is a pretty prompt response in my opinion. Arkon (talk) 00:00, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ed: Could you please supply diffs for those comments you refer to? Thanks, Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 06:40, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Its this and this and this, I believe. Arkon (talk) 13:03, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Callanecc: Everything I quoted is referenced or stated in this ANI section, including an entire subthread devoted to his (lack of) civility. I have not examined other edits from him/her, but I would also note two diffs that Gamaliel supplied in the thread: [78][79]. Far from the worst we've seen on this site, but they really put the whole BLP justice warrior persona into perspective.

@Arkon:, apologies, I hadn't seen that comment. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 16:29, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

DHeyward and Gamaliel

Based on PeterTheFourth's proposal above

8) DHeyward (talk · contribs) has acted in an incivil manner towards Gamaliel and made personal attacks on the English Wikipedia and Wikimedia Commons ([80][81] [82] [83]). Initially DHeyward did not believe he acted inappropriately ([84] [85]). DHeyward has been warned regarding incivility and making personal attacks on Gamaliel on the English Wikipedia and on Wikimedia Commons ([86] [87] [88]). DHeyward and Gamaliel were prohibited from interacting with or discussing each other for the duration of this arbitration case.

Comment by Arbitrators:

I refuse to judge by whether someone has shown "remorse' for their actions. That's an open invitation to dishonesty, and essentially giving a free pass to hypocrites. DGG ( talk ) 17:31, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Although that sentence has been edited since, I want to go on the record here agreeing with DGG about "remorse". The key question is whether or not someone stops their behavior, not whether they emote about it correctly. Opabinia regalis (talk) 19:26, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@DHeyward: Thank you for stopping. They're not scare quotes, they're regular quotes; the word appeared in the original text until Drmies edited it earlier. Opabinia regalis (talk) 22:19, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

I don't mind what method you choose to judge, however, I'd appreciate it if you would not insinuate that I am dishonest or a hypocrite. The scare quotes on "remorse" are also unnecessary. I don't believe I would have been given the latitude to comment in that way about anyone in this case. I realize you said "someone" in the general wiki method of not actually casting aspersions directly and I'd point out that I could have reworded any of my cited statements in a way that similarly conforms and chose to apologize and leave them deleted instead of "wikifying" it. I chose to stop the behavior. --DHeyward (talk) 20:51, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Opabinia regalis: Sorry, I should have been more specific. When used in the sentence that DGG wrote by juxtaposing remorse with dishonesty and hypocrisy, it certainly seems to imply insincerity when quoted (the basic definition of WP:SCAREQUOTES). We usually don't quote dictionary words when there is no grammatical reason to do so - certainly "remorse" didn't need quotes around it when the passage was taken from PtF. Your sentence made more sense with quotes as it was setting off the word as an idea expressed by another person whereas DGG seemed to be speaking about motivation. It's a nit overall but I hope you can see how concepts become personal without intent and only after being pointed out is it even contemplated that it's personal. I feel some of that is embodied in your reply though I wouldn't characterize it as "initially OR (or DGG) did not believe s/he acted inappropriately." My cancer comment was out of line. The user box was pointy as it had been there for years. The other ones required a different perspective for me to see they were personal and not behavioral. That's valuable input and leads to behavior changes. --DHeyward (talk) 23:41, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

DHeyward, DGG and I are pretty old (sorry David) and we're old-time academics. For us, I think, quotes are primarily to indicate direct citation. Thank you, Drmies (talk) 01:21, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough and I'm not exactly young. It's an exercise in the medium which we communicate. The written versus spoken intent is often not clear or clearly stated especially when it's a charged environment (ANI/ArbCom/MfD/AfD/AE) with strong opinions. If any of this had been real time, spoken dialogue there would be no personal attacks as that is not the intent (either with myself or anyone else here). We lose sight of that sometimes and this is an example. I am sure you can see my point in how DGG's comments could be perceived even if the intent is not there and also how it would not be hard to clear up in spoken dialogue but diffs are forever even after the comment is struck. I can't go back and undo my mistakes in how I conveyed a thought. That is my fault for not considering the audience or context well enough to make it more cogent without conveying animus. --DHeyward (talk) 02:55, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I used the quotations in a somewhat more specific use, to indicate I was talking about the general concept of what is called "remorse" in judicial or quasi-judicial proceedings, not about any one person's actual feelings or statements of remorse. It could be paraphrased as "this thing called 'remorse' ". Similarly, I'm old enough not to really mind being called "old", or at least to have gotten used to it. DGG ( talk ) 04:06, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No worries. I didn't bother to investigate personal attacks made by gamaliel. Here's one [[89] that carried over from the ANI page where gamaliel alluded to kicking my dog, and MarkBernstein followed up with the same allusion (arguably both a NPA and Topic Ban violation encouraged by the Admin that imposed it) but it's not enough of an issue for me to pursue remedies. Again, Gamaliel's (or MarkBernstein's) intent is likely not a personal attack but could it be taken that way? (My dog may be terrified, though, after I teach it to read). I know that I write things that are taken as an attack by some while not by others and try to cut some slack while also learning how different people react. Being cogent without conveying animus is difficult in real-time text based conversations where sarcasm, wit, humor, allegory and argument are difficult to convey properly without seeing emotional expressions. Here's a humor bit I wrote about WP and some understand instantly it's humor related to WP process (kudos to arbitrators), others replied as if it was serious[90]. --DHeyward (talk) 21:18, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

The only one which can fairly be described as a personal attack is the "cancer" comment for which DHeyward has apologized. Another borderline case is restoring the "dem" tag to Gamaliel's userpage, which could be thought of as passive-aggressive. There are no personal attacks in the rest: saying that someone engages in battleground conduct in an ANI case or ArbCom case is not a personal attack, but evidence. The comment on commons is not a personal attack, but a reductio ad absurdum to make his point. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 13:31, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

And he did not engage in any of that after being warned by Drmies.--MONGO 13:40, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Kingsindian has it correct here. Obviously the "cancer" comment was a personal attack, but it's not correct to say that DHeyward did not apologize for it. The other diffs are not personal attacks. -Starke Hathaway (talk) 13:52, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I have removed one diff, which I don't think can be considered a personal attack. A harsh comment, at best. Drmies (talk) 17:39, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The cancer comment, the user box (borderline, maybe), the statement starting "long history of inserting his POV" (read the rest), the Commons comment, those should (or certainly could) be considered personal attacks, some worse than others. DHeyward has apologized for at least the cancer comment (on 1 May--better late than never...), and I have somewhat tweaked one of the sentences to reflect a past tense. It is correct that all those diffs precede my warning of 13 April, 14:25, and of course DHeyward heard from a few other editors as well. Drmies (talk) 17:49, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

How exactly is this a personal attack? It is made an ArbCom case, where the whole point is to talk about editor behaviour. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 05:20, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed remedies

Note: All remedies that refer to a period of time, for example to a ban of X months or a revert parole of Y months, are to run concurrently unless otherwise stated.

Template

1) {text of proposed remedy}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

2) {text of proposed remedy}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed enforcement

Template

1) {text of proposed enforcement}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

2) {text of proposed enforcement}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposals by Discuss-Dubious

Proposed remedies

Note: All remedies that refer to a period of time, for example to a ban of X months or a revert parole of Y months, are to run concurrently unless otherwise stated.

RFCs created regarding Signpost and limits of April Fool's Day

poorly adapted from MastCell's reply on the talkpage 1) A community RFC shall be created for each of the separate questions:

to ask what the role of the Signpost is for the community
to address the limits of April Fool's Day pranks
regarding BLP,
- if there can be a level of consensus where we redact content on principle or something

The RFC will be closed by uninvolved arbitration clerks, but arbitrators may participate on the same level as everyone else.

Off-topic discussions re: GGC by both supportive and opposed parties will be quarantined in a separate section for the first RFC.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

I understand the thought process --- but I'm not aware this has ever worked. The community is encouraged.... -- if the "community" -- there really isn't such a thing: ((NUMBEROFACTIVEUSERS)) = 121,919; how many editors do you see in a single forum?? Wikipedia is multiple, overlapping, subcommunities. Anyway, if the community could have resolved this it wouldn't be an arbcom case, now would it? Following WP:ARBCIV we got the Civility enforcement RFC, which kind of died in place. The best we can do is ask the committee to make the best lemonade they can out of the lemons they've been handed. I think my POV is pretty clear: BLP violations bad -- everywhere, humor best left to humor sites, and, no this isn't "gamergate payback." NE Ent 02:55, 14 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

I know this is the 11th hour. I know it's rough, but I wanted to get something of substance in.

Proposals by Ningauble

Proposed findings of fact

The Signpost piece is satire, not biographical information

1) It is readily apparent to readers that the Signpost piece in dispute is a joke, a satire about public figures. As such, it makes no contention, assertion, or speculation concerning matters of fact or matters of private concern that are subject to the Biographies of living persons policy on contentious or privileged information about living persons.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposer's rationale: I think the committee should avoid being drawn into ruling that the BLP policy prohibits readily identified satirical or counterfactual forms of expression outside article space whenever it refers to living persons. On the contrary, I think the argument that the Signpost piece violates the letter or the spirit of the policy should be expressly refuted because it is not in any creditable sense biographical information about living persons. ~ Ningauble (talk) 16:26, 14 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No. According to WP:BLP, "Editors must take particular care when adding information about living persons to any Wikipedia page." Information about living persons is not limited to facts; if it were limited to facts, we wouldn't be writing an encyclopedia, the project would be limited to a fact book eg., being Wikidata. Rather, information about a living person most certainly includes everything expressed about them, not just facts. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 17:07, 14 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost piece expresses opinion in non-article space

2) It is readily apparent to readers that the Signpost piece in dispute is a joke, a satire about public figures. As such, it implicitly expresses an opinion that these public figures are in some respects ridiculous. While such editorial opinions should never appear in encyclopedia articles, they are not categorically forbidden in other pages.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposer's rationale: I think the committee should avoid being drawn into making a broad ruling on what types of opinion are prohibited in non-article pages where the expression of opinions is permitted. To apply the rubrics for NPOV, V, & NOR demanded by BLP to expressions of opinion, as satire or otherwise, whenever it refers to living persons is to categorically prohibit any expression of opinion about living persons. Imagine a world where one can laugh at our fearless founder himself without fear of reprisal. ~ Ningauble (talk) 16:26, 14 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No. According to BLP, "[c]ontentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced and not related to making content choices should be removed . . .". An original unsourced opinion that an LP is ridiculous is material meant to contend, both with the LP and with other editors original unsourced opinions. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 17:18, 14 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Also, "It is readily apparent to readers that the Signpost piece in dispute is a joke" is demonstrably untrue, as even the Signpost concedes. It was dated 17 March 2010, not April 1, and contained nothing to indicate that it was intended as humour (that was added later, after the editwar). ‑ Iridescent 17:45, 14 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Iridescent – Notwithstanding any shenanigans with dummy pages (which is not what I meant by "the Signpost piece", I meant the one dated 1 April 2016), and especially notwithstanding conduct issues that have been raised, my intent here is to dissuade the committee from making an overbroad ruling on the applicability of BLP to satire, and opinion generally, outside article space.

@Alanscottwalker – I beg to differ with the proposition that there is no fundamental difference between contentious information and expressing an opinion. (E.g., would it be forbidden in the context of an Arbcom election to express a non-neutral opinion, based entirely on original research and without citing recognized reliable sources, that a living person is or is not well qualified for office?) I also think the language you quote from BLPTALK should not be taken over broadly by the committee (and probably needs to be rewritten) to categorically prohibit expressing "original opinions" about living persons in all situations. (Continuing the previous gratuitous example, Would it be impermissible because it is not directly related to making content choices?)

If the committee is going to cite BLP in its decision, as it almost certainly will, I encourage it to be very specific about which content is at issue, and to avoid some of the broad categorical statements that have been put forward in this case. ~ Ningauble (talk) 18:46, 14 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Content unrelated to Wikimedia

3) The Signpost piece contains a substantial amount of material that is wholly unrelated to Wikimedia or very tenuously related by counterfactual hypotheses.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed remedies

Note: All remedies that refer to a period of time, for example to a ban of X months or a revert parole of Y months, are to run concurrently unless otherwise stated.

The Signpost editors reminded

1) Editors of The Signpost are reminded to refrain from publishing excessive content unrelated to Wikimedia, consistent with The Signpost's statement of purpose.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposals by User:Example 3

Proposed principles

Template

1) {text of Proposed principle}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

2) {text of Proposed principle}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed findings of fact

Template

1) {text of proposed finding of fact}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

2) {text of proposed finding of fact}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed remedies

Note: All remedies that refer to a period of time, for example to a ban of X months or a revert parole of Y months, are to run concurrently unless otherwise stated.

Template

1) {text of proposed remedy}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

2) {text of proposed remedy}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed enforcement

Template

1) {text of proposed enforcement}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

2) {text of proposed enforcement}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Analysis of evidence

Place here items of evidence (with diffs) and detailed analysis

Timeline of ANI closes and reverts

I made this as I was trying to get my head around what happened with the closing and reverting at ANI. Thanks for the diffs Cryptic. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 14:24, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

#	Close / Revert	User	Time and date	Edit summary	Wording of close	Diff
1	Close	JzG (1)	23:49, 6 April 2016 (UTC)	close	Consensus is that the OP's grasp of policy is as small as Donald Trump's hands...	[91]
2	Revert	Arkon (1)	23:50, 6 April 2016 (UTC)	Revert to revision 713987697 dated 2016-04-06 23:48:24 by Arkon using popups		[92]
3	Close	Gamaliel (1)	23:51, 6 April 2016 (UTC)	Reverted to revision 713987865 by JzG (talk): Reverting revert of closure by involved party.	(Same as JzG)	[93]
4	Revert	Arkon (2)	23:53, 6 April 2016 (UTC)	Revert to revision 713987940 dated 2016-04-06 23:50:36 by Arkon using popups		[94]
5	Close	Gamaliel (2)	23:54, 6 April 2016 (UTC)	Reverted to revision 713988049 by Gamaliel (talk): Please adhere to WP:CLOSECHALLENGE instead of revert warring.	(Same as JzG) (Following, written by Arkon, was removed from the bottom of the discussion: Now with extra insulting close notes, yay. No. Not a summary of the discussion)	[95]
6	Revert	Arkon (3)	23:55, 6 April 2016 (UTC)	Revert to revision 713988084 dated 2016-04-06 23:52:08 by Arkon using popups		[96]
7	Close	Gamaliel (3)	00:01, 7 April 2016 (UTC)	Reverted to revision 713988308 by Gamaliel (talk): You are now at 3RR. Please adhere to WP:CLOSECHALLENGE instead of revert warring.	(Same as JzG)	[97]
8	Revert	Arkon (4)	00:12, 7 April 2016 (UTC)	nope	(At the bottom of the section) Yet again reverting close, with a wonderful new personal attack and BLP violation to boot!!! Yay JZG!	[98]
9	Close	JzG (2)	09:22, 7 April 2016 (UTC)	close	Consensus at MfD and here is that there is not BLP violation. See WP:NCR.	[99]
9	Close (addition to reason)	JzG (2)	09:23, 7 April 2016 (UTC)	more	Consensus at MfD and here is that there is no BLP violation. See WP:FORUMSHOP and WP:NCR. This is not a matter for ANI, discussion proceeds int he correct venue.	[100]
10	Revert	DHeyward (1)	10:24, 7 April 2016 (UTC)	lets have an uninvolved admin close this		[101]
11	Close	JzG (3)	13:55, 7 April 2016 (UTC)	thios does not ened admins. Simple.	This does not require administrator intervention - not even the 3RR violation by the OP.	[102]
12	Revert	Fram (1)	14:34, 7 April 2016 (UTC)	Reopened with arguments why the close was wrong.	(Long comment at the bottom of the thread about why the revert, see diff)	[103]
13	Close	HighInBC (1)	04:49, 8 April 2016 (UTC)		This is getting a little out of hand. I don't see any likely admin action here. I think if the incivility stops now we can get over what has already been said. People can express their concerns to each other on their talk pages, and if they really think they need to can go to arbcom. However it would be one of the lamest arbcom cases ever, so please do try to work it out between yourselves.	[104] (small modification)
13.5	Revert (self)	HighInBC	14:14, 8 April 2016 (UTC)	this is more recent that I realized, I am undoing my close		[105]
14	Close	SB Johnny (1)	02:36, 9 April 2016 (UTC)		I think it's fair top say that no administrator is going to take action against a sitting member of ArbCom without explicit prior approval from ArbCom. Interested parties should open a case, since this venue will not bring any resolution other than "move on, nothing to be done".	[106]

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

In case it's helpful, the MFD that was running parallel to ANI opened at 19:41 on April 6, and closed at 13:59 on April 7. Townlake (talk) 21:26, 7 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Gamergate numbers evidence invalid

Gamergate editors participating in the discussion at ANI or this case is invalid. (Definitely not gold).

First of all, comparing the editors listed with all the editors in the ANI who recognized a BLP when they see it we find BU Rob 13, The Master, Govindaharihari , MONGO, TP are omitted -- a clear cherry pick. Secondly, examining DHeyward's contribution history [107] , we find the actual most edited page is not anything Gamaliel listed, but actually Wikipedia:Reference desk/Science at 1,001. (and no, he didn't rack up hundreds the past week [108]). So it's a cherry pick within a cherry pick.

Secondly, raw numbers without any comparison to population statistics i.e. some sort of Bayesian inference does not provide value.

Finally -- what difference does it make!? We are not a legal system in which the DNA-encrusted knife, the blood splattered clothes, the three camera high resolution of video of the crime, and the notarized confession are tossed because there wasn't a valid search warrant. It's generally -- inappropriately in my opinion, but no one cares much -- accepted an administrator who has previously observed editor misbehavior should be consulted when new perceived misbehavior is observed, and an editor who violates one standard, e.g. copyvio, will often have their other contributions examined. Why should an editor who has had previous engagement with an administrator acting poorly be excluded from bringing new poor behavior to the community's attention? NE Ent 00:39, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Gamaliel's Gamergate evidence does not back claims he made in ANI

In his evidence about Gamergate Gamaliel backed down from the 90% comment as "hyperbole", but did not see any issues with other Gamergate related claims he had made, and actually provided some evidence. Details of that evidence were dissected by NE Ent in section above.
Major issue some seem to be missing is that this Gamaliel's "evidence" bears little relation to the actual claims he made in the ANI thread and in the Case request. In those discussions he did not simply make claims about "Gamergate editors". Instead, he claimed that some unspecified editors participating in the discussion had been "canvassed"[109], "stirred"[110], and "directed"[111] from "multiple off-site Gamergate forums". These accusations, which essentially imply participation in an offsite harassment campaign, are far more serious than simply saying that someone is a "Gamergate editor" for spending unhealthy amount of time on that cursed article.
Obviously this comment only applies to the public evidence, I have no idea what additional information Gamaliel may have provided privately.--Staberinde (talk) 15:34, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

To add, as one that watches the publicly open GG forums simply to make sure we're not about to be brigaded or the like, there's no sign of these types of activities happening there. Yes, there were threads on the Signpost post and the fallout form that, and there's plenty of threads on this current ArbCom case, and many of the comments in those threads are disrespectful to Gamaliel, no question. But outside of taking notice of the events on these pages, these threads do not seem to be have any type of "canvassed", "stirred", or "directed" actions to their users there that are also editors here to engage on this case towards Gamaliel. I don't rule out secret forums that are not public where such coordination may be occurring, but then again, this comes down to the point of Gamaliel calling out editors as being part of this campaign without any evidence to demonstrate that. --MASEM (t) 16:01, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Motions and requests by the parties

Motion to remove DHeyward as a party

Template

Template

Proposed temporary injunctions

Template

Template

Template

Template

Questions to the parties

Proposed final decision

Proposals by PeterTheFourth

Proposed principles

Civility is a pillar

Proposed findings of fact

DHeyward

Proposed remedies

DHeyward admonished

DHeyward interaction banned

Proposals by Kingsindian

Proposed principles

WP:PILLAR

Proposed findings of fact

Gamergate drama

At Wits' End

Existence of real-life harassment

Few ways of dealing with harassment

Proposed remedies

Gamergate article is deleted

BLPs related to Gamergate

Proposals by User:BU Rob13

Proposed principles

Biographies of living persons

Standards for biographical articles

Application of the BLP policy

Administrators

Proposals by Yngvadottir

Proposed principles

Purpose of Wikipedia

Community

Administrator responsibility

BLP

April Fool's Day

Harassment

Scope of this case

Proposed findings of fact

Gamaliel's conduct has been unbecoming of an administrator

Gamaliel's defence does not satisfy WP:ADMINACCT

Signpost

Violations of civility policy and edit warring by other parties to the case

Proposed remedies

Gamaliel is removed from the Arbitration Committee

Gamaliel is admonished

DHeyward is admonished

Arkon is admonished

JzG is admonished

The Signpost editors are reminded

Editors are reminded

Proposals by User:NE Ent

Proposed principles

Wikipedia is an encyclopedia

No freedom of speech

No special privileges for projects

Proposed findings of fact

Role of the Signpost

Proposed remedies

Gamaliel temporarily banned

Proposals by User:Jayen466

Proposed principles

Application of Wikipedia policy to The Signpost

Proposals by Rhoark

Proposed exclusion of findings/remedies outside the narrowly construed case scope

Proposed remedies

Signpost editors and contributors commended

Proposals by User:Fram

Proposed principles

Expectations for administrators

Conduct of administrators

Admin accountability

Involved admin actions