Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Gamaliel and others/Evidence

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

Case clerks: Miniapolis (Talk) & Lankiveil (Talk) Drafting arbitrators: DGG (Talk) & Callanecc (Talk)

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

Part of my evidence removed by ArbCom for BLP reasons

In this edit ArbCom (through a clerk who is not to blame) has removed part of my evidence because it "appears to violate the policy on BLP". It seems to me essential that a disputed rev-del action can be discussed and checked, and I would like explanation from the arbcom member(s) which ordered this why this was removed. It is obviously not a source that belongs in article space, but this is an arbcom case about the actions of an editor, and by removing this part of evidence you are actually making it harder (if not impossible) to judge this for other editors. Considering that pages which have been deleted at MfD as BLP violations can be undeleted for the duration of the case, I wonder why this one reddit link was so terrible that it wasn't acceptable as evidence. Fram (talk) 06:43, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

Hi Fram. The removal was not requested by Arbcom directly. A request was sent to the clerks mailing list asking for the submission to be reviewed. As it appeared it may have been a BLP violation this was removed by myself and I have advised Arbcom of the removal so they can decide what to do with regards to it, if they agree it can be included then we can reinatate it. Amortias (T)(C) 07:30, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

Hi Amortias, If the concern is with the link included within the removed evidence, then I direct the attention of the committee & clerks to: i) WP:BLPTALK, 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, which explicitly permits the inclusion; and ii) WP:NPA#External links, Linking to off-site harassment, attacks, or privacy violations against persons who edit Wikipedia 'for the purpose of attacking another person who edits Wikipedia is never acceptable, which implicitly permits such links. The purpose here, and in my original edit which included these links, is not to attack another person who edits Wikipedia; the purpose is firmly placed in the handling of administrative issues by the community - in this case, a discussion of whether an admin acted while involved. - Ryk72 ^'c.s.n.s.' 08:05, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

"Part of your evidence submitted at this page appears to violate the policy on BLP. I this evidence is required then it should be submitted to [email protected] . This has been carried out as a clerk action and should not be reverted without express permission from the Arbitration committee. " was the message you left on my user talk page. It now turns out that "appears to violate the policy on BLP" is purely on the say-so of some anonymous editor, and that you claim that a clerk action without instructions of the ArbCom can only be reverted with explicit permission of the ArbCom? This seems very, very weird; clerks should not get involved with what evidence is acceptable and what isn't to such a degree as you are doing here. Nothing in Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Clerks or Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Clerks/Procedures seems to give you the right to make such a change on behalf of an anonymous editor with only the ArbCom having the right to undo it. Either you believe it to be a BLP violation, and you remove it based on your opinion; or you get instructed by ArbCom to do so; or you just leave it alone.

If you want to clerk, you can remove the "evidence" by Whatamidoing (not evidence as defined at the top of the page) and Montanabw (largely the same reason, not a single diff in all of his text). Or perhaps I should have asked you this by less visible means to get some result? Please reinstate my evidence and let ArbCom decide whether it is necessary to keep that link as evidence of an involved rev-del or not. Just like the restored MFD-deleted page is necessary as evidence in this case, even though it is also a BLP violation. Fram (talk) 09:24, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

Hi Fram. The issue was brought to our attention on the mailing list. I reviewed it and in my opinion it was a BLP violation. As such I removed it. As soon as I have had a response from the committee about the status of the statement I will either revert myself (or any other clerk can do so if they get thee before me) or advise further. I have requested that the case clerks review the evidence you have mentioned above as I am currently working off my phone and clerking evidence isn't easy to do so at present.

Amortias (T)(C) 12:07, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

Ah yes, that mailing list where some people involved in this case will afterwards get to see who requested such things, and other people involved here won't. I wonder why "this is a BLP violation" needs to be said in secret instead of out in the open. I also wonder why such things are even accepted. Anyway, if that is a BLP violation, then you will have to delete many things used or linked to in the evidence, starting with the MFD pages that were undeleted. Very, very strange, I hope the ArbCom will revert your action. Fram (talk) 12:17, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

Fram, the question was "please look into it" and the answer was "yes", and my follow-up action was, well, Wikipedia:Revision_deletion#Criteria_for_redaction, item 2. How secret this list is or will be is of little relevance. I am surprised that you have a problem with this, but if you want me to say "this is a BLP violation" out in the open, sure: this is a BLP violation, and I have revdeleted this because I consider it to be "Grossly insulting, degrading, or offensive material". If the point of including it was "lots of folks on the internet think Gamaliel is xxxx", well, that point does not need to be proven with this diff. I don't know if I speak for all ArbCom members here but I would have done this if I were merely a lowly adminny peon, and if something like that had been said about you and someone posted it, I would have revdeleted it too. As a side note, I can't help but thinking that this is a side note, and that all this harping on clerks and hammering on procedure and whatnot is unproductive. Drmies (talk) 05:29, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

• Hi Amortias, I note that the removed evidence itself (not including any links) contains information about exactly two living persons - I am one; the second is a party to this case - none of the removed evidence appears to contain unsourced information about either of these persons; it is, rather, copiously sourced. Without repeating the ostensible "BLP violation", are you able to advise, by number, the sentence of the removed evidence in which it is contained?
  I further note this discussion, on the Talk page of another ArbCom clerk; in the interests of transparency, are you able to advise: A. Is the "living person" 1) a Wikipedia editor, 2) a party to this case, 3) mentioned in the evidence provided in this case? B. Is the reporting person i) a party to this case, ii) mentioned in the evidence provided in this case? C. Is the ostensible "BLP violation" only in relation to the included link? - Ryk72 ^'c.s.n.s.' 13:16, 21 April 2016 (UTC)
• There is a consensus of clerks supporting Amortias's clerk action. It was perfectly valid and is appreciated. For the avoidance of doubt, clerk actions need not be requested by arbitrators; any non-recused clerk may take such clerk actions as are necessary to fulfill their mandate under the arbitration policy, including enforcing good standards of conduct and decorum on the Committee's pages, which clearly extends to dealing with BLP violations. Appeals of such clerk actions may be directed to the clerk team or the Arbitration Committee (clerks-llists.wikimedia.org or arbcom-en-blists.wikimedia.org. Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 00:10, 22 April 2016 (UTC)
  • I would like to note here that Amortias's conduct here has been exemplary. Upon his action, he immediately posted to the clerks' list for review, and noted this discussion. I'd also like to note that this action has been endorsed by two arbitrators (Drmies, by revdelling the link, and OR, by email). Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 00:17, 22 April 2016 (UTC)
    • Could you confirm that it's the position of the committee that a) disputed material that may be a BLP violation should be removed until a clear consensus as to its status is determined, and b) that even though something may be published on a first amendment external protected website, it may be not be published on wiki due to the higher standards of the project? NE Ent 01:33, 22 April 2016 (UTC)
      • @Ryk72 and NE Ent: Yes, the problem is the link, which contains both BLP violations and harassment. I doubt any of the reasonable people here need any further guidance on what part of the linked material is the problem. I don't think I, Drmies, or the committee as a whole is taking a general position by removing this particular link. And as for the first amendment, XKCD is always right ;) Opabinia regalis (talk) 04:22, 22 April 2016 (UTC)
      • Oops, also meant to ping Fram. Opabinia regalis (talk) 04:23, 22 April 2016 (UTC)
        • @Opabinia regalis: If it's not obvious to you, I believe NE Ent (talk · contribs) is actually referencing Gamaliel's actions as well as Fram's.--v/r - TP 04:31, 22 April 2016 (UTC)
          • @TParis: Maybe so, but a talk page thread about redacting Fram's evidence is entirely the wrong place to make statements of general principle that implicitly judge matters that are already at issue in the case. Opabinia regalis (talk) 04:58, 22 April 2016 (UTC)
            • Actually, I was asking a question to try to get information that will help me better utilize the limited space I have on the evidence section; a common theme has been the material at the heart of the case was justified per first amendment rights; Opabinia regalis's reply indicates that at least 1/11 of the committee understands that is incorrect, which is a positive sign. NE Ent 09:38, 22 April 2016 (UTC)
        • @Opabinia regalis: Many thanks. While I do not concur that the redaction & revdel is aligned with policy (either BLP or NPA), understanding the concern will make it possible to submit evidence without repetition of the issue. - Ryk72 ^'c.s.n.s.' 04:42, 22 April 2016 (UTC) clarifying, reping - Ryk72 ^'c.s.n.s.' 04:54, 22 April 2016 (UTC)
• I've reviewed the removed content and the only piece I could even imagine falling under the BLP and Harassment policy is the actual link itself. The rest of the content should be restored minus the link. The link itself should at least be submitted in private to Arbcom and considered as private evidence. *And Fram should be minnow'd for linking to an off-wiki discussion. That's toeing the line on the wrong side of it.--v/r - TP 04:29, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

Before we get the fish out, we should probably amend our policies to align with our practices. - Ryk72 ^'c.s.n.s.' 04:42, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

On balance, I think it's better to let Fram decide how to reframe that part of his presentation. Opabinia regalis (talk) 04:58, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

• TParis, sure, maybe, sure, but let's not forget--and I know you know this--that there are real living people hiding under these user names. There is no need for "I could even imagine" (my italics)--you saw it. I would be the last to be minnowing (or trouting) Fram, who has been here for much longer than me and has done more for this beautiful project than I ever could, but I am somewhat puzzled by it. Drmies (talk) 05:29, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

@Opabinia regalis: Fair enough, but has that been communicated to Fram? Generally, the policy is that if you attempt to restore oversighted material - you get blocked. Oversighting material is a pretty bright line that tells all involved to back the f--- off. So, unless Fram was invited to rephrase, I don't imagine they'd be inclined to risk it.--v/r - TP 06:35, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

• @TParis: I would never link to such off-wiki discussions in itself: the question is whether Gamaliel's rev-del was an involved action (he claims it wasn't and that the link wasn't about his actions); the only way for everyone to judge this was to provide the link, where in my opinion the BLP violations (parts of the final two posts in it) were so minimal as to be outweighed by the relevance of the remainder of the link to the evidence. Fram (talk) 07:12, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

• @Fram: I'm sure we could go back and forth on this - but it'd be a waste of time. Let's move forward and see how Arbcom wants you to present that evidence now.--v/r - TP 07:15, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

I believe it to be ridiculous to remove a link to that reddit page from an ArbCom evidence page for BLP reasons (when e.g. the page deleted at MFD is restored, apparently BLP doesn't count then?), but I'll not restore it. But I would appreciate guidance from the ArbCom whether I may restore the remainder of that post I made (the evidence that the revdel by Gamaliel was involved and that his defence that the thread wasn't about him was ridiculous) can be restored, and why all of it had to be deleted instead of just the link.

Secondly, if even those selected quotes and my commentary are not acceptable for some weird reason, please tell me how I am supposed to present evidence of Gamaliels involved revdel (which, as policy violation and abuse of admin tools, is not a minor aspect of this case). ArbCom often gets the criticism of doing too much in secret (in camera, if you prefer) and not enough out in the open, and actions like this (no matter how much the ArbCom and clerks back each other on it) strengthen that impression. Fram (talk) 07:05, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

@Fram:It's the link that was the problem - such links can be emailed to use but should not be added to evidence. The length of your evidence of course is another issue which we'll address. I want to emphasise that Drmies said, that there are real living people behind these names and actions on Wikipedia can have serious real life consequences. Doug Weller talk 13:46, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

OK, thanks. I don't completely agree with how this was handled (I prefer such things to be there for everyone to judge, and don't think the posting of that link really can have any "serious real life consequences"), but it's not important enough to continue about it, and I'm glad that it now is clear what was considered unacceptable to post, and what was OK. I'll readd my post (or a shorter version) about it minus the link, and if I do need to shorten my evidence somehow I'll deal with that later. Fram (talk) 13:55, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

I hope this version is acceptable? It loses some information, but I have to be brief apparently. Fram (talk) 14:03, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

That's fine with me, Fram. What it loses is that which was unacceptable--and therefore could not be "there for everyone to judge". Didn't we cover this earlier already? Drmies (talk) 14:06, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

Thanks. I sometimes have the tendency to restate my objections when I'm not convinced by earlier explanations. What you call "unacceptable" is for me (in the context where it was used now, and as an EL) "mildly objectionable". Everyone who tried to post such "fantasy" crap as at the end of that discussion "here", in an article or talk page, about anyone, should get reverted and trouted at the least. It's the same difference as not calling Erdogan names here (onwiki), but linking to or extensively quoting from the German controversial satire on the talk page of a relevant article (or even in an article). (Böhmermann affair is what I'm talking about). But I'll shut up now ;-) Fram (talk) 14:29, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

Comment to Kingsindian

Hi Kingsindian, you said apologies if I have missed anyone. The one editor that's obviously missing in the list is Arkon. See [1] for background. Cheers, Andreas JN466 12:01, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, added. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 12:52, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

Throwing that article under the gamergate umbrella is a stretch, but whatever. Arkon (talk) 15:29, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

None of your edits seem to be related to Gamergate, though many of the discussions are with people involved in the Gamergate article, this is why I mention you for completeness. The mention is not meant to indicate anything nefarious (I have edited the Sommers page as well). Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 16:08, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

Indeed, one may be considered affiliated with GG despite never having heard of GamerGate before. I find it a bit odd to see a label like that so liberally and attributed to specific arguments, but I suppose that's how GG lasted so long isn't it? Sethyre (talk) 23:53, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

Question

1. How does one access the deleted "news and notes" that is at the center of this controversy? 2. If it is not accessible, how can one make an informed comment on its contents? Coretheapple (talk) 23:36, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

See [2] where the pages have been temporarily restored for the purposes of this case. --MASEM (t) 23:55, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

Thanks. Coretheapple (talk) 02:55, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

Also a question

Fram, you know I'm pretty dense usual, but that gallery--"it is only meaningful for people aware of this case". I'm very aware of this case and still it's not meaningful to me. It's about elections, sure--but I don't see anything Trumpish or GG-related. Is that anatomically unlikely fart the carrier of a hidden meaning? I see that TParis commented on it as well, but I just don't know what you want us to see in that. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 02:19, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

The primary argument is that Gamaliel was just engaging in political satire, even if it was disparaging. Next, he published a gallery of disparaging political satire. The connection isn't difficult, even for the "dense" as you called yourself. I'm very frustrated that the English Wikipedia Signpost is being used to engage in US American politics.Someone should call the FEC, I'm pretty sure that Wikimedia's non-profit status prohibits political campaigning (that's a bit of sarcasm, not a legal threat). Gamaliel should start a blog.--v/r - TP 02:36, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

So at best the argument is "Gamaliel appreciates political satire"? Sure, those images are pretty disparaging, which is what political satire frequently is. But none of it is topical, none of it relates to Trump, none of it can be seen as left (anti-Trump?) or right (pro-Trump?). So you can say "well it's all satire so there", but to go from something that depicts Andrew Jackson in an, ahem, unfavorable light to a BLP violation and GamerGate advocacy is too much of a stretch for me. This is not to say I have a clue why this Anglo-centric gallery is important for the Signpost, but you can hardly argue that it engages in US politics, let alone the current election, if the most recent image is an anti-Obama satire. (BTW, TParis, I got your five bucks in and your Bernie bumper sticker is in the mail!) But I'm interested in hearing why Fram included this. Drmies (talk) 05:12, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

Actually, Drmies, I am inclined to proudly display said bumper sticker. Unfortunately, there isn't a suitable candidate on my side of the fence worthy of you. And that's just unfortunate for all of us. Regarding Gamaliel, it speaks more than just about an appreciation for satire. But I think you know that, and are withholding that bit because it's inconvenient to your argument. What we can agree on, though, is that no matter the message that was intended, it was inappropriate for the signpost. That's not to say I am calling for Gamaliel to step down, but I would like to prod him to stay on topic in the future and to serve the needs of the project; not his own. This topic really isn't worth the severity of Arbcom, though, which is why I haven't brought the topic up in evidence, myself.--v/r - TP 06:15, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

This seems beyond the scope of the case. Wouldn't an RfC on whether The Signpost should cover or refer to American politics be more appropriate? The resounding consensus would be "no", and that will more effectively deal with the issue. ~ Rob^Talk 03:13, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

The other side of that coin is Signpost editors using it to win content disputes. That is a bit more inside the scope of this case.--v/r - TP 03:19, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

(remove) --DHeyward (talk) 04:07, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

I got this. You'll be more of a distraction by participating in these discussions than helpful.--v/r - TP 04:00, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

@Drmies:, is agreeing with someone's negative self-description a PA? ;-) When someone claims that political satire is being oppressed (right-wing conspiracy and the like) on their "newspaper", and the next week they present in that same outlet "A history lesson" with examples of political satire, then the link seems pretty obvious to me (and other commenters here), while no one outside the participants in this case would know what the lesson was about or why that gallery was chosen then (no gallery was used earlier in 2016, and most of the ones in 2015 had a clear link to the wiki (like the best pictures from an editathon or other wiki-event), or an explanation, like the Moon landings one, making it clear to everyone why that gallery was used). The subject, title and timing all have only one goal, and it has nothing to do with the goals of the Signpost and everything to do with the bruised ego of the EIC. Fram (talk) 07:25, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

• Thanks Fram. Drmies (talk) 13:50, 22 April 2016 (UTC)
• @Drmies:, having watched the whole thing as it unfolded with copious amounts of popcorn[3], there is no question that the Gallery article in the April 14 Signpost was a veiled protest to the deletion of the silly Trump joke. The Signpost has always welcomed differing opinions and debates, and op-eds from many viewpoints. Fram's MFD of the Gallery was unfortunate, but it only lasted two hours and luckily that branch of the drama stopped there. More discussion, and even venting, as opposed to edit wars and wiki-litigation, is better for everyone. Perhaps only thru political cartoons can we see how silly we've all been[4].--Milowent • ^hasspoken 13:11, 22 April 2016 (UTC)
  • No popcorn for me, Milowent; I'm a terrible American, I know. Drmies (talk) 13:50, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

Request to exceed the evidence length limit

Arbcom, I have been warned that my evidence section is too long, but that I may ask for an exception. I have yesterday severely shortened my section, but I don't see how I can shorten it to under the limit without losing a lot of relevant material. It's all diffs with very short explanations on why they are relevant, nothing more (no asking for actions, policy changes, whatever). Please review my evidence and grant me a (limited) exception to the limit. Fram (talk) 07:15, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

• If Fram is granted relief, I would also like to request an expansion of my word limit to equal his limit, as Fram's current statement includes references to me which I had no space to comment upon, including a suggestion that my comments upon the stupidity of the whole kerfuffle from April 3 to 10 "spurred" Gamaliel on.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 13:21, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

@ DGG, Callanecc, Doug Weller, are these requests going to receive a response? Evangeliman (talk) 14:48, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

Too late probably. @Fram: I don't mind, but there's no point in discussing Milowent who isn't a party. @Milowent:, you aren't a party. But it's all about to close. We are free to use any evidence posted, even if it was later removed to meet word lengths. We need a better way to do this while avoiding TLDR, etc. Doug Weller talk 18:56, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

Doug Weller, thanks for the guidance. Neither Fram nor I are parties. I suppose if I'm blamed for secretly causing Gamaliel to err, it won't hurt him. I'll leave my statement as is.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 19:13, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

Evidence presented by WhatamIdoing

Current word length: 326; diff count: 0.

Manning principles need revised

This is perhaps a side comment, but I place it here in the hope that it is a less-inconvenient location from the POV of the clerks:

A statement on the main case page quotes Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Manning naming dispute#Removal of material about living persons, which says, "Once material about a living person has been removed on the basis of a good-faith assertion that such material is non-compliant, the policy requires that consensus be obtained prior to restoring the material."

WP:BLPREQUESTRESTORE – the actual policy – says, "When material about living persons has been deleted on good-faith BLP objections, any editor wishing to add, restore, or undelete it must ensure it complies with Wikipedia's content policies. If it is to be restored without significant change, consensus must be obtained first."

One of these things is not like other. This policy declaration is being made primarily in the context of a WP:REFUND (or equivalent actions), not the normal BLP-related editing in which you blank something as a WP:CHALLENGE and I revert your blanking and add a source. The focus in the policy is on "without significant change" (e.g., without adding a reliable source that supports the contested claim).

According to the actual policy, if you blank something or even speedy-delete it on the grounds that it's contentious and unsourced, then I may immediately restore it and add the needed reliable sources ("significant change"). According to the "Manning principles", if you blank something because it's contentious and unsourced, then the sole acceptable option is for me to get prior written permission to restore that material and add the needed reliable sources. This is neither what the policy requires, nor how the community operates in practice.

If these "Manning principles" are part of the source of confusion or contention, then ArbCom may want to revise the old principle to accurately reflect the actual policy. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:49, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

That's not fully accurate. To comply with BLP in article space, the edit must not only be verified by inline citation under WP:V but comply with WP:NPOV (including eg., Undue - see also BLP section on "Balance") and comply with WP:NOR. Alanscottwalker (talk) 22:07, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

Removal of Evidence by Dennis Brown

The Evidence by Dennis Brown section was removed in this edit[5]; on the basis that it is out of scope, as explained here[6]. Given the scope is Gamaliel's recent actions (both administrative and otherwise), especially related to the Signpost April Fools Joke. The case will also examine the conduct of other editors who are directly involved in disputes with Gamaliel. The case is strictly intended to examine user conduct and alleged policy violations and will not examine broader topic areas., and the evidence removed demonstrates a pattern of involved actions, including recent actions, by the party named in the scope, would the clerks please explain the reasoning by which it has been excluded? Specifically, what parts of the scope are not met? @L235:, as the responsible clerk. - Ryk72 ^'c.s.n.s.' 04:53, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

And yet, Ched's "Wiki is fucked up" evidence section which consists of one paragraph stayed. Heh, some priorities we have here. --Pudeo' 05:10, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

Logically, the rebuttal to the removed evidence, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Gamaliel_and_others/Evidence#Evidence_presented_by_Johnuniq, should also be removed. NE Ent 14:33, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

• My evidence is 100% about recent conduct as an admin, but it appears that isn't why we are here. If we trim enough evidence and just leave the negative comments about those who question him, then we don't have to consider any misconduct and can pin a medal on him instead. This looks very crooked to me, and I know damn well I'm not the only one. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 18:38, 24 April 2016 (UTC)
• What is the definition of "recent"? Once you open the door to GamerGate, there's no end! It seems to me the better argument is that much of Dennis' statement was not "evidence" at all, but argument. Maybe that is what normally passes for "evidence" in arbitration, as I have no experience with it. The section of my "evidence" that was deleted, i.e., my proposed decision, was clearly not evidence. Since my proposed decision was eminently correct, once could also say this was crooked. However, I've seen enough Judge Judy to know that when she says she doesn't want to hear something, persisting in trying to say it is useless, as she's already considered and rejected it.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 21:36, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

• Cleary Dennis's and the committee's definition of recent differ; if the committee has some cutoff in mind, it would have been far more courteous and informative to make that clear rather than remove it with a very vague "out of scope." Likewise, if Milowent's analysis is correct, stating that instead of a very vague out of scope would give Dennis the opportunity to update his section in a manner compliant with the committee's intention; while I do not concur with Dennis's analysis (crooked), I certainly share his frustration with the opaqueness of committee to community communication. NE Ent 21:49, 24 April 2016 (UTC)
• Atleast I understand that when we refer to the "GamerGate" as a Wikipedia controversy, it also covers issues with very similar patterns, "any gender-related dispute or controversy" per the ArbCom case sanctions. I think Gamaliel gets emotionally involved in gender-related controversies when he does administrative actions, and that should be relevant to the case. If it's not "recent" enough, they should simply state this case's scope is post April 3 2016. --Pudeo' 23:48, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

• Hi everyone. My reading of "Gamaliel's recent actions" (my emphasis) was "around and after April 1", and I removed that evidence based on that interpretation (and based on the instructions of the drafting arbs, "The clerks have been instructed to remove evidence which does not meet these requirements"). I'm not speaking for the Committee (or even the clerks) with regards to that interpretation of the case scope, and to this point, I've only removed material that clearly falls out of that scope (been too busy to evaluate the rest). However, with respect to this action specifically, there were two days of discussion on the clerks' list on this, with four arbs/clerks (not counting me) opining, with none objecting to the proposed action. Thanks, Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 01:13, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

• L235So how can the rebuttal by Johnuniq of Dennis's out of scope evidence be in scope?NE Ent 01:28, 25 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Due to rather weariness, I've actually gone inactive as an arbitration clerk (and removed myself as a case clerk here). I've asked the clerks' list to handle anything here, though. Thanks, Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 02:09, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

• Removal is okay as long as Arbcom does not have a finding of fact or end up with any sort of 'lesser' remedies based on this being a "first" or "limited" action by Gamaliel. I'm not passing judgement on Dennis Brown's evidence or Gamaliel's actions. Those can be judged on their merits. But if Dennis Brown claims to have evidence showing a pattern of behavior, Arbcom removes the evidence as out of scope, and then has a finding of fact claiming there to be no evidence of a pattern, then we have a problem.--v/r - TP 02:35, 25 April 2016 (UTC)
• The latest GG issue with Gamamiel was ongoing at the beginning of this case, so "recent" isn't arguable, and it was a prime example as noted by his first statement. I was only claiming a bias, but it if was found to be an abuse of the admin bit (Fram and other's evidence touch on GG as well), then it would be very relevant. If it was out of scope, why did an Arb ask for diffs in what was then hatted? I intentionally stayed out of the BLP issue simply because others were already covering it and I saw no need to be redundant, instead providing evidence of a pattern with the admin bit only, which others added to later. Rebuttals to my evidence are "evidence" while my evidence is not admissible? Hogwash. I would love to hear the explanation for that. While you can argue my evidence was ancillary to the primary problem, it still showed a problem in recent behavior (ie: a pattern), one that goes back for some time, and ties in with the Super Mario claims made by others previously. The whole thing looks fishy, like protection. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 12:38, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

Case scope

I DON'T EVEN KNOW WHAT I'M TALKING ABOUT!
— Lou Costello in Who's on first?

I filed this case because I care greatly about this project as a whole, and I honestly believe WP:BLP as a bedrock principle has been, and will be, important to perceived integrity of, and subsequent world support of the project. I generally don't read or care about the Signpost -- by that I mean I am neither in support of, or opposition to, its operation. I stumbled upon a contentious ANI thread. Following the breadcrumbs back in time, the following was apparent to me:

• Gamaliel posted a blatant attack page which had no place on Wikipedia.
• The community, or, more accurately, the subcommunity that participates in MFD and ANI discussions totally failed to execute WP:BLPRESTORE. Evidence has already been posted supporting the realization that, although he started with the best of intentions and has done yeoman work in trying to wrangle the Gamergate mess, he has in a wiki sense Jumped the shark and needs to withdraw from participating in these arenas, whether voluntarily or involuntarily. What strikes me is that, if the community had strongly supported WP:BLPRESTORE the poor taste joke would have been quickly removed, Gamaliel given a minnow and everyone would have moved on.
• Arbcom was required because the structure of ANI is not conducive to thoughtful deliberations.

Since then the statements by MastCell, Milowent regarding historical "jokes" and the statement by Kingsindian regarding the Trump/Wales "joke" indicate such BLP violations are widespread. It would be good if the committee addressed this. Given the historical precedent of Civility enforcement, I understand not wanting to wade into that briar patch. Therefore it was my intention to focus as much on the BLP / BLPRESTORE aspects while not opening defying the committee's restriction (hard to get votes that way). That's where I'm coming from.

The statement top of the evidence page states Detailed but succinct submissions are more useful to the committee. Unfortunately, from my point of view, the committee's actions thus far have made making "useful to the committee" nearly impossible. The scope of case states Gamaliel's recent actions (both administrative and otherwise), especially related to the Signpost April Fools Joke. The case will also examine the conduct of other editors who are directly involved in disputes with Gamaliel. The case is strictly intended to examine user conduct and alleged policy violations and will not examine broader topic areas.

• This isn't about an April Fools Joke. April's Fool's Day in April 1. The conflict started April 3.
• Dennis Brown presented detailed evidence regarding Gamaliel's actions; that has been clerked removed as "out of scope." ???
• JzG's been added as a party. While he did vote delete on the MFD [7], his ANI actions primarily consisted of repeated closing of the thread [8],[9], [10]; I can't possibly see how he can be considered "in disputes with Gamaliel."
• user conduct and alleged policy violations but not broader topic areas? That's the type of statement that sounds like says something, but when I try to parse it down into actionable guidance, turns out not to be helpful. There is a concept the admins and arbcom do not make policy, and the overwhelming majority of admin and arbitrators take this seriously. In reality, policy is not only what is written but what gets enforced, and wiki policies typically go beyond the written and extend in practice (per WP:IAR), and again, this is good: it's impractical to try to write every contingency into policy. Because the committee is the primary enforcement agency for admin conduct, in realpolitik the committee does have a vital role in defining policy; if it doesn't define the policy per se, it defines the edges, if you will.

At the risk of a) repeating myself ad naseum and b) being a suck-up Yuk! I totally get the need for both some evidence and committee deliberations to be done in private, and that the committee is not an evil hive mind, but 11 individuals separated in space, time, and wiki-philosophy, but it's simply unrealistic to expect the community to provide the desired input in a civil manner to such chaotic collective prompts from the committee and clerks. NE Ent 14:32, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

Speaking from my point of view, my reasoning behind taking the case was the behaviour after the posting of the material, specifically admin actions WRT involved status. There is enough ambiguity in response to the nonmainspace material to indicate it's not sanctionable as such, however it is worth pursuing community consensus via an RfC on such issues. Arbcom does not need to make policy on this. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:20, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

Thank you, that's a helpful start. Should we consider the scope inclusive of all administrators, regardless of their opinions on the specific incident? Does the committee want evidence showing how behavior in this instance is a continuation of longstanding problematic behavior, or should submitters limited themselves to actions in this particular instance? NE Ent 00:35, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

I should clarify I am not drafting this case. In the first instance, the review would be looking at the event and behaviours of those directly involved. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 02:11, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

There has been no change in the scope of the case. To repeat it again (sorry), it is "Gamaliel's recent actions (both administrative and otherwise), especially related to the Signpost April Fools Joke. The case will also examine the conduct of other editors who are directly involved in disputes with Gamaliel. The case is strictly intended to examine user conduct and alleged policy violations and will not examine broader topic areas." Key words there are "especially" and "related". In other words, the main focus is on activities related to the April Fools Joke. I thought that made it clear that the scope includes subsequent actions, eg NE Ent's comment about the conflict that started April 3. We do not intend to extend the case to broader topic areas, and that means that GamerGate is not on the agenda and evidence relating to GamerGate should be not be added. I should also make the point that inclusion as a party should not be seen as an intention by the committee to sanction that person. Doug Weller talk 08:52, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

Well yes, that is quite unclear. "Gamaliel's recent actions (both administrative and otherwise), especially related to the Signpost April Fools Joke. The case will also examine the conduct of other editors who are directly involved in disputes with Gamaliel." Since most of the other editors issues with Gamaliel (outside of the BLP crap) are in the gamergate area, you are on the one hand appear to be saying you will be investigating other editors for gamergate-related conflicts, but not Gamaliel. When you then start adding editors as parties to the case who pretty much *only* have an issue in the gamergate area, you can probably see why your 'scope' is about as clear as mud. Perhaps in future if you want to restrict something from the scope of a case, you should explicitly do so and not add parties who have no bearing on the actual scope. Really,"I should also make the point that inclusion as a party should not be seen as an intention by the committee to sanction that person." - Then dont add them as a bloody party. Only in death does duty end (talk) 09:06, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

• @Doug Weller:, To be absolutely clear, could you confirm that it is, or is not, the committee's position that "Gamaliel's recent actions (administrative)" where related to the Gamergate controversy are, by sole virtue of being in that topic space, explicitly excluded from the scope of this case? I would respectfully suggest that the community's expectation is that involved administration & misuse of tools should be included regardless of topic space. - Ryk72 ^'c.s.n.s.' 12:35, 25 April 2016 (UTC)
• Its also unreasonable to expect people to provide evidence of a pattern of involved misuse of administrator tools, then exclude the topic area in which the majority of those involved actions took place. Only in death does duty end (talk) 13:09, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

Well, yes I agree with this. It seems like 'selective evidence'; the prosecutors excluding whatever does not reflect a negative light and the defenders withholding whatever evidence will bring about a conclusion of guilt. Call it 'outside the scope' all you want, it still is hiding the incriminating DNA of this case. This can not possibly turn out fairly no matter which side one is on. Fylbecatulous talk 13:20, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

• @Doug Weller: My primary interest in this case is that it is yet another example of admins/super users being treated differently than ordinary mortals. That seems to be within the scope of this case. But I also think April Fool pranks have gotten out of hand, and I believe that Arbcom needs to make clear that there is no such thing as an "only fooling" excuse when BLP is violated or people are disruptive. But I don't want to spend much more time on the latter if it is beyond the scope of this case. Coretheapple (talk) 13:17, 25 April 2016 (UTC)
  • @Coretheapple: Sorry, real life gets in the way sometimes. This is something you could propose at the Workshop stage, although we might incorporate it into a proposed principle ourselves, we haven't discussed it yet. Doug Weller talk 20:40, 25 April 2016 (UTC)
• Not sure if my $0.02 is welcome here, but FWIW I think the committee should consider the Gamaliel/MarkBernstein material and resolve it one way or another. At present, Gamaliel is unable to take any administrative action in the GamerGate space without loud cries of "INVOLVED!" Whether there is a case there to answer or not, I'll leave to wiser heads, but I think a definitive statement one way or the other would be helpful.

And as I think others have tried to hint, adding DHeyward to the case gives the appearance that you are prepared to consider GG issues (since the two have butted heads very hard in that area) but not Gamaliel's actions in the GG space (since those are out of scope). It seems a bit inconsistent. But I guess this can wait and see what comes out in evidence; so far the only evidence I can see directly related to DHeyward is non-GG. GoldenRing (talk) 13:42, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

• I'm not one of the drafters and I can't speak for my colleagues. I do believe we have some agreement about the scope of the case, and that scope is determined by the request filed by the old Ent, and does not specifically include GamerGate. That doesn't mean that it's not something that can come up--let's say that after Ent filed the case, and let's say that Ent is a prolific GG editor, and Gamaliel subsequently makes a GG-related decision pertaining to Ent, and it smacks of payback. That seems appropriate as a matter of investigation. But complaints about Gamaliel's long tenure and decisions they made during it were not part of the case request, though some editors brought it up, but that some editors brought it up doesn't mean that the committee has to accept that as under the scope of the case. This case is already big enough. As far as DHeyward is concerned, their evidence and some statements made during the case request made the committee consider adding them to the case. That doesn't mean the committee is looking to sanction DHeyward anymore than the committee is looking to sanction anyone. Drmies (talk) 14:07, 25 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Problematic activity that was happening before and during the filing of this case should be considered. As with any other admin, the scope should be Gamaliel's recent use of authority and tools, not just what happened between April 3 and April 6 on a single page. To ignore recent problems (that many editors have complained about) is ignoring they are part of a larger problem. It is drawing a conclusion before the evidence phase has concluded. Any other admin would have all of his recent actions on the table if a case was accepted, even if it wasn't the central issue. This is so we can determine if there is a pattern. Look at any previous admin case and you see this is the norm. You are free to dismiss any evidence you don't think holds up, but if you don't even consider it, it seems to send a message that this particular admin case is "special". Dennis Brown - 2¢ 15:53, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

There are several angles to see this from that make it hard to say where the scope should end.

• On first blush, the April Fools joke has nothing to do with Gamergate, so its easy to say "April: Yes; GG: No"
• On the other hand it has been friends of Gamaliel who have asserted that Gamergate is necessary background to explain and excuse Gamaliel's actions after April 1. I have made the case that this involvement is not exculpatory, but the fact remains that one active arbitrator and one nominally excused arbitrator have made public statements to the effect that Gamaliel's involvement in Gamergate speaks to his defense. Arbitrators are undeniably incorporating the matter in their deliberations, so it is unconscionable not to permit evidence related to it.
• Whether there is actually something useful to say about Gamergate hinges on whether Gamaliel's actions in April events and Gamergate share a common pattern of behavior. If they do, it is by way of Gamaliel's ability to be neutral about American politics - the common thread between Gamergate and Donald Trump. I have heard it asserted that Gamaliel's actions are colored by a point of view on American politics, but not backed by diffs. That is the critical evidence.

Rhoark (talk) 16:15, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

Perhaps what we need to do is file a new Arbcom case request against the Arbs for deciding this case before it even started.--v/r - TP 16:40, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

That hasn't happened. Before I say anything more, can someone explain where " just what happened between April 3 and April 6 on a single page." comes from? Because that's certainly not what the scope says. Doug Weller talk 16:43, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

A literal read of the scope would suggest the following are definitely within the scope of the case:

• Gamaliel's actions surrounding the deletion of the Signpost's article
• DHeyward's actions surrounding the deletion of the Signpost's article
• Gamaliel's actions during the AN/I discussion of about the Signpost's article
• DHeyward's actions during the AN/I discussion of about the Signpost's article
• DHeyward's actions surrounding the GamerGate topic area from last year (note: random time frame, but the qualifications "recent" and "especially related" are only used in the first sentence of the scope)
• Any other potentially sub-optimal behavior by DHeyward

The following is possibly within scope:

• Gamaliel's actions in the recent AE discussion about another editor

Finally, the following are clearly out of scope:

• Gamaliel's actions surrounding the GamerGate topic area from last year (note: again, random time frame)
• Any other potentially sub-optimal behavior by Gamaliel.

The apparent discrepancy is attracting much of the harsh commentary about Arbcom on this page. If the scope was intended to only include behavior stemming from the response to the Signpost article (Gamaliel's or otherwise), it would be ideal to clarify that. All the best, Evangeliman (talk) 03:20, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

As far as I know there is no precedent for that. The only available recourse is running against them/voting them out at the next election OR, if you think you can muster 100+ editors in good standing, opening an initiative to amend the Arbitration Policy for a Vote of No Confidence. However, amending the policy has only happened once since 2004 so that doesn't seem likely. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 16:49, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

This statement refers to Gamaliel responding to a long-term pattern of harassment. If so, if this is his position, he should have a right to assert that, in fairness. Coretheapple (talk) 18:56, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

Well, this is as appropriate a subheading as any. Drmies, why this this removed? I believe it falls under "the conduct of other editors who are directly involved in disputes with Gamaliel" in the case scope. Is the examination of conduct of editors involved in disputes limited to displays of bad conduct that have occurred on and after April 1st? I don't mind if so, but I do think that could be clarified in the description of the scope in the notice. PeterTheFourth (talk) 21:19, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

• PeterTheFourth is a clear Gamergate / gender controversy WP:SPA. They first appeared during the Gamergate arbcom case, edit exclusively at gamergate and gender controversy topics, and have frequently clashed with DHeyward. The arbitrators have fostered an environment for such disputes by allowing the scope to creep and flex, confusing many participants. Since Gamergate SPA comments are frequently discounted on RFA and RFCs, are the clerks considering the same treatment here? Mr Ernie (talk) 02:00, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

P4 is certainly a SPA, but if someone makes good policy- and evidence-based arguments, it shouldn't matter what topics they do or don't choose to edit. Rhoark (talk) 02:14, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

A nice sentiment that will certainly be applied selectively. --Миборовский (talk) 03:27, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

• All this P4 editor did was add evidence diffs to examples of DHeyward being highly uncivil to Gamaliel on April 13, without much commentary about it. The problem with so much of GamerGate and other manufactured internet controversies is people stop caring about what is said, and only look to who is saying it. P4 didn't make DHeyward call Gamaliel a cancer to the project.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 03:33, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

• So, the hordes of gamergate SPAs will be allowed to participate in this case, then? Not just those that side with only one of the participants?--v/r - TP 04:26, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

• As far as I recall, the other side comprise exclusively of insecure men afraid of and harassing women. I mean, they totally should have their voice heard. Two sides to every coin and all that. Izkala (talk) 10:46, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

• Likewise, any alleged harassment Gamaliel has received from GG stuff shouldn't have been grounds to commit BLP violations and misuse their tools and position subsequently on a completely unrelated matter. Interesting that I have seen zero substantive evidence that there has been any committment of harassment by DHeyward of Gamaliel.--MONGO 04:45, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

• It's the diffs that carry the weight, not who posted them. NE Ent 09:32, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

• PeterTheFourth, I think I'm sounding like a broken record, but Gamaliel's tenure on Wikipedia is not at stake here (nor is DHeyward's!), and the one thing I removed (out of three) from your section was clearly completely unrelated to anything here. That is all there is to it. I think the scope is clear enough, and various comments from other arbs here should be clear enough as well. I thank you for having made the note, of course, but it is my opinion, and I think the other arbs agree with me, that this is out of scope.

  As a side note, I don't know if you (PetertheFourth) are a GG SPA or not, and I don't really care, and I think that too many people are trying too hard to make this a case about GG. Which it is not. If that's what y'all wanted y'all should have asked for it. But from alleged BLP issues to possible CSD shenanigans to Signpost influence to ... GamerGate? that is too much a stretch, for this arb anyway--this arb, who is not one of the drafters but who read Ent's case request pretty carefully (he thinks). Drmies (talk) 04:35, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

• Is the committee seriously only looking at Gamaliel activities over a few days yet looking over a much longer period for DHeyward?--MONGO 04:31, 26 April 2016 (UTC)
  • MONGO, don't be silly. Did you not see I removed a possibly damning comment by DHeyward from weeks before all this started? Ain't I an arb? (Who still doesn't speak for all arbs, of course.) Drmies (talk) 04:35, 26 April 2016 (UTC)
    • "Damning"? Compared to what....Gamaliels selective sanctioning of opponents over his allies? Or his defense of obvious SPA trolls who have used reddit and this website in an ongoing harassment campaign against DHeyward?--MONGO 04:45, 26 April 2016 (UTC)
• "but Gamaliel's tenure on Wikipedia is not at stake here" I see the outcome of the case is a foregone conclusion then. Only in death does duty end (talk) 07:24, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

• In the context of "long tenure" wikt:tenure is most logically parsed as "2: A period of time during which something is possessed," not "1. A status of possessing a thing or an office; an incumbency. " After a long tenure, the professor lost tenure, does actually make senses; this is English, not symbolic logic. This conspiracy theory notion the committee took a case request framed "BLP and the American Politician," retitled it "Gamaliel and others," added an editor who supported the ANI shutdown as a party, gives overlapping, somewhat confusing replies to queries with different emphasis (as opposed to sticking to the talking points) is some sort of elaborate ruse defies all reasonable logic. Per occam's razor, the most rational belief for why the committee appears to be a slightly chaotic disorganized committee is that it's a committee. NE Ent 09:32, 26 April 2016 (UTC)
• @Only in death: You're late to that party, I called it yesterday. The committee's small scope makes it impossible to show a pattern of behavior. WP:ADMINACCT says "Administrators who seriously, or repeatedly, act in a problematic manner..." and unfortunately, this case will be unable to show repeated misbehavior. Not because it doesn't exist, but because the Arbs refuse to acknowledge it. I already see a finding of fact that says something to the effect of "This is an isolated incident..."--v/r - TP 17:09, 26 April 2016 (UTC)
• Some animals are more equal than others~ Sethyre (talk) 19:04, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

Even more concerning than PetertheFourth being quite clearly an SPA is that he is an SPA with an obsession with one of the parties in the case, that being DHeyward. In fact, I would argue that he has exacerbated the situation between Gamaliel and DHeyward by continually trying to get Gamaliel to place sanctions on PetertheFourth's opponent, to the extent that Gamaliel warned him nearly a year ago to be much less involved in the affairs of DHeyward and implied that it looked like Wikihounding (and Johnuniq warned him off with the word "sanctions" for trying to play clerk in his fight with DHeyward). At this point, PetertheFourth has filed so many ANI requests that he may need his own personal sub-category. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 01:39, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

I'm way out of my depth here. But I spent a lot of time that I could have spent editing articles, assembling evidence and trying to follow the rules in doing so, in order to say that including anyone other than Gamaliel in this case, IMO, stinks. The reason this is at Arbcom is that it's an administrator and Arbcom member who behaved badly enough that something must be done about it. I can't help but think others were included because Arbcom is taking seriously the special pleading by two of his self-identified friends, one also an Arbcom member. The community elected the members of Arbcom to deal with situations the community cannot. In this case that is simply and solely Gamaliel's behavior. An administrator, and especially a member of Arbcom, is trusted and expected to adhere to our policies, and to dispassionately enforce them. If they can't be trusted to do either when "provoked", even when that provocation can be described as "harassment" (and there must have been far worse harassment on Reddit than has been linked to; what I saw is absolutely nothing compared to what women who are politically active on social media habitually receive), then they do not merit that trust. So dragging others into the case, especially the two non-admins, has really disappointed and disgusted me. I wonder why I bothered voting in this Arbcom election, or why I am bothering to write and improve articles. This isn't a MMORPG to me; I'm feeling alone in that view. Yngvadottir (talk) 21:10, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

• Isn't it obvious? Heck, I could go write the main case page right now and predict how this is going to end up. 1) Finding of Fact: No evidence of a pattern of behavior from Gamaliel. 2) Finding of Fact: EditorA, EditorB, 1,258 SPAs, and DHeyward all conspired to harass the good-intentioned Gamaliel. 3) Remedy: Gamaliel is reminded to keep cool. 4) Remedy: DHeyward banned. 5) Remedy: SPAs banned. Done. That's how this case ends. The rest is a dog and pony show.--v/r - TP 21:37, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

This is particularly worrisome considering they are deleting evidence (like mine) that show a long term problem because they are trying to "narrow the scope" while they add more names to case, which obviously broadens the scope. Yngvadottir nails it above. Sadly, you may have as well. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 00:55, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

Well...the evidence does not seem to support a FoF that DHeyward has been engaged in any campaign of harassment against anyone, let alone Gamaliel. Most humans perform suboptimally at times, but if fates are decided by a miniscule few errors of good judgement or taste, then the website is more petty than I originally assumed.--MONGO 02:50, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

DHeyward was added to the case. No one knows why. So, the guess is that private evidence has been submitted. Arbcom has displayed in the past that they often take claims of harassment at face value without any due process. I don't expect much different here. The victim must be protected. Burn the harasser before they can speak up in their defense. Any sort of effort by Dheyward to defend themselves would just be harmful to the victim.--v/r - TP 03:23, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

Please don't be obtuse; I know you're smarter than this. I mean, I've barely followed this case at all, out of respect for Cipolla's Fourth Law, but it's obvious to me why DHeyward was added. He has a long history of antagonism toward Gamaliel; he was directly and heavily involved in the April Fool's dispute which is the nominal locus of this case; and his behavior in that dispute was notably substandard (edits like this and this stand out for their fatuous pettiness). That's the secret recipe, folks. It's disappointing to see people who are generally astute stooping to manufacture these sorts of overwrought conspiracy theories. There are enough actual problems in the world, and on Wikipedia, without playing into this sort of bottom-feeding. MastCell ^Talk 04:05, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

For the record, I would have preferred an admonishment for Gamaliel by motion...and a n indefinite two-way interaction ban between him and DHeyward, also by motion. But everyone wants a full fledged circus. It's hard for me to conceive that either Gamaliel or DHeyward, both mature adults, would not abide by less draconian measures. Losing either in most of their capacities would be our loss too.--MONGO 04:54, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

@TParis: being added as a party does not presuppose guilt. It means that a person is involved enough so that their role in the dispute needs to be looked at to gain a holistic overview of the whole situation. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 04:49, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

Then why delete evidence and even the HEADER for that evidence while leaving other headers up? You have to know this looks bad, Cas. I'm not blaming you personally, but you can't consider evidence or concerns that has been whitewashed, particularly when it is about a sitting Arb. I wasn't even asking for sanctions, just a motion and declaration that he is involved when it comes to GG and Mark, so future administration has a chance of being even handed. Additionally, my first statement (also gone) clearly didn't want a full case and didn't overblow the facts. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 11:05, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

In the long term, nothing will be more damaging to Gamaliel's ability to contribute to the site than the extreme length his colleagues are going to stack the deck in his favour, from closing ANI reports on his behalf, through posting codas in arb sections at complete disregard of submission limits, to excluding evidence in a completely unprecedented fashion and adding Enemies Of The Arb to the parties list. At this point, short of a desysop remedy (which cannot be supported due to all the evidence excluded), this case will always be thrown back in his face whenever he does anything even remotely controversial, long after his tenure has ended. This is already FUBAR. If anything, it is becoming clear that we need a separate group to investigate cases against sitting arbs. Perhaps former members who never sat on the same tranche. MLauba ^(Talk) 11:44, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

I agree with the comment someone made that this whole thing could have been dealt with by motion. Unless arbcom is going to take a strong stand against "joke" behavior that disrupts or violates policy, and the double standard for admins and arbs, I'm having trouble understanding why this is a full-blown case. Gamaliel behaved in accordance with accepted Wikipedia reality (the double standard for super-users and the joke exemption). Coretheapple (talk) 12:54, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

Rhoark's diffs regarding statements I made last fall do not seem consistent with a very narrow and recent scope. NE Ent 00:53, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

As I may not have wikitime before the end of evidence, I've posted a rebuttal [11]; note it's a single, separate edit for easy undo should the committee decide the discussion is out of scope. NE Ent 01:48, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

@NE Ent: Nothing in what I wrote nor the diffs are intended to point to any deficiency on your part. The key point is that gender bias is not a significant factor in this case, except insofar as other parties are willing to contradict their stated commitment to taking it seriously. Rhoark (talk) 02:49, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

Mindless committee

... and I mean that literally in the nicest possible way. You can't call it brain dead, because it doesn't have a brain. Just as Schrödinger's cat is neither alive nor dead, the committee truly does not know what it thinks until a properly formulated question is voted on: 6-5, "I think this,"; 5-6, "Oh, I guess I don't think that." Read the responses from individual arbitrators (not brain dead), "Speaking from my point of view," " I am not drafting this case." "I'm not one of the drafters and I can't speak for my colleagues" ... It's very much the parable Blind men and an elephant. I am as frustrated as anyone; I've made a wiki career of being lazy -- (see Other Duck) -- and I'd really rather not expend time digging out diffs to be told after the fact , oh, that's out of scope ... but these conspiracy theory "case is already decided" comments are total AGF fail, and beneath the dignity of, and out of character with the respect I have for the accounts making them. If arbcom was evil hive mind, wouldn't it be vastly simpler and way less drama to simply announce. "NE Ent is indefinitely banned from the English Wikipedia. Due to the privacy concerns, the committee cannot comment further."? Problem solved, no one ever files an arbcom case against a sitting member again.

It's like getting a drink from a garden hose -- if you don't open the faucet, you go thirsty; open it too wide you get blasted with water. It seems clear to me the committee is trying to open the faucet wide enough to hear the case at hand, but not open it so wide it becomes Gamegate II.

Consider the month old Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification_and_Amendment#Clarification_request:_Oversight_blocks; I filed this when I stumbled upon the fact the current policy is, hey admin, before unblocking a check-usered block editor, contact a checkuser by emailing the committee, which makes as much sense as "if you want a dog, buy a cat." Strictly a bureaucratic word tweak, and it's still going a month later... Bottom line: do not attribute to malice what can be attributed to bureaucracy. NE Ent 01:56, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

You are wise, Ent. But you can't know how much I have bitten my tongue. Assuming good faith only goes so far, especially with people with so much power over ordinary editors, and whose position depends so much on trust. My AGF started to snap when I was effectively accused of being part of Gamergate. One should be glad of allies, but I can't be expected to smile and like that. And I fully appreciate April Fool's - I have it to thank for my brief opportunity to serve the community as an admin - but this determination to make it stretch on indefinitely may lose us the right to have April Fool's jokes on Wikipedia. I will bite my tongue again and stop there, but it still stinks. Yngvadottir (talk) 03:17, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

My faith in this system has been broken.--v/r - TP 03:27, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

@NE Ent: obviously there are antecedents, and it can be hard to know where to draw the line and try and focus. We're trying to do that. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 04:51, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

• You're points are valid Ent, but I didn't ask them to consider GG in any way, I asked them to consider Gamaliel's involvement in acting as admin at AE in GG cases, which is very different. No one is more active than he is when it comes to GG at AE. I don't even question his faith, just his ability to be objective. All of this ties together. We don't want GG2, but we will create it within a year if we allow someone overly biased (whether they realize it or not) to admin it. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 11:12, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

I hope I'm not straying too far into presenting evidence on the talk page here (alright, speculating about evidence on the talk page) but as far as I can tell, the reason gamergate came up here at all is that Gamaliel's reaction to the BLP complaints about the April Fool's "joke" could, in part, be summed up as, "This is just the same old gamergate trolls trying to dig up trouble; ignore them." Actually, the literal words were, I also apologize ... to the editors who came here from the offsite canvassing at Gamergate forums for my sins against ethics in gaming journalism. (see 1). As far as I can tell, that's the first direct reference to GG in the ANI thread. There are a couple of other oblique references, again from Gamaliel (diffs on Christina Hoff Summers and the like). Then again nine hours later: This is very much about Gamergate, it's why 90% of the participants are here and it's exploded out of control, just like anything involving Gamergate. (see 2). I'm not sure if there are others in the various other fora involved - I have better things to get on with than trawling through that many diffs. I'm not trying to make a point about the merits of the case either way here. I'm just wondering, with that context, where you're going to draw the line between this case and GG? I fully understand the reluctance to litigate WP:ARBGG2 (long may it be a redlink) but how are you going to draw a line between them? Perhaps some clarity on where this line is, and the reasons for drawing it there, would help reassure editors. GoldenRing (talk) 11:58, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

Arguably, to avoid this becoming GG2 but to address Gamaliel's recent actions in light of their history with GG, it should theoretically be possible to limit anything GG related for this case as specifically around his administrative actions (or lack thereof when others took them) towards DHeyward (a named party on this one and where much of that previous history sits) and MarkBernstein. There is nothing under the GG sanctions that Gamaliel themselves contributed towards (they had little to none participation in any discussions/behavior there), it was simply their seemingly selective administration of those sanctions that were at issue and that (at least to me) relate to this BLP case by virtue of how Gamaliel raced to categorize the situation as coming from GG. --MASEM (t) 13:36, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

No idea how DHeyward or any of the commentators at AN/I up to that point arrived due to offsite alerts by Gamergate fools. DHeyward was not a party in any way to Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/GamerGate.--MONGO 19:14, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

Three key things here, only for historical purposes:

• Though not part of the GG Arbcom case, DHeyward is a participant on the wiki page, and is well under the general sanctions that apply to all editors on that page.
• The bad blood between DHeyward and MarkBernstein extends from Gamergate talk page discussions, culminating in an interaction ban between the two as a result of a GG AE request. Gamaliel has been involved in various capacities on many of the issues around these two.
• The activities at the GG page have gained high interest from GG-related forums (which I monitor for purposes of watching for potential disruption), and the various activities of editors that these GG forums see as anti-GG are often under close attention (and often leading to ridicule and harassment). MarkBernstein has been one such editor following GG ArbCom case, and because of their actions related to the handling of GG administration, Gamaliel has also attracted similar attention, a fact Gamaliel has indicated in their previous comments. So as such, when these Signpost/BLP issues arose from Gamaliel, with DHeyward's involvement, this quickly garnered attention offsite. That said, I cannot tell if anyone from those threads came to WP to pile on Gamaliel as a result, it's definitely not obvious if that's the case, but I can't rule it out either. (Keep in mind this case itself is also the center of attention there as well, but again, I'm not seeing obvious signs of meatpuppetry or the like going on simply from it being discussed there). --MASEM (t) 21:45, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

• DHeyward has been on this website long before Gamergate existed. I'm sure he has noticeboards watchlisted. Gamaliel suggesting that the people voting in favor of him being blocked (Fram, DHeyward, etc.) were gamergaters is a pretty nasty piece of unsubstantiated redirection.--MONGO 23:52, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

• All I wanted to note, without making any judgements here on Gamaliel's actions, is that DHeyward is clearly involved within GG even though they were not a party on the original ARbCom case, and they has a history of interactions around Gamaliel involving enforcement of the GG sanctions, hence there does exist reasons for Gamaliel having brought up GG as an issue in response to the Signpost aspects. Whether that's a reasonable claim or not, that's a separate discussion. --MASEM (t) 13:58, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

• I was pinged on my talk page for the ANI discussion. The CSD I placed, as far as I know was not an impetus for any action either onsite or offsite. It was 4 or 5 days after the CSD that I was pinged. This was not GamerGate related anymore than it was related to G. Gordon Liddy (look up that GG Liddy interaction). --DHeyward (talk) 18:06, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

• This arbitration is over relatively trivial conduct in the grand scheme of things, escalated to Arbcom because an Arbcom member was part of the kerfuffle. If this arbitration has any value, it will be to set a precedent for how to deal with a review of editing conduct of an Arbcom member. GamerGate is one of many internet dramas that get blown out of proportion, and then the people involved with it think it was important and everything must be related to it. I renew my prior request that this case title include the phrase "And If Anyone Mentions Gamergate You're Permabanned." This includes Gamaliel.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 15:28, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

Would that include the various teary-eyed pleas that "accepting this case makes you part of GG's plot to harass women"? If so, I totally support it. --Миборовский (talk) 18:57, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Gamaliel_and_others/Evidence#Protected_speech_exists_on_WMF_projects

Can one of the clerks please remove this section? 1) It's just plain wrong on so many levels. Lots of red herrings (schools are government agencies, not comparable to Wikipedia at all). And 2), it sounds a lot like "legal advice" which is inappropriate on this project. The only legal advice this project should ever get is from the WMF legal staff. It is on the basis of my second argument that I believe it should be removed.--v/r - TP 01:20, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

• I would like to intervene to oppose this motion to strike. It may well be wrong information, but at least the submission is germane to the April Fool's joke and its appropriateness.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 03:24, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

• Well quite, if anything demonstrates the stupidity of the editorial thought process and the belief (wrongly) that the BLP policy doesn't apply to them, this is it. Only in death does duty end (talk) 08:40, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

• I don't see how the US Constitution can apply other than by analogy, but when it actually matters (not an April Fool's joke), the Signpost has frequently published first-hand "negative" content about living persons, content not based on cited news reports. As a publication covering Wikipedia inside baseball, this is integral to its mission. Journalistic ethics guide that.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 11:19, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

• I agree that this should remain unstruck, because it supports the need for an obvious finding of fact that BLP applies everywhere on the project. ~ Rob^Talk 14:03, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

• The whole First Amendment portion isn't evidence, it is opinion. Worthy of a debate in the right venue, but I don't see how it qualifies as evidence, particularly considering how much real evidence has been deleted. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 14:07, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

• Probably unintentionally, it's evidence that the mentality surrounding the Signpost has gone a bit off the rails and we need a finding of fact (i.e. does BLP apply to the Signpost?). That finding of fact would be directly related to Gamaliel's conduct with that page, and within the scope of the case, in my opinion. ~ Rob^Talk 14:18, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

• If people want to make ridiculous "first amendment" arguments that's their privilege. Coretheapple (talk) 16:24, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

• And, in all honesty, I would have to say that these arguments are "ridiculous". If those arguments were taken to their logical extreme, then virtually every comment regarding sources on an article talk page, even if it is about sources which fail to meet our standards, might be argued by some to qualify as 1st amendment issues. And, until we actually have a clearly, directly, relevant decision, which would basically require a court decision on this issue, then any such arguments are just opinions regarding what might apply here if it were taken to court. I wouldn't mind seeing a FoF indicating that BLP does apply to the Signpost, particularly in cases of this type, which are really not about anything other than attempts at humor regarding news, or satire.
• Of course, if Trump decided to sue us, like he threatened to do to Ted Cruz here, well, then, we might actually have a judicial opinion regarding the matter. I doubt we want it to come to that, however. John Carter (talk) 17:08, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

Someone could also write an essay on the subject WP:FirstAmendment, if this is serious enough to address. I can think of a thousand more pressing priorities. Coretheapple (talk) 17:54, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

WP:Free Speech.--v/r - TP 17:59, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

Then I see that base is covered. If people interject a First Amendment viewpoint they are not going to get anywhere, but they should be free to make that point. Coretheapple (talk) 21:03, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

In a case where half the evidence has been deleted, there are two independent ironies in that statement. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 13:02, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

I don't know what evidence is being deleted, but if that is happening, are you saying it is a free speech issue? Coretheapple (talk) 13:18, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

No, that was one of the ironies. There is no free speech at Wikipedia. See the above link. But yes, check the history if you want to see what all was deleted. Too much to list here. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 23:39, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

I would like that section to remain, as I intend to propose a principle somewhat related to this, about the extent to which BLP applies out of article space. DGG ( talk ) 05:23, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

I think that DGG raises an excellent point: How does BLP apply outside of article space? The Signpost is one example, but we also have issues at talk pages and such as well. Free speech is not an unlimited right, even under the First Amendment (the can't shout "fire" in a crowded theater example, the "clear and present danger" example, the "time, place and manner" restrictions, and so on) but I am, frankly, appalled to see such profoundly exaggerated statements such as "no free speech on wikipedia" stated here. (and WP:FREESPEECH really needs a legal review, too) Montanabw^(talk) 19:01, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

Free speech doesn't apply to Wikipedia, since it is not a government organization. Free speech applies to government actions, including government entities such as public schools and the police, but the WMF is a private entity and the site is run day to day by private volunteers, none of whom are agents of the government. Free speech can absolutely be limited on Wikipedia in ways that the government would not be permitted to. It's no different than, say, a classic car forum deleting any posts that aren't on topic for that forum. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 19:07, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

An argument that any English Wikipedia pages are a free-speech-forum is completely out-of-touch with fact, law and common sense, and not just because it is not a government - but also because Wikipedia does not exist to be a free speech forum. If you want to say whatever you want, feel free in millions of other forums, just not on this website. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 19:19, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

There seems to be some kind of delusion that Wikipedia is the real world, and in the real world there are rights of due process and free speech. Wikipedia is a website. Editors should be treated fairly, but there are no "legal rights" to either due process or free speech. Above I was engaged in a discussion with Dennis about deleted evidence. I don't cotton to evidence being deleted. As for the Signpost, I agree that it should have leeway. But it is part of Wikipedia, and BLP applies. Likewise, April Fool's Day should not be an excuse for throwing Wikipedia policies out the window or behaving disruptively. I think that bears underlining because closing an ANI discussion as a "joke," as was committed by one of the parties to this case, is just as impermissible as disregarding BLP in Signpost. Coretheapple (talk) 20:33, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

What seems to be missed here is the apples and oranges distinction between what I call "playground free speech" ( aka an "I can say anything I want to" behavior—the "free speech forum" concept noted above), which has plenty of limits ( yes, you can be fired for saying stupid things at work, yes a private forum can delete your posts), and the more precise concepts of fundamental liberties NO ONE can take those from us. The rights protected by the First Amendment are not just things that the Government can't take away, neither can a private actor. (for example, an employer can't generally mandate that all employees belong to a specific church (with a few exceptions), or a specific political party, and so on...) In other words, there are mostly social limits to a free speech forum (people might not like you) and some legal limits to any form of speech (time, place, and manner restrictions, for example). But here the issue is the difference between the overall BLP policy on Wikipedia's article space, which is generally a very good idea and pretty straightforward in its implementation, and the application of BLP to those sections of Wikipedia (primarily the Signpost) which are, essentially, journalism, which has more latitude. News articles still cannot engage in libel, of course, but they already do offer more than breaking news: there are opinions expressed, and in this case, some mild satire, all of which is very different from encyclopedic writing. At the end of the day, perhaps a discussion of these distinctions is in order. Montanabw^(talk) 06:25, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

I would respectfully suggest that the distinctions that are being missed include that The Signpost is a newsletter, not a newspaper; and does not rise to the level of journalism; and that the community's ample appetite for self-satire is distinct from it's distaste for partisan political satire. Respectfully, there is no argument, free speech or otherwise, that can be made that will make it ok for Wikipedia to be used to promulgate partisan political opinion on matters which do not directly and materially affect the Encyclopedia or the community. As a "joke" or otherwise. - Ryk72 ^'c.s.n.s.' 08:42, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

What no one seems to have picked up on it the whole original article was that it was intended as in-house satire -- we were making fun of Jimbo quite a bit (or did no one get to the "swag alert" image?). The Trump quotes were all sourced to things he actually said. We also used Trump due to the way his article was #1 in reader views for a month straight; most likely had any other candidate has similar viewership, that individual would have been paired with Jimbo. There was actually a double in-house joke going on there. (But, apparently, some people didn't get that part and still don't.) All that said, the "fake archive" articles and the issues with G's use of the toolset are a totally different issue and that is the one before Arbcom, as far as I can tell from the wall of text that's surrounding this thing. Montanabw^(talk) 23:26, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

Just to address one point, re freedom of the press etc. as relates to the Signpost. That's an easy one. Freedom of the press is freedom for the publisher, not the freedom of the individual journalist. Journalists can't just say whatever they want in an organ they do not own. They have to abide by the rules set by the owner of the publication. If we accept that there is a freedom of press argument here, and I don't, but even if we do, then it would apply to the publisher of the Signpost. Like everything on Wikipedia, it is the WMF. But individual "journalists" working for the Signpost have to do work at the direction of their "employer," the Foundation. Coretheapple (talk) 20:22, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

BLP and community needs

I'm reminded that one of the first Wikipedia-related removal requests Google received after introduction of European right to be forgotten legislation concerned an arbitration case page.

Any principle ArbCom publishes as a result of this case needs to wrestle with the fact that WP:BLP, rigorously applied to every page on Wikipedia, would make much work done by the community (including ArbCom) impossible.

WP:BLPSPS for example states, Never use self-published sources – including but not limited to books, zines, websites, blogs, and tweets – as sources of material about a living person, unless written or published by the subject.

Every ANI report voicing an opinion – say, that another editor is disruptive – violates that policy. ArbCom evidence submissions, workshop contributions and decisions are self-published. By that token, every arbitration case page violates WP:BLPSPS. Moreover, every arbitration report in the Signpost violates WP:BLPSPS, because it makes statements about living persons that are sourced to self-published material, i.e. ArbCom remedies, motions etc. In theory, anyone could object on BLP grounds to having any ArbCom decision concerning a living person published on Wikipedia, or reported in the Signpost, and edit-war to remove any reference to their person from Wikipedia. The same applies to every Signpost story that quotes an on-wiki comment made by a community member about a living person.

To comply with the letter of WP:BLPSPS, the Signpost would have to stop doing reports on arbitration and other community processes, or publish them off-site. The same goes for ANI, ArbCom cases and many other community processes; theoretically, those pages would either have to be shut down, or be moved off-wiki. It's not entirely unfeasible, but it seems to me that this would be a case of the BLP tail wagging the Wikipedia dog. This is a community, and a community cannot function in a healthy and human manner without the ability to voice and discuss opinions, including opinions about living people, be they praise or criticism. So I would suggest that a middle way has to be found that respects both the intent of BLP policy and the social needs of the community.

The Signpost should not be immune to BLP concerns, any more than any other community process. But I would argue that before we further curtail free speech in community venues on BLP grounds, what is and is not a violation of the underlying rationale and spirit that motivated the formulation of BLP policy – namely the community's assumption of moral responsibility for how Wikipedia pages affect the perception of individuals by the general public, and the prevention of unmerited harm to individuals written about in Wikipedia – should be subject to community consensus, established through community processes such as BLPN, MfD and so forth, rather than a matter to be judged by an individual editor who may or may not be using BLP merely as a weapon. Thank you. --Andreas JN466 20:54, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

Entirely incorrect. It's not a BLP issue at all to say an account is disruptive on Wikipedia, it matters not if it's some living person, their little brother, or a computer using the account. Alanscottwalker (talk) 21:54, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

Exactly. Furthermore, it's been longstanding WP:TPYES policy to Comment on the content, not the contributor. The best discussions and dispute resolution discussions make no discussions about living people, only about observed behavior. NE Ent 22:01, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

What do you think about the idea that editors use a community process to establish consensus whether or not something is a BLP violation? --Andreas JN466 23:01, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

WP:BLP states "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.", so there is already an exception for discussions aimed at making a content choice. ~ Rob^Talk 23:11, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

Policy is both clear and workable. If it's contentious it's out until there's a consensus that it's in. See for example, Anna Politkovskaya; it was unclear whether the connection between her assassination and Putin's birthday should be in the article or not. So I voted yes [12] ... and immediately removed it from the article [13], and it remained out until there was clear consensus it belonged in [14], over a month later after extensive discussion on Talk:Anna Politkovskaya. Furthermore, as BU Rob13 notes -- this was about content choice. The subject of this arbcom case is decidedly not about content choice. NE Ent 23:35, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

@NE Ent:: Let me give you an example. This is not intended to be polemical; I mean this quite seriously. A report the Signpost published on 20 January 2016 quoted Florence Devouard as saying, Learning the whole story about Arnnon was a disappointment to me as it means the board selection process is not working as it should be (for a mature organization as WMF ought to be by now). If the screening process had been done properly, I believe the board would have refrained from selecting him, or at least would have taken the time to address the issue before any appointment announcement. ... Either the board is completely paralyzed and no more able to make any decision as to what they should do. Or the board has decided not to provide any feedback, which I consider completely disrespectful to the community and unhealthy generally.

Now assume that two editors removed this passage on BLP grounds: as negative content about living people based on a self-published source, a mere email. As you rightly say, BLP policy is clear: if it's contentious, it goes out. So at this point, following your argument, the quote would have had to be removed, perhaps even rev-delled or oversighted. The discussion to restore it might have taken a month, by which time this article would no longer have been in the current Signpost issue, and events would have moved on. The wider community might never have heard of Florence's opinion. Would you be happy for that to happen? I am not making this argument in order to defend half-assed April Fools' jokes in the Signpost. I'm not a particular fan of them, and can live happily without the Signpost ever making another one.

So, how would you propose to deal with such a situation if it were to arise? Andreas JN466 00:10, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

Whether it was temporarily removed, wouldn't it ultimately remain under the exception for attributed opinion? James J. Lambden (talk) 01:12, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

Not a BLP violation. It expresses no opinion about Arnnon other than 'The board would not have selected him had it known the full story'. Said story can be reliably sourced to any number of publications. Given her previous position, it is certainly within her ability to judge. You could argue its a BLP violation against the *board* given they are a small enough group to fall under the BLP policy. But that would be unlikely to get anywhere. If your argument is 'This was a BLPSPS violation' perhaps instead of asking people if it was, you should be asking Gamaliel and Tony1 why they ran it in the first place. The general impression I have always got of Signpost is that it does what it wants and worries about offending people afterwards. Only in death does duty end (talk) 12:33, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

Regarding ARBCOM, ANI etc., existing BLP policy already provides leeway and also explains its limits, WP:BLPTALK: "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, but administrators may delete such material if it rises to the level of defamation, or if it constitutes a violation of no personal attacks."--Staberinde (talk) 17:21, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

@Only in death: What is your opinion: Do you feel Gamaliel and Tony1 should have excluded Florence's comments on the board on BLPSPS grounds? (I fully endorse their having included the quote. At the same time, I would consider it wholly inappropriate on BLPSPS grounds to use Florence's email as a source in a mainspace article about the WMF board.) Andreas JN466 10:08, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

It is still mindboggling to me that the assertion that an individual has small hands is considered a personal attack and a BLP violation. Especially as I have small hands, it's hardly an insult. And the connection to penis size is completely erroneous, everyone knows that joke is comparing foot size, not hand size. And it's not even a valid indicator. I can't see how this was a BLP violation and if the case rests on this assumption, it's pretty weak. I thought that this case was about admin actions, not on BLP violations. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:06, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

It would be a great shame if this case about an idiotic April Fools joke leads to restrictions on Signpost articles which have nothing to do with the idiotic joke. Nobody to my knowledge has complained about the Signpost reporting/op-eds generally - which is of course another sign that this case has very little to do with BLP (see my evidence for other arguments). This is about Gamaliel's actions, nothing more. If aspects of the BLP policy or The Signpost become collateral damage, ArbCom and the woolly arguments about BLP made here would have to bear a fair share of the blame. I share the concerns expressed by Andreas. It is quite clear that by the standards of BLP, a lot of content on The Signpost is very thinly sourced. This is to be expected: it is a volunteer community-run newspaper, not the New York Times. A bit of common sense is required. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 23:14, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

Thanks. Moreover, it should be understood that the articles the New York Times publishes would frequently violate WP:BLP, WP:NOR and WP:V policies if they were first published on Wikipedia. The BLP policy is written with the concept of a tertiary source in mind, i.e. one that summarises previously published secondary sources. Every time a New York Times reporter publishes the results of their original research, incl. assertions about living people not previously published by another secondary source, publication of the identical text on Wikipedia instead of nytimes.com would violate multiple Wikipedia policies. Andreas JN466 05:47, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

Respectfully, The Signpost is not The New York Times. It is a newsletter, not a newspaper. This is not journalism. - Ryk72 ^'c.s.n.s.' 10:55, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

Well, some may view the Signpost as like the New York Times, and others may view the Signpost as like the National Enquirer. Regardless, the Signpost exists solely at the sufferance of the community of a wiki, yes a wiki that exists to produce a neutral tertiary source, and there is no special Signpost policy, thus there is nothing that Arbcom can say or do to erect a special place for the Signpost or impose critical views of it as tabloid fodder or creditable reportage on all Wikipedians. Alanscottwalker (talk) 11:43, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

As Alan says above, some may view the Signpost as like the New York Times, while others may view it as more like the National Enquirer. Its very scope of course means that it can be neither of those things, and never will be. The point is that even articles written by New York Times staff writers would violate WP:NOR, WP:BLP and WP:V if they tried to publish them on Wikipedia. It's not even a question of the quality of journalism; it's inherent in writing a news source. And whatever the Signpost is, it functions as a news source, one that national publications like Fortune, Le Monde, Der Spiegel, Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung and numerous tech sites like Ars Technica, The Next Web or Motherboard have had occasion to cite or link to. The Signpost performs a service to professional journalists as well as the community. Andreas JN466 16:11, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

Respectfully, this is a nonsensical conflation. That actual journalists have found cause to quote The Signpost does not make it journalism. Nor does it make providing "quotables" for journalists a purpose of The Signpost. It is possible to cook an egg on a heated shovel, but that does not make it a frying pan. The Signpost exists to serve the en.Wiki community - where it engages in partisan political commentary on matters which do not materially and directly affect that community, it is outside its remit and deserving of censure. - Ryk72 ^'c.s.n.s.' 16:26, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

I do not intent to make my argument of the basis of the First Amendment (though see First Amendment to the United States Constitution#Private action) , but rather on the needs of WP to permit --and even promote-- open discussion of problems whenever possible, including problems involving BLP, and to the general attitude of not just our site, but our environment, to satire and reporting. DGG ( talk ) 23:51, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

I would concur with those that suggest that there are issues with BLP as it is practiced currently, and look forward to ArbCom opinions on the matter; but note that any issues with BLP in practice are a reason to change the policy or practice, not an excuse for edit-warring & misuse of admin tools. I also look forward to the distinction being drawn between the community's attitude to self-satire and its attitude to partisan political satire. - Ryk72 ^'c.s.n.s.' 08:42, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

Agreed. I also hope it is made clear that including satirical reference to Jimbo in a piece which is clearly and primarily about someone else does not in and of itself make the entire article, including the material about the wikipedia outsider, "self satire."

Also, taking the opportunity to blather on a bit here, I hope that someone considers maybe making some sort of independent editorial review board for the Signpost which can be contacted in cases where one or more individuals think that there might be a question of crossing lines. Maybe having on-call one or more self-designated "conservatives" or equivalent, "moderates" or equivalent, and "progressives" or equivalent from the US, UK, and maybe Australia and Canada, who could come in and indicate whether a piece is crossing the line, or coming close to doing so, or, maybe, might be rewritten in such a way as to remove the questionable material without destroying the satiric value. John Carter (talk) 20:52, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

Well you know John some of us do not believe in labels! My feeling is that satire really has no place on Wikipedia unless it is totally self-directed. In other words, if I satirize myself. But I look forward to reading DGG's thoughts. Coretheapple (talk) 21:32, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

I would just note that satire writ large is not the issue, living people are the concern, so - I find it hard to see how anyone's personal opinions on satire are relevant. Satirizing living people? There is policy on that and no one was elected by the community to write policy, become the board of satirizers-in-chief, or the issuer of opinions on what is acceptable satire. Alanscottwalker (talk) 21:46, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

Actually, I agree with Coretheapple regarding satire, but I also think that there is at least a real chance that at some point a Signpost article or non-editorial might take some sort of social or political stance, and I would like to maybe prevent having to deal with that at least theoretical problem now, rather than, potentially, having another ArbCom case about it later. Also, there are going to be some potential implicit BLP problems, perhaps labeling groups or similar, which might fall outside of the "satire" area completely. John Carter (talk) 21:53, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

I will point out that my comment in the section above notes that the piece was primarily intended as largely self-satire — we could have paired Jimbo with any other candidate who got #1 in page views for a month straight. The "fake archive" stuff and G's use of the tools are a different issue. In the main article, every "quote" from Trump that was satirized was (at least as of my last copyedit of the article before it went live) linked inline to an actual quote he made. The ones "attributed" to Jimbo were also, where possible, linked to things he has actually said. I do wonder how many people actually read the entire article and thought it particularly partisan, versus how many just dove in after the drama erupted. Montanabw^(talk) 23:26, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

Intention is one thing, but not the only thing, and it really isn't our place to try to judge the possible responses of others in advance, particularly if we are ourselves personally involved in the construction of the material in question. BLP so far as I can tell doesn't demand any sort of "proportional" judgment of how many people might find problems with something, it tends to be more absolute than that. I remember in law an old saying to the effect that bad cases make good law. This really isn't that strong a case of misconduct, even by my opinion, but it does address a matter which at least potentially may arise in the future, and, as there were conduct issues regarding Gamaliel's restoration of the content and other matters as well, which on their own could be considered grounds for proceeding, even if possibly/hopefully (IMHO) without particular strong response to them. And whether one read the entire article or not is not particularly relevant in and of itself. Content can be misquoted, or prejudicially quoted, and we are more or less obligated to do our best to ensure that we don't make that any easier than it might already be as well. John Carter (talk) 23:34, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

I thought it was hard cases make bad law but in any event I agree with the rest of your comment. -Starke Hathaway (talk) 23:41, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

Or "bad facts make bad law," a variant. ;-) As for preventing others from misusing content, I suspect that's impossible; we could go on and discuss prior restraint and other issues, but I think that you are right that the real issue was the problem of edit-warring and use of the sysop tools on the "fake archive" stuff. I guess I've just been so stunned at some of the misunderstandings about the underlying concepts (from WP:BLP to the First Amendment) that I've been sidetracked from the real issues, which themselves got caught up in yet even more peripheral issues of whether or not there was baiting and if past history amongst the involved users (*cough* Gamergate *cough*) was a factor. So, back to the question of the use of the sysop toolset. Montanabw^(talk) 23:48, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

To directly quote the inestimable Oliver Wendell Holmes, great cases like hard cases make bad law. Fortunately for the Committee and for the encyclopedia, this is neither a great case nor a hard case. An arbitrator and administrator made a claim about a living person that was in fact both unsourced and factually false, and then edit-warred and arguably misused the administrative toolkit to keep the false claim visible and curtail discussion of his behavior. As Yngvadottir has ably described, others have been desysopped for far less. It is of course within the power of the Committee to countenance this behavior and stave off any immediate consequences, but like other bodies whose power depends on their perceived legitimacy they may find that covering for their colleague comes at too high a price. -Starke Hathaway (talk) 00:06, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

Here's an alternate formulation of this case: an Arbitrator/admin made a silly joke about a living person—one of dozens or hundreds of such jokes posted as part of a Wikipedia tradition. A handful of people seized on this particular joke, ignoring all the others, apparently motivated by political disagreements with the Arb. The Arb reacted badly. It is within the power of the Committee to call out Gamaliel for misuse of the tools, or whatever, but also to treat this highly-selective phony BLP outrage with the seriousness it deserves. (I'm comfortable that my track record on BLP—of actions, not words—is as good as anyone's, whereas a number of people leading the charge against Gamaliel here wouldn't know an actual, significant BLP violation if it bit them on their nether regions). MastCell ^Talk 00:31, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

And, for what it may be worth, the case does seem to be about the behavior of individuals before and after the distribution of the piece rather than of the piece itself. An admin revdel'ing a piece deleted on BLP grounds is apparently a no-no, satire or not. The questions above are good ones, as, also, is whether the Signpost should be running such jokes in the first place. The fact that there haven't been such problems presented before ArbCom in the past doesn't necessarily mean that they shouldn't have been. I acknowledge that this is also a "highly-selective" BLP outrage, but, honestly, I think it isn't that unreasonable to be "highly selective" regarding a controversial figure who, God help us may well wind up being a major party Presidential nominee. We tend to be "highly selective" about what we allow in articles of recently deceased people too, particularly regarding the "now I can say he always was a total bastard" type of comments made by others about the deceased, so there is precedent for being highly selective about such material in some cases. John Carter (talk) 00:44, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

No, that doesn't stand up at all. This wasn't even the worst April Fools "BLP violation" about Donald Trump (see here), so this case has nothing to do with being rigorous about prospective Presidential candidates. The motivations here are transparent, and have zero relation to any real concern for WP:BLP. The people commenting here are largely either too dense, or too cynical, to admit the obvious, though. None of this excuses Gamaliel's actions, to be clear, but it does make the rest of you look silly as well. MastCell ^Talk 01:57, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

Well, whatever your opinion of all the people here, no point in compounding any of that by Arbcom statements that go against and weaken BLP policy. If you are being trolled on BLP to perhaps even weaken BLP so that they can go about trolling living people, the official response should not be 'BLP doesn't matter for satire in the Wikipedia tradition'. That's my concern, which is actually a real concern for WP:BLP, whether you wish to acknowledge that concern or not. Alanscottwalker (talk) 10:38, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

@MastCell: More broadly and without addressing this case, dispute resolution is always based on history, specifically user history. We condemn certain behaviors based on history and excuse those same behaviors in those without history. Sometimes we desysop based on a single incident within hours (e.g. see Yngvadottir "emergency" desysop), sometimes we grant large leeway for infractions (e.g. see WP:BITE). It's abundantly clear that behavior time and scope are determined by process and not an absolute rubric independent of editor history or expectations. WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is the weakest argument against inspection when there are demonstrably quicker and more severe sanctions as well as "No Action" and it all depends on the personalities involved, their history and community expectations. It seems odd to argue complainant "motivation" when the only evidence considered is conduct with respect to expectations. As Yngvadottir experienced, when ArbCom determined she failed to meet the expectations of an admin, they removed that expectation. To characterize the motion and subsequent action as a "motivation" seems to miss the point. Even if, as an unwilling named party, I sympathize with "too dense or too cynical" but I doubt you intended to include me in such victimization. If you don't include me as a victim of the "too dense or too cynical," does that reflection change your assessment? --DHeyward (talk) 11:55, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

Given Faking News, The Shovel,The Daily Mash, The Onion, and CollegeHumor the English speaking world needs another satire blog like Wikipedia needs another ANI thread. The simplest solution would be for The Signpost to focus on what it does well; collating external coverage of Wikipedia and original coverage of issues too specialized for the general press to cover. NE Ent 00:17, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

IANAL, but I'd be interested in hearing from WMF Legal as to whether the 501(c)(3) non-political, tax exempt WMF should be hosting community generated political satire. It seems to be beyond the scope of their application to be tax-exempt. --DHeyward (talk) 12:02, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

No. As much as it may possibly cause the project of a neutral encyclopedia to be in doubt, the WMF is clearly in no danger. Alanscottwalker (talk) 12:55, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

Are you sure? What level within the organization creates a jeopardy? Probably not not an editor. But administrator? ArbCom Member signing disclosure statement? Local Chapter Board of Directors? WMF Board of Directors? WMF Employees? Look backwards and what do you think would be an issue? Is WMF in the clear with the current rules? I don't claim to know. --DHeyward (talk) 13:06, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

DHeyward, I thought we were making progress. This is crazy. "I don't claim to know" is Trumpian--"some say that Cruz wouldn't even be allowed to run because he's Canadian". Drmies (talk) 14:04, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

“I have here in my briefcase...” (1950) “Binders full of women...” (2012). "I don’t claim to know" :Some say..." (2016). Alas, Drmies, I don’t see any progress here. Confidential disclosure of identity doesn’t make anyone an officer of a corporation, and nonprofit corporations frequently publish and perform satire [15] [16]. These red herrings are crying crocodile tears and hoping to swim in them. MarkBernstein (talk) 14:32, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

Hi, Mark, as far as I know you are still topic-banned from discussing DHeyward. Yes, I know you didn't actually type his name, but you directly quote his statement and then make characterizations about "red herrings" and "crocodile tears." Cut it out, will you? -Starke Hathaway (talk) 14:45, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

Excuse me. I'm responding to and agreeing with DrMies, replying to his assertion, and quoting Drmies’ paraphrase of Donald Trump. I have modified my statement to clarify this. My suggestion that the red herrings here are crying such rivers of crocodile tears as to suggest they expect to swim among them applies broadly to a range of editors above. MarkBernstein (talk) 15:03, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

• Please Mark. Drmies (talk) 16:11, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

• The idea that WMF's tax-exempt status could be put in jeopardy from the Trump joke is the funniest joke I've heard so far this year. Viewed through the lens of "life is too short", DHeyward's comments like this are pure joy to read. But going back to "hard cases make bad law" and "BLP concerns" in general, in-fighting over a Donald Trump April Fools' joke would be a terrible vehicle for Arbcom to be announcing anything regarding the application of BLP to non-article space or the Signpost. Those decisions, should they ever need to be made by Arbcom, should come in a case where the facts really matter so serious people are engaged in discussing the repercussions.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 15:37, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

Have to agree that the idea that the WMF's tax exempt status is harmed by en.wiki's Signpost putting an seemingly politically-motivated article by a user is of question. The block of disclaimers on en.wiki are their to give the WMF safe harbor protections from actions of random users. It would have been a problem if the WMF officially posted a clear politically-leaning message on meta. or their site, but that's absolutely not the case here, and this seems like very much a rabbit trail to keep on this.

To add, I think that there's too much attention being put on the initial Signpost posting. Whether or not the Signpost should engage in such political humor, whether it should be exempt from BLP, or whether the story was a BLP issue or not are things to be put to the community to discuss. The case here should be focused on actions after the fact that once that Signpost story was identified as being potentially problematic (that is, neither obviously a true BLP violation nor obviously a true allowed inclusion of reliably-sourced material), that actions to keep it posted and/or avoid its deletion using admin powers are very questionable per BLP policy without engaging in discussion. It's the aftermath of the posting, not the initial posting. Gamaliel should be TROUTed for that initial decision to post the story if the community considers it a problem, but everything else and others involved, as well as factors leading up the aftermath that existed before the Signpost story, should be under scrutiny under ArbCom's watch; everything else surrounding that initial posting is all related to content and something the community is best to handle. --MASEM (t) 17:07, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

I wasn't bringing up Joe Editor. I was asking what hat wearer would a political satire piece pose a problem (I don't think it matters much whether it's Signpost or a user page). Could Jimbo do it? Could a member of the board of directors do it? Local chapter board members? Arbcom, admins, users are in the lower set. I don't mean to imply that this particular case jeopardizes anything, only that guidance from WMF legal about where the cutoff lies would be useful. I doubt there is much disagreement that Jimbo would be prohibited or strongly discouraged from writing political op-eds on WMF servers. Similarly, random editors don't create any issue. Tell me where the line is drawn if it's somewhere between Jimbo and a random editor. Scoffing at it does not add light. Someone made a blanket statement that it was okay and I don't necessarily agree with it because IANAL for WMF and neither was the original poster. ---DHeyward (talk) 19:30, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

If we use the IRS rule [17], it would have to be only from someone that can legally speak for the WMF (read: anyone on salary from the WMF) and only then if speaking for the WMF as a whole. If Jimbo posts that "Personally, I think (candidate X) is the right candidate to vote for", that would not be a violation for their non-profit, though that could flair some anger, depending on the situation. If Jimbo says "The WMF believes that every Wikipedia editor that can should vote for (candidate X)", then that line has been crossed. --MASEM (t) 19:37, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

I believe Masem’s interpretation of who can legally speak on behalf of a corporation is incorrect, but in any case it is also irrelevant. The Signpost does not speak for WMF, a preposterous April 1 headline most certainly does not do so, and a joke about an imaginary lawsuit by a US presidential candidate (who has famously threatened lawsuits previously on the same subject) is most certainly not a statement on behalf of WMF. However, the intent of this discussion is clearly to suggest that, if they do not find a satisfactory resolution here, pro-Trump editors might challenge Wikipedia’s tax status. Whether that contravenes the spirit of WP:NLT is an interesting question; since the arbitration committee has so often proved tone deaf when addressing threats, it is best to point this out explicitly. MarkBernstein (talk) 20:14, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

I should have meant to say "at a minimum, someone representing the WMF would have to be employed by them but there are other requirements". A random tech working helping to manage their server farm is not automatically able to speak for the WMF. My point is that we should absolutely not be worrying about the potential issue with the 503(c) aspect of WMF due to what has happened in regards to this case, as it does not involve anyone that can speak for the WMF as a whole. This factor is a rabbit trail. --MASEM (t) 20:33, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

We've already entered it when we look at who can be signpost editor. Board of director for WMF local chapter is a separate 501(c)(3). We are minimizing the hat to be Signpost contributor but there are many hats involved here. If this is beyond the scope of the case, I have no problem dropping it but we have already discussed whether ArbCom member is incompatible with Signpost editor on ethical grounds. "Local WMF 501(c)(3) member of the board of directors" is important enough to list each bio on WMF servers. Are the people on this page in a position where making political statements are inadvisable on WMF servers? If not, why not, if so, why so? And no, I am not a "pro-Trump" supporter, didn't know (or care) that he had "small hands" before the signpost article. If you can classify arguments as "Trumpian" you follow him a lot closer than I do. I couldn't vote for him or his opponents in the primary and have no intention of voting for him in November. The most I see is when antics make the news (either his or his detractors). No one is threatening WMF's tax status as far as I know, and the threat to that tax status is governed by behavior of those that are in a position to jeopardize it. IANAL and everyone quoting law is not one either. I only asked for input from WMF legal as to who and where political satire/commentary would be appropriate on a WMF server. I think we agree that it wouldn't be okay for Jimbo but it is not an issue for Joe Editor (though I expect such commentary would be deleted per WP:NOTFORUM). Somewhere between those two cases is a line where WMF legal would be concerned and where they are not. We've already had the case of an admin feeding stories to a journalist about an alleged sock puppet of a politician and we recognize there can be abuse that has repercussions beyond the walls of Wikipedia and it's not a "threat" to explore those repercussions. ArbCom can't draw the legal line so I am asking whether we need input from WMF legal as to where the line is drawn. Is it beyond the scope of the case or is WMF legal's opinion something that should be requested? I am not going to request it, as it would seem to be in the purview of ArbCom to decide if they need it. --DHeyward (talk) 21:39, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

Are you saying that you were personally unaware of the “small hands” controversy before 1 April 2016? That appears to be what you said here, but I’d like to be clear.MarkBernstein (talk) 21:56, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

Again, by IRS rules, it's not simply the act of making a political statement but making a political statement on behalf of the 501(c)3 where the IRS would potentially strip away the tax-exempt status. Clearly the Signpost post is not such a place where the WMF was spoken for, and because it was posted using the same account Gamaliel uses for editing and regular dues, that was posted without the WMF hat being worn. (This would be one of the reasons why most WMF members that actively participate on the various wiki projects have one account as editor and another "(WMF)" account to represent their WMF actions when they are wearing that hat and speaking from their role as being part of the WMF.) The Signpost is a invention of en.wiki's community, not the WMF, so whatever is published in there, in general, is not oversighted by the WMF and thus does not speak for them. Further, unless I am missing something obvious in the structure of the WMF, a "local member of the board of directors" is not in a position or has the authority to speak for the WMF; whom exactly has this ability I don't know but that list would start with WMF members that post to their blog site since there they speak for the Foundation, which includes WMF legal and communication officers (such as this post on the NSA lawsuit which includes specific but non-partisan stances on certain political topics, well within 501(c)3 allowances). Hence why I think trying to focus on the 501(c)3 issue is very much trivializing what should be the core aspect of the case, the behavior of Gamaliel as an editor, admin, and ArbCom member in the days after the Signpost posting. --MASEM (t) 22:01, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

According to this http://thegrassrootscollaborative.org/none/rights-and-limitations-non-profit-employees-participate-in-political-campaigns even volunteers can risk a non-profits tax exempt status by using the infrastructure of the non-profit. I'm sure a server would count. That said I can't find any actual examples of it happening and I doubt it would. Capeo (talk) 23:49, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

Looking further into it it's near impossible for a nonprofit to lose its status without an IRS determination that the primary activity and funding of the nonprofit falls afoul of IRS regs. Strictly speaking it's arguable thousands do but it's extraordinarily rare for anything to be done about it. Given that WP doesn't even come close to having its primary activity being political advocacy, funding or anything of the sort this whole line of questioning is moot really. Capeo (talk) 00:29, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

DHeyward's arguments on this legal issue are admittedly without any foundation, yet he keeps pounding away with his "questions". This is exactly the type of behavior he engaged in with Gamaliel and others (including myself) on the April Fools' joke and its aftermath. But there's no need to lose our calm over it. We are not losing our non-profit status over a Trump joke ever. Even Jimbo has rightfully slagged Trump in this very kerfuffle. Indeed, I would ask whether because of Trump's special status, anyone who does not denounce him will lose their non-profit status. This seems plausible and I am just asking and I hope WMF legal weighs in to endorse Trump-slandering.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 12:48, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

Any chance of our being sued over this, now that Cruz and Kasisch have dropped out of the race, is minimal - it would uselessly draw negative attention to the now obvious Republican candidate, Trump. (Must remember to wash off keyboard after typing that.) Whether there might be similar, at this point theoretical, possible lawsuits in the future in possibly similar theoretical efforts is something else, and it might be useful to have BLP revised one way or another to indicate how, where, and specifically what kind of humorous content regarding BLP subjects is permissable might be useful, and, maybe, some indication of how to phrase it. I don't expect any problems in the future either, but, hell, who knows? Avoiding a problem by ensuring it doesn't arise is general a good thing though, given Murphy's law and the Drucker variant all that sort of thing. John Carter (talk) 19:07, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

And Milowent keeps misrepresenting what I said (and I'm certainly not pounding away at it) but that's par for the course for Milowent. --DHeyward (talk) 01:07, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

• Holy hell, how did this case start talking about 501(c)3? I thought we were supposed to discuss the behavior of Gamaliel and how he overstepped the boundaries? I'm just a bystander but I have to say I think this has gone completely off topic, hasn't it? Sethyre (talk) 19:47, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

Agreed. Even if it were a salient concern (it's not), it would be well outside the remit of ArbCom to address. -Starke Hathaway (talk) 19:49, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

• It's only relevant because of this [18]. That's a 501(c)(3) and there are a number of arbs (that all recused I believe) on that 501(c)(3) Board. Wearing the "Board Member" hat is rather incompatible with writing political satire. That is its only point. No, we aren't going to get sued and no, the Arbs on that board didn't need to recuse either, but they did because the ethical bar is higher than just whether there would be a lawsuit. Lawsuits are not the bar we use for any content as our standards are higher. --DHeyward (talk) 22:27, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

No pounding going on here, no siree. Please accept my apology.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 18:02, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

A point that is being overlooked

I vowed to stay away from the arbitration pages for this case, but there's something I haven't seen anyone else mention that I do think needs to be pointed out. I could write a lengthy essay here but I'm going to be as brief as I can.

In the context of the BLP policy on Wikipedia, as in journalism and offline encyclopedia creation and elsewhere—particularly in situations where people routinely accuse each other of things, such as political campaigns and lawsuits—there is an important distinction between (1) asserting that an allegation is true and is significant enough to include, and (2) asserting that the allegation has been made. There are times when the fact that an allegation has been made is, in itself, indisputable and notable, and hence can or should be mentioned, even where the allegation itself is unproved or even disproved, or where it would be non-notable even if it were true.

In other words, in public life, there comes a point at which, even though an alleged fact is not notable or well-sourced, the fact that the allegation has been made is itself both indisputable and noteworthy. (The canonical pre-Internet example is the allegations of adultery against Gary Hart in the 1984 presidential election; the allegations were circulating and hurting Hart in the poll results, and the newspapers couldn't well report that Hart's support was dropping without explaining why. See Michael Kinsley's essay on this in Curse of the Giant Muffins.) This type of situation is more common both within and outside Wikipedia than people ordinarily think of; compare this hypothetical example, which is based on several of our actual articles.

"The size of Donald Trump's hands" is an example of this. We don't actually know whether Donald Trump's hands—much less any of his other body parts, God help us—are below average size, nor would the information be significant even if we did know. But the fact is that in an important Republican presidential debate a few weeks ago, one of Trump's opponents made a silly insinuation about this subject, and Trump directly replied to it. For better or worse (and I certainly think "worse"!), this was a significant episode in the campaign that attained front-page press coverage. As such, the episode is discussed in our mainspace articles on that debate (see, Marco Rubio presidential campaign, 2016#Early primaries; Eleventh Republican Party presidential debate, March 2016 in Detroit, Michigan), and I don't think anyone is contending that this raises a BLP issue. The same practice is followed when other sorts of allegations arise during a presidential campaign (see, e.g., Ted Cruz presidential campaign, 2016#After Super Tuesday; Gary Hart#1988 presidential campaign).

Extremely careful editorial judgment must be exercised in deciding when the existence of a disputed allegation or even an unmitigated smear rises to the level of independent notability warranting mention in the encyclopedia, and when publicizing an unsupported allegation would merely perpetuate victimization in defiance of our values (compare, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Badlydrawnjeff#Basic human dignity; Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Sarah Palin protection wheel war#Application of BLP policy, and of course the current version of the BLP policy itself).

All that said, I find this case somewhat depressing. A large number of our most experienced editors have spent a great deal of time debating whether the Signpost article and related pages constitute BLP violations. This is a valid question in theory, but at any given time our mainspace may contain a fair number of other pages allegedly containing BLP violations, which if unattended to or uncorrected can do far more harm to the living subjects of those articles than the Wikipedia Signpost could do to Donald Trump. It remains the case that Wikipedia's most precious resource is the time and energy of its volunteer contributors. We do not always do the best possible job of optimizing the expenditure of that time and energy.

On a separate point, non-mainspace humor has its place in Wikipedia, as part of the friendly comeraderie and shared experience of editing that sustains the community—but when an attempt at humor causes widespread dissension and unhappiness among one's colleagues and becomes a distraction, the humorist should reconsider whether it is serving its purpose, whether it is or recently was April 1 or any other day. This is not a call for self-censorship per se, but for common sense. I addressed this eight years ago. Newyorkbrad (talk) 15:47, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

Wow a voice of reason. No BLP violation occurred. Gamaliel was singled out from all the other pranks due to political considerations with respect to GG and American politics. And we have this utterly pathetic case as a result. --Jules (Mrjulesd) 17:05, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

Bullshit. Arkon (talk) 17:09, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

While I understand your point on BLP, NYB, I do think that point has little bearing on this case. For one, the article wasn't reporting dispassionately on a notable allegation. It used said allegation plus a fabricated threat in an attempt to be funny. It was an outright BLP violation. That said, there is a history of attempted satire outside of mainspace on WP for a long time. The main point of the case, as far as I can understand it anyway, is the actions of Gamaliel after objections to the article were raised. Capeo (talk) 17:26, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

Two of above comments (from Mrjulesd and Arkon) reiterate NewYorkBrad's point: there is clear uncertainly whether the Signpost post was a BLP violation or not, but it is clearly not obviously a BLP violation, nor clearly an acceptable bit of BLP-related satire. That determination has to be made separately by the community, and not here at ArbCom, nor should the case center on whether it was because that's all content-related issues. The only fact that is important is that it was a bit of BLP that was disputed, and per our BLP policy, when such material is disputed within reason (again, stressing that the Signpost was not clearly non-violating), it should not be readded without discussion. The case should be focused on the actions of Gamaliel and others once an editor took issue with the Signpost post and removed it, not when the Signpost post was created by Gamaliel. --MASEM (t) 17:29, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

Well if you take away the BLP element there's not much left is there? At most a bit of low grade edit warring. But that's all it should be seen for really. --Jules (Mrjulesd) 17:37, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

No. Gamaliel posted something that later was disputed as a possible BLP violation and was removed. If after that point, everyone went to a talk page to discuss if it was a violation or not, we'd not be here. Instead, Gamaliel took actions to restore the possible BLP violation before any type of consensus was formed, and then in subsequent behavior took actions that appeared to force retention of that disputed content; other behavior from other editors may have gotten mixed up into this as well (hence why additional ppl on the case for review). Even if tomorrow the community agreed that the Signpost post was in no way a BLP issue, it does not excuse the edit-warring-like behavior to retain that by Gamaliel and possibly others before that decision was reached. It is best to keep in mind that ArbCom rarely gets itself involved in content disputes, and only looks at behavior, so that's why trying to ask to determine if the Signpost was a BLP issue or not here is a waste of time and absolutely the wrong focus. --MASEM (t) 18:27, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

As I said edit warring. Look if you make an edit, and someone reverts claiming a BLP violation, but you're convinced that it's not a BLP violation, would you also be tempted to revert? Someone saying something is a BLP violation does not make it a BLP violation, I think that's what's missing here. Obvioulsy a talk page discussion would have been preferable, but that obviously doesn't always happen, look at WP:AN3 for example. --Jules (Mrjulesd) 18:36, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

I can see a completely fair argument to overlook one reversion of a removal of what someone else claims was a BLP violation but one doesn't see it, and having that momentary lapse of reason, since after all we are all human. If that's all that happened, and after second removal it all became talk page discussion or otherwise uncontested, a WP:TROUT would have been the harshest penalty here, as I'm not seeing this type of pattern in Gamaliel's past edits. But that's not what happened: Gamaliel reacted to keep the BLP up and defend their actions, as someone else put it "doubling down" on it being acceptable BLP without discussion, and thus creating a chain of events drawing more editors into this. --MASEM (t) 23:44, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

Newyorkbrad: Despite the lengthy statement, what you discuss seems on the whole quite irrelevant where the formulation in issue is

Living person threatens to sue Wikipedia for alleged insult.

It is never going to make sense to say, 'that does not implicate BLP', -- when in fact the statement fails on multiple levels in multiple possible permutations. 'Let's make Wikipedia a safe place to say, Living person threatens to sue Wikipedia for alleged insult,' is worse than a waste of time, it's irresponsible and just rather a dumb thing to do because it serves no purpose of the encyclopedia. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 17:51, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

• Humor is dead. We'll be holding a wake on my talk page next week.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 18:02, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

Ha! Now, that is a silly dramah claim. No one is even talking about anyone's propensity for stupid jokes on ideas, events, animals, microbes, places, institutions, large groups, vegetables, minerals, etc., etc, etc, ad infinitum. What's that Roosevelt quote about "small minds"? Alanscottwalker (talk) 18:14, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

To be clear: I haven't taken a position here as to what the outcome of this case should be, in terms of either findings or remedies. I gave up that job after seven years and I'm not asking for it back. I was simply pointing out some background and principles that I thought had been lost in the shuffle.

As for the point about humor, on the one hand it is true that by definition, wikispace or userspace humor has limited encyclopedic purpose; fair enough. On the other hand, isn't it in some way fair to paraphrase the BLP policy as saying "don't make statements about living persons that may unfairly damage their lives"? And if that's a good gloss (to a first approximation—obviously I know there are nuances), and if that's a policy that would be worth emulating on the broader Internet beyond Wikipedia ... would that make every page of The Onion, for example, the equivalent of a BLP violation? Newyorkbrad (talk) 18:17, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

Leaving aside the actual case here (which it seems most have done in the last few sections anyway), yes, that would make The Onion full of BLP vios. That's not exactly a surprising fact to most I would think. I also believe it to be obvious that this site does not wish to emulate The Onion in any fashion. I also don't believe your paraphrase to be in the realm of what the BLP policy dictates. In fact, I'd say it would be more fair to paraphrase the BLP policy as "Don't make shit up about people, use RS's for all things about people". Now back around to the actual case, when people remove said things that are made up about people, don't edit war over it, or double down even. Arkon (talk) 18:33, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

Brad: Making up things about people, is that what you want to protect, here? What purpose does it serve at all in furtherance of BLP - that now we would have to pretend to parse and wikilawyer damage? A speculative damage hearing before a non-jury of internet drive-bys, just repeating and repeating, like untruths? What a recipe for continuous disaster for BLP's, for the reputation of the Encyclopedia, and for the community. Alanscottwalker (talk) 18:40, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

• The Onion defames Wikipedia editors frequently, e.g., [19] ("Founder Wales, a closeted homosexual and hot-dog freak"). Why doesn't Wales sue over this? But if this arbitration can shut down The Onion, its all been worth it.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 18:50, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

Ahh, no point in us publishing a third rate Onion then -- moreover, for the sake of community camaraderie, we would not want to deprive Wikipedians' of their joke-selling opportunities, especially since some are so convinced of their worth. Alanscottwalker (talk) 19:02, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

The Onion doesn't have a BLP policy. In line with that, if we were parrot the same content as the Onion here as fact, it would be a violation of our policy, which like our copyright policies are stricter than the bare minimum of "this won't get us sued." -- Ricky81682 (talk) 06:47, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

• Brad, we are blessed that we don't need to worry ourselves with the rest of the internet. Quite frankly, I question our competence in policing ourselves at times. While we have no authority on the larger internet, we do have control here, and have previously decided to act with the highest level of ethics when it comes to living persons. BLP went from guideline to policy around the time I started (almost 10 years ago), and BLPs in generally have been problematic until sometime around 2008. Since then, BLP has been held to a very high standard and has become one of our few accomplishments: When it comes to real people, first we do no harm. Humor is great but it is not an exception to WP:BLP. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 19:07, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

I'm going to say it again: I haven't said anything about the proper outcome of this case, beyond providing some context. It is true that the ArbCom has said that "The biographies of living persons policy applies to all references to living persons throughout Wikipedia, including the titles of articles and pages and all other portions of any page. I know that, because I wrote it myself. The doesn't mean that context is irrelevant; even if one believes this piece shouldn't have run in the "Signpost", that wouldn't make it analogous to someone writing the same thing in the article space. Nor does it justify some of our most experienced editors, now including myself, in focusing our current BLP-enforcement attentions too much on this intellectually-interesting-but- ultimately-marginally-impactful-on-the-offwiki-world discussion while too often allowing threads in the actual BLP noticeboard to languish. Newyorkbrad (talk) 19:15, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

even if one believes this piece shouldn't have run in the "Signpost", that wouldn't make it analogous to someone writing the same thing in the article space. That's correct at least, as the visibility of the Signpost is much larger than most places in "article space". I honestly am confused by your whole point in this section, but I hesitate to try to figure it out, as you seem to have much do to at other BLP related places. Arkon (talk) 19:26, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

the visibility of the Signpost is much larger than most places in "article space": You must be dreaming, mate. Generally, Signpost pieces get a few hundred views over the life a Signpost issue, and once the new issue is out, disappear in the Signpost archives, never to be looked at again (who reads last week's newspaper?). Moreover, the readership is overwhelmingly made up of active Wikipedians ... I don't think any Signpost article in the entire history of the Signpost has ever achieved more than 6,000 pageviews. (The April Fools' piece got a grand total of 3,740 pageviews to date.) For comparison, the Donald Trump article averages 330,000 views daily. The English Wikipedia's 5 million articles currently attract over 7 billion pageviews monthly. Wikipedia mainspace pages average well over 12,000 page views a year, more than twice as much as even the most widely read Signpost page. --Andreas JN466 01:22, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

JN beat me to the punch. If the Trump article is edited to add a slander that lasts for even 30 minutes, more people will see it than ever saw the small hands joke. Meanwhile, this talk page already has received over 14,000 views, causing far more alleged harm to Trump than the original joke.[20]--Milowent • ^hasspoken 01:29, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

"most places" being the key words in regards to the pageview argument. Though I didn't mean page views in regards to "visibility" anyway. Arkon (talk) 01:50, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

I get you Brad, but really, when Arbcom is on the verge of apparently collectively making claims about BLP, it is impactful to a higher degree then you credit. When you (collectively), as you did back-in-the-day, just repeated policy it mattered, whether you wanted it to or not.Alanscottwalker (talk) 19:39, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

I'm glad to hear you say you think what ArbCom has done in this area has mattered. I spent a lot of time crafting the relevant principles in a number of cases, in addition to my essay-writing and public speaking about these issues, all with the goal of mattering. Kirill has put in a lot of effort on this issue also, with his decisions beginning in the Badlydrawnjeff and Footnoted quotes cases of 2006-2007 and his Professionalism essay. Newyorkbrad (talk) 19:50, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

That is the Catch 22. I've said on several occasions that this wasn't a huge BLP violation (and in fact stated it should not be turned into a case in my now deleted initial statements) but it was in the Signpost, which has a larger readership than many articles. More importantly, makes the BLP look as if it was an official Wikipedia statement to the outside world, who has little understanding of the inner workings of Wikipedia. That is something we often forget. To the outside world, it reflected poorly on everyone who call themselves a Wikipedian. A motion would have been fine on that one point, but there does seem to be a lack of clarity on where BLP applies, even if the rest of us know "everywhere" is the correct answer. So yes, there is a difference between the Signpost and an article, but not all the differences work to his advantage here. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 20:41, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

Indeed, Brad, and thanks. I saw no need for a case until there were claims of "hounding" that allegedly caused poor conduct (a simple motion would have done it for me), and I now understand that some people were exceedingly put-off by claims they were part of some bad-faith GG action and not raising good faith concerns (I wasn't involved in the underlying events, at all, so that did not particularly bother me, personally, but I was involved in an old case when you were on board where Arbcom formally warned an editor for that kind of bad-faith aspersion aimed indiscriminately in the underlying dispute.) On the potential ongoing effects of BLP errors, perhaps you remember the telephone game and how context gets scrambled. At any rate, at present, it appears we can only hope to guide a decision that does not damage BLP itself. Alanscottwalker (talk) 21:59, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

It was a mistake to accept this case and I suspect it would have been declined if it hadn't involved an arbitrator/administrator. Just my two cents. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:53, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

Well, giving Arbcom the benefit, in many ways the case is hardly surprising given that Arbcom often plays a role in judging admin policy compliance and (less often) arb policy compliance. At the end of the day, you have special policy for both the status of admin and arb. You have people claiming in addition that a 'special' status involving an alleged 'special' publication is somehow important in this dispute, and a lack of policy on that alleged special status and special publication - so that's allot of knotty 'specialization' (conflicting?) to confront in a Wikipedia dispute. (so, now, Arbcom just has to do the best it can now) -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 14:43, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

Well, yeah. Because some sort of thing would have happened during the closure of the AN/I if it hadn't involved an arbitrator/administrator. I didn't think it needed to get to this point either though for the record. Arkon (talk) 00:04, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

Well, Arbcom can always say that an arbitrator is subject to the same standards as Arbcom and Arbcom sees no point in actually discussing the conduct further and send it back to another ANI discussion. Wouldn't be the ideal response but it does sort of reduce the possibility of more Arbcom cases just because it involves current arbitrators. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 06:47, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

Removal of Evidence by Ryk72

The Evidence by Ryk72 section was removed in this edit[21]; on the basis that it is out of scope. Given the scope is Gamaliel's recent actions (both administrative and otherwise), especially related to the Signpost April Fools Joke. The case will also examine the conduct of other editors who are directly involved in disputes with Gamaliel. The case is strictly intended to examine user conduct and alleged policy violations and will not examine broader topic areas., and the evidence removed relates to an involved use of administrative tools; using "500/30" protection to protect an involved editorial action, and misrepresentation to the community, by the party named in the scope, would the clerks please explain the reasoning by which it has been excluded? Specifically, what parts of the scope are not met? @Mdann52:, as the responsible clerk. - Ryk72 ^'c.s.n.s.' 21:34, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

Apart from any of that, Mdann52 is recused on the case page Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Gamaliel and others, so why are you clerking Mdann52 when you are recused? Alanscottwalker (talk) 21:49, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

WP:NOTBURO? I doubt that Mdann52 removed the content on his own dime. NE Ent 22:06, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

What? Either recused means recused or it does not. The "principle" of recusal in NOTBURO language would be the straight forward, don't do things you are recused from. Alanscottwalker (talk) 22:15, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

My bad -- I had inferred the clerks and drafting arbitrators discussed these things before acting. NE Ent 23:29, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

Thus far, this has been quite a surreal case -- I really am fairless clueless as to what the actual scope is, and the inappropriately snarky part of me wonders if the eventual case shortcut will be WP:ARBNOTGAMERGATE. NE Ent 22:06, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

I am genuinely unable to read the scope statement and find a clause which would justify the removal of this evidence, or of that evidence which was presented by other editors & later removed. - Ryk72 ^'c.s.n.s.' 22:14, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

I was asked to remove this, forgot I had recused on this, so apologies. I'll refrain from taking any further actions, and will revert as I shouldn't have done this. I will ask for another clerk to review. Mdann52 (talk) 22:39, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

Hi Mdann52, Appreciated. By whom were you asked? - Ryk72 ^'c.s.n.s.' 22:41, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

@Ryk72: it was a request on our mailing list asking for someone to review, I just happened to be the only clerk watching it at the time. Mdann52 (talk) 22:45, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

Mdann52, By whom was that request made? Was it made by a named party? Was it made by a Wikipedia editor who is mentioned in the evidence removed? Was it made by a Wikipedia editor mentioned elsewhere in the evidence? - Ryk72 ^'c.s.n.s.' 22:48, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

• Come on Arbs, you have to know this looks bad. You removed a bunch of evidence early on that is related to new evidence (including mine, but most of mine was then covered by a motion). Now evidence is sandbagged until the 11th hour while other evidence is removed at the 11th hour. Even if this was perfectly innocent, it looks like incompetent favoritism. I know most of you, you are smart enough to know this. It's as if you want to look bad. Evidence could have been ignored if it was slightly off scope, and the evidence from the primary in this case, a sitting Arb should have been introduced before the cut off day, to allow examination and countering. And having a recused clerk do the ax work?...Fucking brilliant. I'm starting to think that winning an Arb election lobotomizes your common sense. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 01:27, 7 May 2016 (UTC)

I have no problem with the accused having the rebuttal (or the last word). The reason it is problematic here is the in the accused's submission the accused in addition has become an accuser, and deprived the others accused of rebuttal. Alanscottwalker (talk) 11:49, 7 May 2016 (UTC)

Reply to Townlake's Reply to Ryk72

Hi Townlake, I do concede that whether the actors should have known that status (of the Signpost) is within scope; and that an underlying finding as to the status would be required. And I concur that If BLP doesn't apply to Signpost, what Wikipedia policies do apply to Signpost? Any? is a very important question; but I do not believe that it is within ArbCom's remit to make that determination; any statement in that regard must be a simple reflection of community & policy. In so far as ArbCom has a real world analogue, it is a court, not a parliament. - Ryk72 ^'c.s.n.s.' 22:11, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

This honestly beggars belief

After multiple instances of arb clerks removing Gamergate-related evidence posted by others, an arb proxy-posts a raft of Gamergate-related evidence from Gamaliel at the eleventh hour? Seriously? Here's a principle you might want to save for the proposed decision page:

Proletarian editors are hereby sternly reminded that the rules employed to justify censoring, blocking, and banning them have no application to their betters on the Arbitration committee.

What a joke this whole process is. -Starke Hathaway (talk) 01:03, 7 May 2016 (UTC)

Why couldn't Gamaliel post his "evidence" here instead of emailing it to the committee? There is nothing private there. And are word limits only applicable to lesser mortals? Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 03:23, 7 May 2016 (UTC)

• Why he couldn't is not for us to disclose (sorry), and it doesn't matter. Starke Hathaway, you'll just have to accept it from us that this was no laughing matter. You can try to make fun of it, if you like, but there is nothing nefarious about it. He emailed it to the committee; we didn't proofread it or anything like that. Drmies (talk) 13:27, 7 May 2016 (UTC)

Well, to be fair, Fram and Montanabw are over their respective word limits by an even greater percentage ... --Andreas JN466 12:20, 7 May 2016 (UTC)

And I (a drafter) think that the committee really needs to have a look at word limits again. I've said as much before and today on our mailing list, and fortunately I'm not alone. Doug Weller talk 14:00, 7 May 2016 (UTC)

Evidence extension

The instructions atop the evidence page states The Arbitration Committee expects you to make rebuttals of other evidence submissions in your own section, and for such rebuttals to explain how or why the evidence in question is incorrect. Given the named party's evidence was posted [22] three minutes before the deadline, will the committee be extending the deadline to allow parties to make the rebuttals the committee expects? NE Ent 01:19, 7 May 2016 (UTC)

I seem to recall this situation has come up before. Discussion then generally moves to the "Analysis of evidence" section on the Workshop page, in this case: Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Gamaliel_and_others/Workshop#Analysis_of_evidence. --Andreas JN466 12:06, 7 May 2016 (UTC)

Most of Gamaliel's evidence ought to be stricken as out of scope

Given how evidence keeps getting removed after declarations of how limited the scope of the case is (the events in the days after the Signpost piece), something like 90% of Gamaliel's evidence should also be stricken as out of scope. There's almost no addressing of any actual allegations, of his actions after the Signpost post - it's mostly a litany of how terrible his enemies are. And the hatted list of the articles that his opponents have edited shouldn't just be hatted, it should be removed for not only being completely irrelevant, but a long-winded repetition of violations of WP:AGF. That this was all posted at the buzzer only compounds the issue. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 03:12, 7 May 2016 (UTC)

By the way, panel, if you had just named the case "The Nasty People Who Attack Hero Arbitrator Gamaliel" it would have saved weeks of confusion stemming from the introduction of conduct by third parties not addressed in the arbitration request, limiting the scope of the trial arbitrarily with poor communication, and an arbitrator posting Gamaliel's largely inflammatory stream of evidence with practically no probative value to the main issue of the case three minutes before the deadline. You could've just blocked DHeyward and Arkon for a month and given Gamaliel his high-fives by motion without all the kabuki theater.

That WMF hasn't hired a few professional arbitrators by this point, instead choosing to let the Praetorian Guard fight it out for ranks once a year, reflects very poorly on WMF's leadership. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 03:34, 7 May 2016 (UTC)

This case is about the Signpost fuss and is not about anything else such as Gamaliel's admin work relating to Gamergate. Therefore, evidence purporting to show bias was removed because whether or not it is true has no bearing here. Anyone is free to start another case about bias, if they think can get reasonable evidence. I have only glanced at Gamaliel's evidence, but the fact that it mentions Gamergate is presumably because he thinks those issues had some bearing on how he reacted—that is, he believes certain events that have occurred throw light on his behavior in relation the Signpost issue. It is up to the arbitrators to decide whether the evidence provides a defence—they will ignore or discount any evidence that does not satisfy their analysis. Johnuniq (talk) 11:22, 7 May 2016 (UTC)

Respectfully, I am unable to read the case scope, Gamaliel's recent actions (both administrative and otherwise), especially related to the Signpost April Fools Joke. The case will also examine the conduct of other editors who are directly involved in disputes with Gamaliel. The case is strictly intended to examine user conduct and alleged policy violations and will not examine broader topic areas., and concur that it is limited solely to the "Signpost fuss".
The scope establishes the Signpost April Fools joke as an area of particular focus; it does not establish it as a limitation. Had the Arbitrators desired to establish such a limitation, they could (and one feels certain that they would) have done so. I would, however, concur that the Arbitrators will "ignore or discount any evidence that does not satisfy their analysis"; on this basis, it would have preferable for evidence not to have been removed. - Ryk72 ^'c.s.n.s.' 11:54, 7 May 2016 (UTC)

Again, if the Gamergate case is out of scope then, then why is Gamaliel allowed to use the area as a mitigating factor for his actions while everyone else is banned from even mentioning them? Why is Gamaliel allowed to assume bad faith and point out others' involvement in Gamergate while people who presented evidence of his involvement -- and actual evidence of his behavior, not simply a long list of articles he's taken admin action in -- aren't? It's become blatantly obvious that Gamergate is completely out of scope only when it hurts Gamaliel. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 12:52, 7 May 2016 (UTC)

• Absolutely disgusting. Where the hell is Gamaliel? Why can't he post his own evidence? Instead, done by another who was too busy to do it until three minutes prior to the Greenwich closing time. It's mostly out of scope anyway. None of this surprises me...having another post this bullshit allowing inadequate time to rebut some of the accusations. DHeyward and others didn't go off and hide while others posted their evidence on their behalf. What a dog and pony show.--MONGO 12:31, 7 May 2016 (UTC)
• Its really too bad we couldn't have an everything including the kitchen sink case for all...instead, only Gamaliel gets to have that. Gamaliel is a partisan hack who would do whatever he can to provide circular arguments to violate BLP on any public figure he is politically opposed to [23]. Gamaliel needs to be desysopped and thrown off the committee.--MONGO 13:01, 7 May 2016 (UTC)

• Referring to the last section in Gamaliel's evidence only (the stats re editors and Gamergate) I've asked the clerks to leave it there as it relates to part of Kingsindian and Fram's evidence sections. All three of which I'm intending to refer to in a finding of fact. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 13:09, 7 May 2016 (UTC)

• • Mongo, see Drmies comment above. Gamaliel is not posting to Wikipedia now or for an unknown period of time. We would do the same for anyone in his situation. Doug Weller talk 14:04, 7 May 2016 (UTC)

Can we speak frankly?

All you are doing is making the trolls fat and sated. It's no secret, because Mark Bernstein flaunted it here and across Twitter, that there was "coercion" and shit happening on the bowels of reddit. Gamergate trolls. They're powerless and yet there's a hysteria around WP that empowers these trolls. Mainly because you take them seriously. Are they going to out the arb that's already outed? You're treating a nuisance as though it's a life and death scenario. Yes, it's a pain in the ass for any admin that has a twitter account or is on reddit but, seriously, nothing is going to happen. Honestly the more serious you take it the dumber it makes you look. You're making the trolls fat and sated.Capeo (talk) 04:04, 7 May 2016 (UTC)

Note on Arbitration Policy

As per the Arbitration Policy, arbitrators are expected to "Respond promptly and appropriately to questions from other arbitrators, or from the community, about conduct which appears to conflict with their trusted roles". The timing of Gamaliel's evidence submission should be considered by the Committee (probably in lieu of extending the evidence period, to avoid dragging this out even longer). ~ Rob^Talk 11:21, 7 May 2016 (UTC)

If anyone has a point to make about the presented evidence, they should at least outline it here. There is no reason to re-open the evidence page unless someone can refute a recently added point, and if that can be done, a good indication of the issue can be given on this page. Johnuniq (talk) 11:29, 7 May 2016 (UTC)

The workshop might be a better alternative as suggested by Andreas abovce. We haven't removed the evidence added after the closing time. Doug Weller talk 12:45, 7 May 2016 (UTC)

Gamaliel's insinuations

As one of the two people (along with User:Carrite) who initially raised concerns about Gamaliel's dual role being inappropriate, I consider his insinuation in his "evidence" (actually a long series of out-of-scope musings on ethics and not "evidence" by any rational definition, and also completely disregarding the word count limits with which mere peons are expected to comply) that our doing so is "motivated by personal animus" to be inappropriate to the extent that if I saw it said about anyone else without evidence at any venue other than Arbcom I'd consider blocking for personal attacks. To the best of my recollection I've never had any dealings with Gamaliel, Gamergate (my disdain for videogames is fairly well known), or (other than answering a few pro-forma questions five years ago for a feature) the Signpost. The more I see of this, the more I'm coming to agree with those accusing Gamaliel of constructing an elaborate conspiracy theory in which everyone disagreeing with him is working in concert behind the scenes, rather than admit the possibility that people might have legitimate reasons to disagree with him. ‑ Iridescent 13:15, 7 May 2016 (UTC)

Is it your contention that personal animus plays no role in this case? --Andreas JN466 13:41, 7 May 2016 (UTC)

I have no idea what Gamaliel thinks of me, but I have no personal animus whatsoever towards him and prior to this case had barely heard of him, and I find it hard to imagine Carrite—who rarely expresses an opinion stronger than "I'm not sure I entirely agree"—being motivated by personal dislike. Whether "personal animus plays no role in this case" is a red herring—obviously it plays a part in this case, since some of the evidence sections consist of little more than shitlists of people the posting party happens to dislike—but Gamaliel is strongly insinuating that "[the people who] raised concerns about me simultaneously holding positions on the Signpost and the Arbitration Committee" (that is, myself and Carrite) are doing so out of a personal grudge, in which case put up or shut up. ‑ Iridescent 13:49, 7 May 2016 (UTC)

I don't read Gamaliel's response as aimed at you. Of the Signpost question, he wrote: "These are valid points to make (as long as they are not motivated by personal animus) and they represent a significant concern regarding the independence of The Signpost." It sounds to me like he's acknowledging your concerns as valid, and I don't think anyone would suggest that you (or Carrite) are motivated by personal animosity in raising them. (In contrast, the issue has also been raised by DHeyward, who clearly is motivated by personal animosity toward Gamaliel, so I would assume that was the point of Gamaliel's parenthetical). MastCell ^Talk 20:27, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

The Signpost

Just to remind everyone that ArbCom has no business pontificating on the role or scope of the Signpost. That is a matter for the community, and editors are welcome to comment, as always, at the Signpost's talkpage. Tony (talk) 02:42, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

That's funny. Arkon (talk) 02:43, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

• Come on Tony. They hired me specifically to pontificate; it's my only line. Drmies (talk) 03:53, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

• The role of "Signpost Pontiff" is currently open. We could wait for the white smoke signal from ArbCom announcing your Pontificateness. --DHeyward (talk) 05:52, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

• (edit conflict) The Signpost is located on the Wikipedia community, and therefore it is within their jurisdiction to determine whether policies and guidelines as currently written apply to the Signpost. ~ Rob^Talk 05:54, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
  • I'll have to agree here. One principle here should be that BLP applies everywhere which does include the Signpost. It is not the scope of the Signpost that obviously matters so much as its usage. WikiProjects regularly come into play, not so much their scope as the proper usage vis a vis not creating a local consensus against the general consensus. Here, it seems like there was at least in part a local consensus that "humorous" conduct at the Signpost does not have to follow certain BLP requirements elsewhere (second to whether this is actually a BLP violation at issue). -- Ricky81682 (talk) 06:43, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
    • I'd like to see a principle to this effect regardless of whether there was a BLP violation. I think there was, but ignoring that, this whole episode has revealed a very weird mentality among Signpost editors. Citations of the First Amendment, asserting a right to freedom of speech, claiming the content is merely hosted on the English Wikipedia but not a part of it - these are all things I would expect from a one day old account, not the established good-faith editors at the Signpost. ~ Rob^Talk 07:18, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

I don't agree with Tony's rather blunt comment, but I wish to emphasize that this case aside, there haven't been any concerns raised regarding BLP issues in The Signpost, for the simple reason that there aren't any. This case is about Gamaliel's actions: the less extraneous issues brought into the matter, the better. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 07:27, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

The MfD that started this says otherwise. ~ Rob^Talk 09:02, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

@BU Rob13: The MfD (and ANI) had very little to do with the Signpost in general. It was a matter of a stupid April Fools joke and Gamaliel's behaviour. The only real connection with the Signpost was that it was a technical matter; some people didn't want to delete the page because it was an active Signpost article - it was finally worked around with little fuss. Since there have been no complaints in the recent past about the Signpost disregarding BLP, one should concentrate on Gamaliel's behaviour and the April Fools angle, not the Signpost. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 12:32, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Policy#Jurisdiction: "The Committee has jurisdiction within the English Wikipedia." Wikipedia:Arbitration/Policy#Scope_and_responsibilities:"has the following duties and responsibilities: To act as a final binding decision-maker primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve." So it's actually the committee's duty to address the role and scope of the signpost as it relates to this case. NE Ent 08:54, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

I dislike April Fool's Day; I had nothing to do with the page that seems to have spawned this weird, massive waste of editorial time and energy. But I can assure you that Signpost writers don't appreciate being targeted in this hate fest. There's a critical shortage of editors who are willing to shoulder the hard work and the weekly deadline: we don't have enough volunteers to make the workload sustainable (any takers? ... nah, I thought not). Just remember that we serve Wikimedians as a whole: editors, WMF, and affiliates. So the English Wikipedia's ArbCom and the gamergate cheersquad can bluster all they like: I don't give a damn for the opinions strewn on these pages, and I suspect not many on the Signpost editorial board do either. Tony (talk) 09:20, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

• Lack of consideration of other people's opinions and ENWP's requirements led to you disregarding disabled wikipedians in the past to satisfy your personal editorial whims, so colour me unsurprised that your disinterest in any other opinion than your own extends to BLP issues now. Its also clear that this lack of consideration extends to the editorial staff as a group - given MontanaBW's claims of freedom of speech trump ENWP's policies. Claims that signpost writers dont appreciate being targeted are rather self-serving. Perhaps if they dont want to be targeted they shouldnt write crap on such a regular basis. It is also not surprising that you have trouble finding volunteers given your attitude. Finally 'Remember we serve wikimedians' - yes but you are hosted on Wikipedia and are *required* to abide by ENWP's policies. If you dont like it, as you seem to indicate here, perhaps you should migrate Signpost somewhere else like Meta. Or a blog. Only in death does duty end (talk) 09:37, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
• (edit conflict) Tony, whether it's appreciated or not, the unfortunate truth is that Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2010-03-17/News and notes spawned this. In that discussion, two of the current editors-in-chief and a previous editor-in-chief of the Signpost supported keeping it on the basis that it was in active use for the Signpost. The third editor-in-chief arrived at the end of the discussion to note that the Signpost staff no longer opposed deletion because it was no longer an active article. Of Signpost editors who voted in that discussion, the final tally was 4-1 in favor of keeping. Of non-Signpost editors who voted in that discussion, the total was 21-1 in favor of deletion. It is not a matter of opinion that the Signpost has a different set of values than the English Wikipedia; it's part of the record of fact at that MfD. You've stated as much when you commented that "the Signpost serves the Wikimedia community, not the English Wikipedia, which simply hosts it". It is well within the remit of ArbCom to make a statement that the Signpost is not immune from policies/guidelines with global consensus. In fact, it's probably the only useful thing ArbCom can do in this case. Editor sanctions are not necessary here, other than maybe an admonishment regarding tool usage. ~ Rob^Talk 09:56, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

• Only in death (good username): "Lack of consideration of other people's opinions and ENWP's requirements"—<long theatrical laugh>. You write: "so colour me unsurprised that your disinterest in any other opinion than your own extends to BLP issues now"—now you're being abusive. BU Rob, a dose of logic would be an advantage. You write: "the Signpost has a different set of values than the English Wikipedia" and the fact that "the Signpost serves the Wikimedia community"—the first is your disconnected assumption apparently based on the second. You write: "the Signpost is not immune from policies/guidelines with global consensus"—whoever said it wasn't? Are we going to end up with another ridiculous ArbCom decision that merely states the obvious? Your time, not mine, thanks, and I'll take my leave of a page dominated by gamergate malcontents. Tony (talk) 12:01, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

• Given that at best, two editors on this page could be considered related to gamergate, and neither of them could be described as 'malcontents' it is probably best you leave. Only in death does duty end (talk) 12:14, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

• I think it's fair to say a lot of this is related to gamergate, if only going by the amount of gg related evidence submitted (which was mostly removed). --Jules (Mrjulesd) 12:25, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

• That however is not the same as 'this page is dominated by gamergate malcontents' which, absent evidence, is basically a smearing personal attack on every editor here. Since the key point of the case revolves around a smearing personal attack by a Signpost editor, it is again unsurprising that another signpost editor should resort to the same tactics. Only in death does duty end (talk) 12:32, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

• It's a bit amusing that I'm being painted as a "Gamergate malcontent" when my only involvement in the area has been a neutral closure of a single RfC and a follow-up clarification on the close. My closure was never even contested, which is no small feat in that subject area! Oh well. And in response to something Tony said, if it's just stating the obvious, then it should be no problem. ArbCom states the obvious in principles all the time. That's the point of principles, actually - to lay out the obvious so no-one can dispute it. ~ Rob^Talk 12:42, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

• I'm just an observer, but an unabashedly biased one. I just wanted to make a point that many folks who found themselves in GamerGate in the first place had no knowledge of it in the first place, but were called as such by the opposition and completely dismissed once they stuck the label on. Anti-GG is GamerGate's best recruiter, after all ;^) Sethyre (talk) 22:17, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

• Today the US Senate said it will hold hearings on claims that Facebook, a non-government for-profit company, curated its news feed to exclude some of the most crazed parts of the right-wing Internet.[24] Will they come after mild Trump jokes in the Signpost next? Cause that would be really more exciting. Using the context of the Trump joke and the infighting after it as a springboard to make any pronouncements about the Signpost generally is a bad idea, as we have no idea what the repercussions will be when a serious situation arises where BLP is used to challenge frank discussions and reporting of some future serious issue facing the project. Anyone who wants to improve the Signpost should volunteer to work for it, just like we all do for Wikipedia--its the only way to get results around here.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 16:56, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

What? Is this a bizarre statement of hubris (or a joke, as we now speak in jokes). No one in the world, nor on Wikipedia, has to have the Signpost to discuss anything. Join our gang, or else? Alanscottwalker (talk) 17:23, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

What is driving me nuts here is that argument that the Signpost April Fool's piece had any BLP issues at all: The piece was a satire that took actual quotes from Jimbo (and Trump) which we sourced with inline links, and turned them into what was intended as a satirical look at Jimbo's speech patterns and statements of his ideals, pairing him with Trump because we'd noticed that Trump's article had been #1 in reader view for about a month straight. It was all in-house humor. There were no "smearing personal attacks" on the Signpost, and the only real issue here is if Gameliel misused his sysop toolkit. The rest is a red herring. Montanabw^(talk) 17:27, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

Well, all I can tell you is I did not read the material until this case. So from that remove, I saw among other things, basically something in the form of [living person] + [did something about] + [alleged insult], plus it is untrue, so, yeah, that implicates WP:BLP under any possible reading of WP:BLP (even where there is some kind of mitigation, so coming down hard may not be needed, eg, 'just don't do that'). It's not like it is something that actually serves the purpose of a truthful, neutral encyclopedia, and it's doubtful we want a new motto of 'the encyclopedia where anyone can make fun and tell untruths about the living people we take as subjects for our encyclopedia articles' (doesn't the rest of the internet do that kind of stuff?) so the fact that a living subject we write about is apparently important as an encyclopedic subject does not improve the over-all matter, in the least . . . and, I don't get the after struggle to keep the untruth, either (which, by the way, is partly where the Signpost came in because it was argued to be important to the Signpost - and later important to the Signpost to preserve its "integrity" or freedom to do it again). Alanscottwalker (talk) 22:38, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

Alanscottwalker, yes, I was joking about the US Senate coming after the Signpost. This whole arbitration is just an ANI that became a month-long-hangover. Excluding perhaps the Honey War, rarely in human history has more been written about something so trivial.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 03:38, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

LOL

Collapsed as a clerk action. Appeals to clerks-llists.wikimedia.org (or arbcom-llists.wikimedia.org). Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 21:45, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Would you prefer a picture of a cat with humourously misspelt text overlaid? PeterTheFourth (talk) 14:01, 9 May 2016 (UTC) Well I have to admit, we might be all better off looking at lolcats than this particular case...--Jules (Mrjulesd) 14:10, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

Are you serious

Yes, I know this will not exactly be a popular thing to say, but someone's gotta say it! Someone actually made a "COURT CASE" out of an April Fools Joke ? Are you for real?! Per ANI April Fools jokes are allowed, as long as they followed the stated rules
All jokes and pranks must be kept out of the article namespace.[1] Jokes in articles will be treated as vandalism. All jokes must be tagged using {{Humor}} or similar templates, or the inline template {{April fools}}.[2], which this was, also | Bear in mind there were a boatload of people wanting to see Gamaliel desysoped on ANI for his April fools joke. It looks like a case of "I can't get my way on ANI so I'll take it to ARBCOM". Come on Arbs , close this exercise in bad faith and mark it as an April Fools joke - this is plainly an attempt to ask Daddy because Mommy didn't do what they wanted! It was an April Fools joke for crying out loud! KoshVorlon 16:21, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

KoshVorlon, have you actually bothered to read what this case is about? It's not about an April Fools joke other than as the material cause; it's about allegations of editwarring, allegations of appropriate use of admin tools, questions about under which circumstances arbitrators can be considered neutral, and what the appropriate courses of action are when the usual community processes are unable to reach a consensus. I agree that arbcom shouldn't have accepted this case, but that's because I consider ethical judgements as opposed to rulings on the interpretation of policy to be ultra vires—no sane person reading the copious evidence page would conclude that there isn't a legitimate case here which the community is unable to resolve, which is exactly what arbcom is supposed to deal with. ‑ Iridescent 19:02, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

Sadly Iridescent I saw this case first erupt | on the ANI board when Arkon threw a tizzy fit over an April Fools joke ( Gamaliel's signpost edition clearly marked as an April Fools joke, mind you , about Donald Trump small hands ) Arkon argued with multiple admins about why this page was a BLP policy, edit warred to keep the report open | with this incivil edit summary directed towards the admin that was trying to close off his report . Further, there was no consensus to take any action against him. In the evidence page, Milowent | very preciesly laid out why this case is completely silly for arbcom and needs to be shut down also on the evidence page, the overwhelming consensus is THIS IS AN APRIL FOOLS JOKE. Everyone that's commented has referenced his April fools joke.This is, like I said, a user not getting his way on ANI and coming over here to get it done. The first filer mentioned nothing else but the April Fools joke, the second filer For the record, I'm aware being an arb is H A R D work, I've read Worm that turned's remarks about being an arb, so all the more reason why this case needs to be dismissed outright, it's an April Fool's joke, nothing more and Arbcom doesn't need the extra work, you have enough as is , and Wikipedia doesn't need the drama. Shut it down, it's the right thing to do. KoshVorlon 20:09, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

There's also some questions about just how far an April Fool's joke can go. I haven't been around long enough to know what happens most years, but if this year is any indication, the community is incredibly bad at knowing what's ok and what isn't. I assume this is not the only year people have gone overboard, given that I saw some posts on AN before April Fools warning people of the coming tide and during April Fools noting various blocks resulting from people acting like children. Does BLP apply to an April Fool's joke? Based on this case page, I doubt the community can answer that question. I hope that another editor couldn't write "BU Rob13 is a fascist pig. APRIL FOOLS!" on April 1 and expect that to fly. I'd similarly expect that they couldn't write "BU Rob13 is a litigious jerk with a weird body". Should that change when BU Rob13 is replaced with a politician? The obvious answer to me is "no", but a surprising portion of editors appear to disagree with me on that. As KoshVorlon mentioned above, interpretation of existing policy where the community is unable to figure things out is right within ArbCom's role. ~ Rob^Talk 19:29, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

I have been here quite a bit of time, and usually you hear vaguely of some kerfuffle or other over the stuff that comes that day, but I am almost certain that no one has ever repealed BLP for any reason, for any day. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 20:04, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

Well that depends. Is your body, in fact, weird? And are their reliable sources that can attest to it? :P The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 20:13, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

KoshVorlon, to repeat, will you please read the actual evidence rather than making things up? "Gamaliel's signpost edition clearly marked as an April Fools joke, mind you , about Donald Trump small hands" is demonstrably untrue; This is what the page in question looked like throughout April 1, and at no point was it "clearly marked as an April Fools joke" (indeed, note that it was dated 17 March 2010, not April 1 2016). The BLP issue is "threatens to sue", not "small hands". ‑ Iridescent 20:15, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

Uh... "making things up "? Think you should strike that, Iridescent , the | page in question was marked as humorous! Further , I included links showing that what I mentioned did exist. Once again, this was an April fools joke, nothing more, nothing worthy of an Arbcom case. KoshVorlon 20:28, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

The humor tag was added on April 3, well after the initial raft questionable admin choices that are under review here. The focus is the actions taken by a sitting ArbCom member to "double down" to retain a questionable page when BLP were brought up, not whether the original post was an appropriately posted April Fool's joke. --MASEM (t) 20:48, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

I think that one of the problems here is that the main April Fools' article (which was intended as a spoof of Jimbo by pairing him with Trump, though that was missed by most readers) has been conflated with the "fake" sidebar articles and the subsequent things that happened. On this one, I think KoshVorlon makes a good point that there exists an actual set of April Fools' Day guidelines, and that this whole incident did not take place in article space. The BLP policy is not in question here, the use of sysop tools in the midst of a discussion of whether something was or was not a BLP issue is in question here. Milowent was valiant in trying to cool things down. There are also some "personalities" and peripheral issues not related to the article(s) involved as well, though ArbCom seems unclear as to how that applies other than to name them as parties to the case. Montanabw^(talk) 22:14, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

There's no question that this is not the strongest case in the world. I was originally interested because of my concern about April Fool's Day jokes generally, but then I was off-wiki and couldn't focus on this case, and as noted there are guidelines. This is mainly about a marginal situation involving possible abuse of administrator tools. There is also a lot of backstory and static. The community seems to be fixed on unfunny jokes every year, and this is what results. Coretheapple (talk) 22:32, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

The case request phase ended a month ago. The evidence phase ended a couple weeks ago. The workshop, about a week. While I understand the "it's just a joke" POV, I happen to not agree with it, for the reasons previously stated; and it seems to all the discussion here was already done on the various case pages. Rehashing the arguments doesn't really add value. I also never understood the concept that saying "It was a BLP violation because <really awesome reasons>" is considered less efficacious than IT'S A BLP? Is one of the arbitrators gonna to say, "Well, I was pretty sure the Ent was full of crap, but since his words are big and bold, they must be right!" Seems unlikely. Also, not sure what goal could be achieved here? Is the expectation that, due to this thread, we'll get a proposed decision that goes

• Principles Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy.
• Finding of fact The committee totally messed up by accepting this case, and wasted a lot of editor's time.
• Remedy We're really, really sorry.

Ya'll know that's not going to happen, right? NE Ent 01:55, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

• What is the next step in this saga? The matter is submitted to the tribunal and we are simply awaiting a proposed decision? Is there insight into the deliberations (I assume not)? Like the closing of any ANI thread of similar infighting, could they just issue an order saying "There's nothing to do here. Everyone should be ashamed of themselves, go forth and try to be nicer to each other. And also, we apologize deeply to Donald Trump on behalf of all of Wikipedia."--Milowent • ^hasspoken 14:02, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

I agree with your summation Milowent, well , ok, except for the last sentence. I think it would be a great idea! KoshVorlon 14:21, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

There is a "court case" because nobody is going to issue "48 hour block for edit warring and casting aspersions" to an Arbcom member then things start getting nasty. Situation either dies down on its own or keeps escalating until reaching all the way to Arbcom case.--Staberinde (talk) 15:57, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

There is a "court case" because nobody is going to issue "48 hour block for edit warring and casting aspersions" to an Arbcom member or, I would add, an administrator. When are we going to let go of the fiction that there aren't two classes of users? Coretheapple (talk) 17:54, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

It's not a court case, it's an arbcom case. No one will go to jail, be fined, or lose any significant liberties. NE Ent 21:51, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

• The next step in the arbcom case is the proposed decision will be posted sometimes on or after the estimated date (currently 23 May). Then wiki volunteers can analyze the proposals and either make cogent arguments as to why committee members should vote for or against particular items or rant pointlessly. NE Ent 21:51, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

April Fool's Day used to be limited to a funny but accurate and truthful appearance of a somewhat unbelievable entry in WP:TFA. Wikipedia:Today's featured article/April 1, 2007 and so on. And maybe a few random spurious deletion requests of highly notable articles, but not a whole WP space circus. I miss those days.  — Amakuru (talk) 19:36, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

That's actually funny. Perhaps it should be repeated every year, and ditch all the other weak and sophomoric attempts at humor. Such as a certain editor closing out an ANI as a "joke."[25] Really stupid. Right, User:NE Ent? Coretheapple (talk) 01:05, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

This case was indeed an overreaction that should probably not have been filed or accepted. As I know as well as anyone, the effect of accepting an arbitration case arising from an isolated, rather than recurring, situation is often to prolong the tensions and disharmony created by an incident that would otherwise, by this point, have been filed in the "lessons learned" department and forgotten. (The legitimate response to this is that the lessons hadn't been learned, but in reality I doubt that after the days of controversy, anyone would have done something like this again.) As for keeping April Fools Day in perspective, everything there is to say about that was posted in rhymed octets eight years ago. Newyorkbrad (talk) 23:26, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

Newyorkbrad what lessons, and who were they learned by? NE Ent 02:07, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

Whatever the lesson, we can only hope it is not that statements about LPs are exempt from BLP, nor that there is a policy inimical "joke defense" erected by fiat into BLP, nor that some minor statement on rules for fools is read to either say what it does not say (that BLP is repealed for a day), nor that given the usual understanding as between policy (BLP) and alleged inconsistency with some minor 'fool rule', the minor rule is free not to conform to policy.

NYB's linked lyric (which I quite like by the way, NYB, so thanks) speaks in support of restraint, which is good in that BLP also is in support of restraint. So, perhaps that's one of the lessons: when restraint is not shown, a tendency to blow-up occurs. And when the lack of restraint is compounded, it really blows-up. (Surely, it would have been nice, if it could have been handled with as lyric suggests, a word of reprove, but for whatever reason that did not happen, heretofore. It still may.) -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 13:01, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

As a side matter, NYB has more experience, but ever since I was dragged into an arb case unwillingly, years ago, and started then watching its cases, I have never seen one where some form of 'let's just move on' has not been argued. It's practically de rigueur in every case. Alanscottwalker (talk) 13:31, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

• I too agree this is a ridiculous case that should never have been accepted. I put my views forward at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Gamaliel_and_others/Evidence#Time_to_put_this_charade_to_bed for anyone interested. There's no point in repeating them really. --Jules (Mrjulesd) 14:52, 21 May 2016 (UTC)
• I think the problem with the "lessons learned" question is that the ArbCom case really wasn't about the actual April Fools' article, it was about the peripheral issues. As Upton Sinclair once said about The Jungle, "I was aiming at the heart of Americans and inadvertently hit the stomach." That is, essentially what happened here. The piece aimed at Jimbo and hit Trump (it also was, so some extent, chum that hit other issues unrelated to the actual article). I do think there are some "lessons clarified" issues, though:

1. The Signpost maintains a certain degree of independence as it is a newsletter and not a part of article space.
2. Notwithstanding #1, it is, nonetheless, subject to the overall policies of Wikipedia, including WP:BLP.
3. The Signpost piece itself did not contain BLP violations as it clearly fit Wikipedia:Rules for Fools. That said, raising and discussing the question was a legitimate inquiry.
4. Notwithstanding #3, the fake sidebar "articles" raised separate BLP questions that were legitimate topics of discussion.
5. In the future, it is well-advised not to whip up an April Fools' parody at the last minute with a deadline looming.
6. In the future, discretion is the better part of valor, and hence it is wise to avoid real-life religion or politics in a satirical piece in the in-house newsletter due to the high potential for misunderstandings.
7. When there are other agendas out there (some hidden, some not), certain editors may perfectly understand the situation, but still choose to engage in false disbelief to make a WP:POINT, and in doing so distract everyone from the actual problem, whatever it was.
8. ArbCom doesn't need to accept every case when a solution through ANI was perfectly capable of being developed.

Maybe this list isn't adequately comprehensive, but given that we are where we are, I think it's a start. Montanabw^(talk) 19:52, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

A good list, but keep in mind that the ANI discussion was closed out with a cynical if correct comment that there was unlikely to be action taken against a sitting arb. That points to a systemic issue of double standards, which is beyond arbcom's power and pretty much a given. Coretheapple (talk) 11:46, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

What is the basis for the claim in point 3 that Wikipedia:Rules for Fools is somehow a "safe-haven" from WP:BLP? The "Rules" do not say that, at all (the closest they come to addressing anything kind of near that is to reference WP:Civility, as important for Fools), and even if the Rules did explicitly dispense with WP:BLP as the rules are not policy, they would fail. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 11:59, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

• • If we would just get rid of all allowances for April Fools, none of this would be a problem. It has been a very, very long time since I've seen anything moderately amusing happen here on April 1. Typically, I log out as I don't want to have to clean up the mess over a day I think we tolerate way too much. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 13:11, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

Looks like we have consensus that this case is useless and should never have been accepted to begin with. Ordinarily I'd call for a close, however , since this is Arbcom and not the ANI board it's obvious that no one, except an Arb can close it, so how about it arbs, close the case out, it failed at ANI, consensus shows this is a case that shouldn't have been accepted, the accused has multiple adversries that would love to see him silenced, so this is their attempt at "Throwing anything against the wall to see what sticks", heck he even followed the rules for fools, so there's no way he should be at Arbcom. Do the right thing and close it out as being an April fools joke, which is just what it was! KoshVorlon 15:43, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

You do know how Arbcom works, right? They have no discretion to just close a case unilaterally (and if they tried, particularly in a case relating to one of their own members, they'd rightly be ridden out of town on a rail); if they want to close the case with no action, it needs to be proposed and voted on as an option at the PD so people can see their reasoning in so doing. ‑ Iridescent 17:55, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

Actually, Iridescent, yes I do. The Arbs vote and close cases based on the consensus of their vote (that's a rather simplified way of stating it, of course, but none the less true ). If they close the case down they're still Arbs to the end of their term, AND they'd be doing the right thing. KoshVorlon 18:41, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

Given the proposed decision that's been posted for a few days now and is being voted on, a discussion about whether the arbitrators might have closed the case without a formal decision seems pretty much moot now. Newyorkbrad (talk) 18:43, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

I miss Gamaliel's voice on Wikipedia and the vitality he has brought to The Signpost. This case is a damn shame. Vesuvius Dogg (talk) 22:56, 24 May 2016 (UTC)