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

Statement by Milowent
LOL. This is horseshit. And certainly not worthy of an arbitration. Here is the atrocity committed by Gamaliel -. A minor reference to the "small hands" story about Trump that's been around for 20 years, in a sidebar to an April Fool's Day article about Jimmy Wales being named as Trump's vice-presidential nominee. Arkon started the ANI thread, yet jokingly referred to Trump as "his hairness" at one time in response to me. I fainted at this BLP atrocity, of course. Gamaliel has indicated he wouldn't repeat the joke and didn't intend any harm. NE Ent's talk page say he is on a wikibreak. If he broke his break to request this arbitration, I say he returned too soon.--Milowent • hasspoken 00:52, 11 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Addition: It should be noted that while this has been pending, Gawker has published an article titled What Is Wikipedia Hiding About Donald Trump's Tiny Shrimp Fingers?. This focus is on Articles for deletion/Short-Fingered Vulgarian, which is available for the public to view in all its glory, and the Gawker article quotes a particularly vicious paragraph of the now deleted article, which was available for the public for an entire week while we kvetched over Gamaliel's contentless and deleted infraction.--Milowent • hasspoken  20:28, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Final Addition: If this case is taken, by God, please don't use the perfectly-trolled title "BLP and the American Politician". Donald Trump has never held political office.  I would suggest "BLP, An April Fools' Joke On The Signpost Based On a 30-Year Old Joke, Edit Wars Over The Joke, And If Anyone Mentions Gamergate You're Permabanned."  This is not an arbitration about nobler causes or completely-fabricated "noble causes" like Gamergate --  it is about pettiness all around.--Milowent • hasspoken  20:37, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

Statement by The Master
There seems some debate regarding whether or not the initial problem/joke/template was a BLP violation, but according to our own policies, it is. From there we come to two questions: 1) was the initial concern a "real big deal" and 2) does the response (and long-term pattern of behavior) warrant attention? My viewpoint is that all of this could have easily been avoided if the (somewhat mild) BLP violation had been allowed to be deleted. Instead, speedies were declined twice and a contentious AfD ensued. Gamaliel's behavior at that AfD, and elsewhere in regards to this debacle, was WP:POINTy, passive-aggressive, and argumentative, and he spent way too much time talking (rudely) when he should have been listening. As a result, the issue escalated to a ridiculous degree. Administrators and ESPECIALLY arbs should conduct themselves in a mature, patient, and responsible manner: the community holds them to a higher standard and they should behave accordingly. The excuse "but he started it" is unacceptable should it be trotted out here. Gamaliel's behavior throughout this episode was irresponsible, un-arb-like and brings into question why the community should trust such a person in a representative role. ArbCom should accept this case to deal with these concerning behavioral issues. The Master ---)Vote Saxon(--- 01:28, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

Statement by Alanscottwalker
Reading that AN/I is just, wow. So, can you just layout the diffs of who did what (particularly with tools, involved actions, problematic attacks or with edit warring over BLP material)?

Well, it's still hard to follow. Was there any tool use that is being complained of and did Gamaliel edit war over BLP material? What's the page protection issue complained of and how does it relate? What are the close or closes complained of and how does it relate? Alanscottwalker (talk) 01:29, 11 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Statement by Alanscottwalker

[Living person] sues Wikipedia over [alleged insult]

That does raise a colorable BLP issue; think of all the ways that joke can fail, in multiple possible permutations.

But that's not really the BLP policy problem here, somewhat contra, the actual principled position is to follow BLP process when a BLP issue is flagged -- (other not flagged issues cannot be ascribed to bad faith or hypocrisy, but rather lack of attention or multiple other reasons beside bad faith or hypocrisy). BLP recognizes that it matters very little if something is removed or blanked for a (probably brief) time until a positive consensus that it is BLP compliant is reached. And that appears to be the central or core failure here, if everyone would have realized that perhaps it matters very little, none of the following nastiness (as several have called it) would have occurred.

That said, the rest of what says makes sense. I urge the committee to adopt his proposal in substance, precisely because Wikipedia follows process to avoid nastiness over silly things and it just cannot be escaped that this is an arbitrator:



, you know better than this,(etc.''). You are better than this. Get it together, and lead by example.''

-- Alanscottwalker (talk) 13:55, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

Now that we have Gamaliel's apparent accusations of hounding, and whatever relationship that has to poor decisions (viz., focus on substance, not the editor, and hounding should not go on and should be stopped) or claims of relative importance of protecting the Signpost with regard to Wikipedia policy, etc. - we probably do need a case (User:Kelapstick is right). May it be that it results in no more than strong admonishments (as needed), but whatever the future holds, it should not be to send these by now protracted failures to fester somewhere else. (To do this, best, you will probably need to expand the party list). Alanscottwalker (talk) 13:48, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

Statement by Carrite
What we have here is a case of sophomoric juvenile hijinks, not a BLP violation. The questions to be asked are (a) what a sitting Arb approaching middle age is doing engaging in puerile hijinks; (b) whether it is advisable for an Arb to be playing a leading role in the Signpost, which is at least in some measure a check and balance upon Arbitrator action; (c) what a second Arb is doing closing an AN/I complaint against a first Arb. Deeper existential questions about whether the institution of ArbCom has outlived its usefulness might also be appropriate. A case here is not. Decline this. Resign from one or the other, Gamaliel. Carrite (talk) 01:34, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

Statement by Iridescent
For probably the first time in my life, I agree with every word Carrite says. This is not a decision Arbcom can make, since it's a question of ethics rather than policy, but it's extremely bad practice for a serving arb to have a position of authority at the Signpost, particularly when they're using that position to make at-best-feeble attempts at comedy in Wikipedia's most public internal forum. Please, consider resigning from one or the other. &#8209; Iridescent 01:50, 11 April 2016 (UTC) Clerks, if this case is accepted my posting here does not mean I want you listing me as a party or participant in it, nor does it mean I want you spamming my talkpage for the next three months. I've no idea where this recent "everyone who posts gets dragged into the case" mindset has come from, but can it please go back there; I'm sure everyone posting here is already aware of what the large "watchlist this page" button does.


 * @Drmies, per my previous comments I think Gamaliel should either resign as E-in-C of the Signpost, or resign from Arbcom, as the two positions are fundamentally incompatible; my preference would be for the latter, as it's fairly clear from the ANI discussion and this page that he's lost the confidence of a substantial swathe of the editor base, and despite the attempts by his supporters to paint those not 100% supportive of him as members of a vast right-wing conspiracy it's very evident that the loss of confidence is among people across the political spectrum (unless you're willing to believe that the owner of www.marxisthistory.org is a closet Trump fan, or that people from the other side of the planet have strong opinions about the internal politics of the US Republican Party). The sole reason I don't think Arbcom should take the case is that I see this as a question of ethics rather than of the determination of the formal interpretation of policy, and as such I consider it out of the scope of WP:ARBPOL; if the majority of the committee feel that either the initial joke or the subsequent wheel-warring falls under serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve, I'd urge you to accept the case if he fails to step down of his own accord. (28bytes was kicked out, or at least jumped-before-pushed, for considerably less than this.) &#8209; Iridescent 20:01, 11 April 2016 (UTC)


 * @Callanecc Stricken "wheel-warring" from the above; I thought the edit-warring to readd the text was reverting through protection, but it's a different incarnation of the joke page which Gamaliel protected on which he only performed one revert; bad practice, but not actual wheel-warring by the (intentionally specific) wording of the policy. &#8209; Iridescent 02:03, 12 April 2016 (UTC)


 * @DeltaQuad, if there is consensus to take action against an Arbitrator, that the community do it is a fine principle in theory, but completely impractical (and I can say with absolute certainty that Arbcom certainly has form for taking action against its own members when it feels the need). The nearest precedent I can think of for the current situation—"sitting arb does something dumb, people fail to agree whether (1) it constituted an actionable breach of policy, (2) nothing formally actionable took place but the action was goofy enough that people have lost confidence in said arb's judgement or (3) it was just goofing around and within acceptable limits and no action should be taken"—and the decision was passed to "the community" to decide was this absolute mess. Per my comments above, I don't personally believe Gamaliel has done anything rising to the level of needing a formal case rather than a quick "Gamaliel is urged to stop acting so self-important, and consider that it's possible that those who have different viewpoints to his own aren't necessarily acting out of malice" motion and possibly some strong hints given via backchannels to Gamaliel that he may wish to consider some time alone in the Floquenbeam & 28bytes Memorial Smoke Filled Room with the metaphorical loaded revolver. But, if you (plural) feel that there's something actionable here but refuse to take the case and instead throw it back to a venue which has already concluded that no administrator is going to take action against a sitting member of ArbCom without explicit prior approval from ArbCom, that's not a dignified acquiescing to the will of the people, but an exercise in can-kicking, since you're passing the buck to a process which has already demonstrated it can't handle the nuances of this incident and will just degenerate into he-said-she-said. &#8209; Iridescent 17:12, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

Statement by SB_Johnny
Kirill Lokshin: Please explain why you are recusing. -- SB_Johnny &#124; talk✌ 02:57, 11 April 2016 (UTC)
 * I think undertanding the rationales for the recusals in this case would be good to have on the record. If it's simply a case of not wantint to sit in judgement of a close colleague, that's certainly understandable but it also points to a structural problem.
 * Drmies: Perhaps in the future it would be better if members of the committee didn't close discussions on AN/I or elsewhere which concern fellow members of the committee. The current committee has been very quick to pull the trigger on (arguably overly argumentative) contributors who don't share a certain viewpoint on "speech politics" that the majority of the committee seems to hold, in some cases without prior discussion and/or much explanation after the fact. Any admin who (rightly or wrongly) blocked Gamaliel after ANI or AE discussion would almost certainly become the focus of a case, if not a speedy desysop. -- SB_Johnny &#124; talk✌ 15:03, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Drmies: Agreed, it wasn't going anywhere (and/or needed to go here anyway for the desysop). On the other hand I doubt even a short-term block would have gone unscrutinized by the committee, and so even a good block would have brought endless hours of drama for anyone who stepped in to do it. The number of recuses points to the bias even further. -- SB_Johnny &#124; talk✌ 19:14, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

Statement by Kingsindian
I have given my own viewpoint in the ANI thread, but I'll repeat it here. This was not a BLP violation: the page was marked as humour and was part of an April Fools joke which nobody took seriously. So there is no question of misleading people or making false accusations about Trump. In either case, the article about Trump/Wales 2016 is still up, is that a BLP violation as well? The argument collapses under a minimal scrutiny.

The joke can be thought of as in poor taste: I found it in poor taste myself. However, taste is subjective, and the editorial processes of The Signpost are not a matter for ArbCom.

As I said in my comment earlier, Gamaliel did not do himself any favours by pretending that he did nothing wrong. He did technically abuse his admin tools (see Fram's evidence in the ANI thread), and engaged in pointy (same section, especially the creation of User:Gamaliel/Small_hands) and belligerent behaviour (edit-warring, stating that 90% of the people involved are because of Gamergate with no evidence at all, among other things). He has made some contrite statements here, referring to his losing his temper, though they mostly fall into a "non-apology apology" pattern.

I trust that the kerfuffle over this incident will be a strong enough deterrent, or if nothing else, will provide diffs in case of future misbehaviour. In either case, I see no point in making people grovel.

ArbCom should decline this case. Kingsindian &#9821; &#9818; 06:01, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

Statement by JzG
The tone of hysteria over this is somewhat worrying to me. The joke about the size of Trump's hands is well known all the way over the other side of the pond - I'm English and I am well aware that an editorial by the Washington Post prominently notes Trump's bizarre obsession with the accusation that he has short fingers. The genie has long since left the bottle and there's no way we're going to put it back in simply by not alluding to it in an obviously humorous context. I simply cannot see this as a BLP violation. This looks very much like a case of WP:CRYBLP. Guy (Help!) 10:22, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

Statement by Fram
While there probably isn't enough here for ArbCom to make a case from, the replies from Gamaliel, both here and earlier at ANI, are still very worrying and not what I expect from someone with his positions (I also think some of those defending him are partly to blame, e.g. the close by JzG or actions by MontanaBW, but these are certainly not aproaching ArbCom--investigation-level). Gamaliel's dismissal of everyone who criticized his actions, together with completely ignoring his own disputed actions (like thrice reclosing an ANI discussion about his own actions, using protection to win a dispute, removing a CSD tag from a page he created) and only "apologizing" for using the wrong technical solution, shows a serious lack of awareness of the problems with his actions and posts though. There may have been Gaermgate driven people among those who opposed him, I don't know (it was only clear that there was Gamergate-driven support for him, something he doesn't seem to have a problem with); I can only speak for myself, and my review of his actions was not driven by Gamergate, external fora, or any other dark force. I criticized his actions because they were wrong on many accounts. That he still doesn't see or accepts this and sees fit to dismiss all criticism ("We should do a better job of preventing those individuals from hijacking our processes so the serious editors can discuss their differences respectfully.") instead of truly acknowledging what he did wrong strongly suggests that he will do the exact same again would similar circumstances arise. Making mistakes, even in tool use, isn't a problem, we have all done this occasionally (well, at least I have); but one should be able to acknowledge and learn from these mistakes, not attack everyone who expressed concerns about them. Fram (talk) 12:32, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

(I have removed everything but my initial statement, since I far exceeded the max allowed length for statements here. I understand the reason for this max length, but on the other hand new circumstances and discussion made these extra sections necessary and useful. Oh well... Fram (talk) 11:13, 16 April 2016 (UTC) )

Statement by MONGO
I see arguments but no links to specific details as to what the infractions are. If BLP has been repeatly violated as claimed then links should be easily produced. If evidence in the way of links are provided, and they demonstrate violations, then at least an admonishment under American Politics 2 is in order.--MONGO 13:32, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

Hammersoft has pointed out (here) that Gamaliel has been aware of the American Politics 2 discretionary sanctions available since at least last fall. Looking over the diffs provided by Hammersoft, and in the unlikelihood that the community can resolve this, a case or admonishment in lieu of a case is in order.--MONGO 21:48, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

Statement by Arkon
I didn't want to even comment here, as I have to think I've made my positions clear in this situation (Linked in the MFD and AN/I) above. But I do find the continued casting of aspersions in Gamaliel's statement troubling. Who exactly are these gamergate boogeymen? If it's in response to why they reverted a blanking of a BLP violation multiple times (sorry can't diff this as the page is deleted now), reverted to a close that was not a summation of the discussion and contained a BLP vio itself multiple times here, here, and here. Then he must be referring to me, and I'd like him to substantiate such charges or strike. Arkon (talk) 14:21, 11 April 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm still waiting for a clarification, or redaction. @Clerks, any thoughts?  Arkon (talk) 21:25, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

Also it does appear the principles quoted in the opening of this request were obviously violated. Arkon (talk) 15:05, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

@Liz, there are an awful lot of "you's" in your comment, but they are not all actions by a single person. Arkon (talk) 00:52, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

Also, just to clarify maybe, I feel like many are focusing on the wrong aspect of the "prank". It claimed a living person was going to sue Wikipedia. Arkon (talk) 01:00, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

@Guerillero, I have to think you are well aware that a threat to sue wikipedia could hardly be 30 years old. I would also have to think that the links you give didn't say the same either. Arkon (talk) 21:29, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

Gamaliels latest post is a good example of the bad faith thinking that seems to be ruling their actions. It's a good backdrop to the original misdeeds in the MFD posted at the start of this. Where a question of "Am I missing something?" turned into what we have now. Arkon (talk) 01:37, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

Statement by MarkBernstein
Please proceed, Governor Arbitrators. MarkBernstein (talk) 14:36, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

Statement by Staberinde
Gamaliel's actions, as documented by Fram in the ANI thread, were definitely subpar for an admin. But while some kind of admonishment could be fitting, this incident alone is not really worthy of a full Arbcom case.--Staberinde (talk) 15:59, 11 April 2016 (UTC)
 * @Drmies, likelihood of more serious sanctions/rulings beyond a simple admonishment seems quite low, so it just does not seem worthy of time and effort for full case. If Arbcom could take a stance on this recent affair through smoother means, like motion or something, then I guess that could be worth considering. That said, previous statement applies only to the most recent BLP/ANI event, as I cannot comment on possible older problems, or lack thereof.--Staberinde (talk) 21:14, 11 April 2016 (UTC)
 * I would add that biggest issue here is not really about how serious BLP violation actually happened, it is about Gamaliel's actions then others started questioning it. No matter how awesome joke you made, it does not give you right to shut down discussion about it then other editors disagree. Some Gamergate stuff that keeps popping up looks a bit strange too. If case does get accepted, then it probably should be about Gamaliel's recent activities in general, and not just about that BLP-ANI incident.--Staberinde (talk) 21:25, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

Statement by Dennis Brown
I agree with most everything Iridescent said (excepting I agree with Carrite at least half the time). I have noticed a political bias on more than one occasion myself, and while we all have them, they are best kept under our hat as we are expected to be able to be neutral in spite of them, something Gamaliel is not particularly adept at. I would agree that serving on both Arb and the Signpost is a bad idea.

Make no mistake about it, this is a clear cut BLP violation, albeit not the worst we see here each day. That a number of people found it humorous is irrelevant, as "humor" is not an exception to our BLP policy. The community should be able to handle it, so a full case seems unnecessary. I also think ignoring it is a bad idea, so if no one else will, I will say it: Gamaliel, you need to put your own politics to the side when editing Wikipedia. This isn't the first instance I've seen, it is just the most public. Had someone done something similar to Hillary or Bernie (or whatever Democrat you are supporting this go around), I am betting your reaction would have been different. That is both bias and hypocrisy. If you can't grasp this and understand and suppress your own bias, you do not need to be serving as Arb. Dennis Brown - 2&cent; 17:39, 11 April 2016 (UTC)


 * If a case is accepted or a motion is created and it touches on Gamergate, I do think declaring Gamaleil "involved" in relation to Gamergate is the right call. I've asked for as much (and to be declared involved in regards to Mark Bernstein, who seems to only edit Gamergate articles) at the last AE.  This would prevent him acting as an uninvolved admin at AE on GG issues as well.  I don't claim malice, but he is simply not unbiased enough to admin these topics, whether he realizes it or not.  Dennis Brown - 2&cent; 13:51, 14 April 2016 (UTC)


 * , you say that Gamameil's status as to being involved with GG shouldn't be discussed here but at AE, yet I bought up that very point two days ago and you immediately closed the AE, destroying the opportunity for that very discussion. All you have to do is look through the AE archives to see Gamameil has always protected Mark and taken a singular side with GG issues in an administrative role.  Gamameil could simply declare he is too involved and we could move on but he hasn't.  The BLP issue could be handled by motion. If there is a full case, Gamameil can blame himself.  Dennis Brown - 2&cent; 09:46, 15 April 2016 (UTC)


 * , then we agree. Again,   has the power to make this a simple motion by publicly accepting a few simple things up front, such as WP:involvement when it comes to GG (and Mark) and a pledge to be more careful (or take a break) while he works at the Signpost and as an Arb at the same time.  I think he sort of understands the BLP implications already, although he doesn't see them as serious as many of us do.  I don't require he does.  We don't need another examination of GG as a whole nor a pint of blood; we need a simple solution so we can move forward and on to more pressing matters, like articles.  I've seen this scenario before, many times.  If a user will simply fess up to the mistake, offer a way forward, then a case becomes moot.  If not, then it gets broader and broader until they regret not being more generous up front.  Dennis Brown - 2&cent; 16:14, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

Statement by The ed17
What JzG/Guy said above, in full, with the exception of being English. I am not lucky enough to have that accent. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 20:06, 11 April 2016 (UTC)
 * I'd also like to endorse 's statement below, especially "it's hard for me to see this as motivated by any real concern for BLP. It looks more like a tactical deployment of weaponized policy." (emphasis mine) Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 18:56, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
 * And I'd like to third 's addition to his statement in the context of 's quote above. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 20:40, 13 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Noting that I blocked an obvious sockpuppet and removed their comments from this page. If that was in error, I invite clerks and/or arbs to revert me. Best, Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 01:26, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

Statement by uninvolved Hammersoft
I make no comment regarding any other person involved in this dispute. I do make the following observations with regards to Gamaliel, who as an administrator and ArbCom member is expected to hold to higher standards of conduct than others (WP:ADMIN,WP:ARBPOL). , so far the only non-recusing arbitrator, has asked why ArbCom should be accepting this case and what they are to accept. My response, as below, focuses on the conduct of Gamaliel. ArbCom has jurisdiction to handle behavioral conduct disputes, and as noted below the associated WP:AN/I thread has been closed noting the community can't do anything to sanction Gamaliel, being a member of ArbCom. Since apparently ArbCom is the only body that CAN do something, I submit the following:
 * 1) On a WP:AN/I thread involving Gamaliel, he reverted to close three times in 11 minutes  (updated to correct diffs) . He did not inform and/or warn Arkon, with whom he was edit warring, about 3RR. He just kept edit warring instead. He stopped at 3. WP:3RR is not a bright line. Gamaliel, as an administrator and ArbCom member knew better, and continued the edit war anyway. Worse, Gamaliel is directly involved in the dispute called out in the thread. This is not the first time Gamaliel has been involved in an edit war . There's simply no excuse for this behavior.
 * 2) Gamaliel apparently is more concerned about Signpost working than he is with WP:BLP policy . He posted that in response to User:Ryk72's post a few minutes earlier  which cited that policy.
 * 3) Gamaliel violated No_legal_threats policy with this diff. After being taken to task for it, he struck the comment.
 * 4) Gamaliel appears to have violated WP:RPA in this diff. The three responses from Arkon that he removed as personal attacks were directed at Gamaliel, which raises the bar for removal to "clear cut cases". While some of the content here is objectionable and violates civility, calling all three of these section removals together as a "clear cut case" is an extreme stretch. Again as an administrator and ArbCom member Gamaliel should have known better than to act in this manner, and could have asked for someone else to step in. He did not.
 * 5) According to reports (non-admins can not confirm), Gamaliel removed a speedy deletion tag from Wikipedia Signpost/2010-03-17/News and notes, a page created by Gamaliel (of course now deleted via an mfd). This violated Criteria for speedy deletion policy. Gamaliel was duly informed of the speedy tagging by User:Ryk72 with this diff. This notification was seen and deleted by Gamaliel . Gamaliel knows the policy on this, and breached it anyway.

Gamaliel appears to stand in violation of WP:3RR, WP:BLP, WP:NLT, WP:RPA and WP:CSD policies. His conduct in several of these instances would likely have resulted in blocks for "lesser" editors. But, as the closing administrator at the AN/I thread said "no administrator is going to take action against a sitting member of ArbCom", Gamaliel is being treated differently than non-ArbCom members simply because of his position. The community is paralyzed from doing anything to restrain Gamaliel's behavior.

I am reminded of a sitting ArbCom member violating _one_ policy, for which said member was "reminded". Given the then serious breach of WP:INVOLVED, this was the tiniest slap on the wrist possible, and was done only after ArbCom was taken to task over the issue by multiple people. Gamaliel violated no less than five policies here.

ArbCom would be seriously out of line should they fail to significantly sanction one of their own in this case, where there are multiple policy violations for which "lesser" editors would quite possibly have been blocked or even banned. Gamaliel has not been blocked by anyone because he's an ArbCom member. The community has turned it to ArbCom to do something about this. Failure by ArbCom here would effectively elevate ArbCom members to untouchables, and make a mockery of the efforts of the community. This is not a simple single lapse in judgment. This is a pattern of events showing a severe inability on the part of this ArbCom member to handle himself in accordance with our expectations.

In my opinion, Gamaliel should step down as an Arbitrator for showing extreme lack of good judgment and demonstrating an inability to sit in judgment of others. His actions to defend his Signpost article by removing the speedy tag, edit warring with someone he was in dispute with, refusing to acknowledge BLP issues and worse restoring BLP violations against policy, making legal accusations against another member of the community, and intentionally removing comments directed at him show a shocking inability to recognize the serious deleterious and central role he has played in this dispute. His displayed lack of good judgment would prohibit him from passing RfA, or indeed most permission requests, much less sit on ArbCom. The community expects and demands better. --Hammersoft (talk) 20:34, 11 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Just to be clear; I'm not stating that Gamaliel made a legal threat. He made a legal accusation. There's a distinct difference. Nevertheless, both violate policy. A threat usually involves an immediate block. An accusation is usually considered disruptive, and if repeated results in a block. The particular passage of policy he violated was this: No_legal_threats. --Hammersoft (talk) 01:05, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Well, now that this is headed to decline, ArbCom has lifted a collective middle finger to the community. They've set precedent that ArbCom members are above policy, can do as they like, without fear of being blocked either by the community (who, as previously noted, won't do anything to ArbCom members) and without fear of even so much as being admonished by ArbCom itself. Given this, it's high time we modify Blocking policy to note that ArbCom members may not be blocked. I am absolutely gobsmacked at this behavior by ArbCom. As I noted above, several of the things that Gamaliel has done would have gotten any of us less equal pigs a ban from the site. If ArbCom can not even police its own, they have lost all credibility.
 * To address the declining arbitrators in particular;
 * Ah, ok. If one is contrite then one can do as they like, even when they are obligated to hold to two different standards of conduct that are more stringent than for regular editors? The issue here hasn't been resolved. Gamaliel broke at least five policies, and remains adamant on much of it that he was not in the wrong. Where does this stop? Apparently nowhere.
 * This series of events happened a week after April Fool's Day. I suppose this means that if I make up some joke in July and break at least five policies trying to keep the joke alive, I can defend myself and prevent being kicked off Wikipedia by saying "Oh it's just an April Fool's!"?
 * Right. So, if a person is elected to ArbCom then any prior activity on their parts is beyond review and can not be used in support of any case against them. I see.
 * I thought Gamaliel's behavior was shocking. ArbCom's is beyond the pale. What does an ArbCom member have to do to actually face sanction? What message does ArbCom think they are sending the community by refusing to do anything when one of their members runs seriously amok of policy and community expectations? Collectively, you guys have just jumped every shark that's ever lived, and are now dining at the cafe of willful ignorance. How does ArbCom actually think Gamaliel can execute his office and support sanctions against editors in cases when Gamaliel himself willfully violates the very policies he's required to uphold? Nevermind, we the community are expected to believe there's nothing to see here, nothing to act on, this is just business as usual. Dear community, please bend over and take your medicine. In absolute disgust, --Hammersoft (talk) 13:27, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
 * I concur with Iridescent's comments here. Referring this back to the community would indeed just be kicking a can that's already been kicked. There are really only two choices here; (1) ArbCom decides if a sitting arbitrator and administrator's actions in violation of their codes of conduct for both positions and in violation of half dozen or more policies are actionable. (1)(a) if not actionable, why any editor should feel bound by the same policies when Gamaliel clearly would not be. (1)(b) if actionable, then accept a case or decide by motion, since returning it to the community is clearly kicking the can again. (2) ArbCom decides, given my "ArbCom can't handle this" section below, they can not sit in judgment of one of their own, in which case the can is kicked to the Foundation and/or Jimbo Wales. --Hammersoft (talk) 17:34, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Really? We're going to assert that Signpost can violate WP:BLP (whether they did so here or not is not relevant to this point) because they are protected under the First Amendment? Our WP:BLP policy certainly claims to have jurisdiction over Signpost. Understand something here; this community is free to do as it will to modify or remove content on Signpost. Signpost does not enjoy protections under the First Amendment to prevent the community from doing this. Any editor, even if they have never contributed one thing to Signpost, is free to edit the content on its pages. I understand your intent with what you say here; that we allow some liberty for Signpost. But, we are crossing the line in extreme if we say Signpost is somehow outside the remit of policies and guidelines because of the First Amendment. Any policy or guideline that applies outside of article space also applies to Signpost. Signpost trying to claim these guidelines do not apply to them fails on first scrutiny. Regardless of how much time and effort they put into it, they do not own their content. Also understand that Signpost is NOT independent of Wikipedia; its publishing medium IS through Wikipedia. If instead they hosted all of their content and development off site, then they would be independent. Perhaps we should begin considering moving Signpost off of Wikipedia entirely. --Hammersoft (talk) 16:46, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

I've created an example talk page of the warnings a regular editor probably would have received given Gamaliel's conduct. We routinely ban people from the project under WP:NOTHERE. I am quite confident that a large number of administrators, on encountering this example talk page and seeing the editor's conduct, would likely have banned Gamaliel from the project. We did in this case after less warning. We did in this case after less warning. We did in this case with less warning. Yet, in this case with Gamaliel he received not even a single warning.

Why do you suppose he received no warnings? I'll tell you. He's a long time contributor, an administrator held to higher standards, and a member of ArbCom held to yet another set of higher standards. He blatantly knew better. Despite this, he deliberately and flagrantly violated a large number of policies over the span of a week, and not just in an isolated, one off edit. Assuming the case does not get accepted (and at this point it is not likely it will be), Gamaliel will walk away from this without so much as a level 1 warning. --Hammersoft (talk) 15:07, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

Given the assertions there's been abuse of REVDEL privileges, abuse of other admin tools and WP:INVOLVED, violation of at least six different Wikipedia policies, it is hard to imagine a case not being accepted. Yet, here we are. Given ArbCom's apparent intent so far to not accept this case, treating it as a trivial April Fool's joke (when the case clearly extends far beyond that issue), given that 1/4th of ArbCom and 1/3rd of its clerks have recused itself from this case, it is becoming apparent that not only is the community not able to sanction a member of ArbCom, neither is ArbCom itself. Several members of ArbCom have stated they are not above community sanction, yet are unwilling or incapable of seeing the egregious conduct and policy violations made by Gamaliel. I concur with Hasteur's statement below. Even if a case regarding Gamaliel's conduct is accepted, it is unlikely that ArbCom will be able to appropriately handle this case. It is time for ArbCom to step aside and let people with a dispassionate and uninvolved perspective handle this. --Hammersoft (talk) 15:07, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

Statement by Yngvadottir
This needs examination and action under BLP and under the discretionary sanctions authorized in American politics 2, and also because the AN/I case kicked the can down the street to ArbCom, at least in part because of a feeling that only ArbCom can judge the behavior of one of its own. (I'm unable to provide diffs because the fake page and the userbox that Gamaliel later created and protected have both been deleted; so I rely on the accounts at AN/I by, here, and , e.g.: here and the following exchange.) But there is no "just a joke" or "just the Signpost" or even "I don't like this person" or even "April Fool's Day" exemption from BLP, let alone an "admins and Arbs behaving badly" exemption. Even if there were an April Fool's Day exemption, that is one day. The fake page was not even MfD'd until April 6. It was previously CSD'd multiple times, with Gamaliel adding the policy breach of removing the CSD tag himself to the fundamental policy breach of the BLP violation. Even if there were a Signpost or an admin and arb policy exemption—and we know "vested contributor" exemptions are unpopular—the succession of actions by Gamaliel was beyond the pale. He was called on it, his actions were reverted, the page was deleted, and he didn't stop; he quibbled about it. Like others I suggest this demonstrates he cannot act responsibly as editor of the Signpost; in fact his actions fall well below what we expect of an admin, let alone an arb. In any case, BLP is vital, it applies to every page here, and the whole point is that it doesn't matter who the living person is. Numerous blocks are handed out every day for failure to accept this policy. Anyone who cannot remain neutral on a topic—particularly when that topic is a person—has no business doing any but the most obvious housekeeping edits on that topic. If Gamaliel can't control himself without a topic ban, the committee should impose one as a minimum sanction; I would like a recall vote. At a minimum the committee should take the case to show that we mean it with BLP, that the committee meant it with American politics 2, and that adminship carries an expectation of a higher standard of behavior, not a license to cock a snook at the community while mocking living people within an encyclopedia that must strive to be neutral or it's just another group blog.

With my remaining words. I recently noticed the talk page. Gamaliel's friends may inadvertently be doing him a disservice, here and there. This case is not about Gamergate, the insinuation that only "Gamergaters" might find fault with anything Gamaliel does is dismaying, and an administrator and arbitrator worthy of the positions they hold is to be presumed capable of following policy—including civility toward fellow editors. They should need no special pleading and no breaches of recusal. Yngvadottir (talk) 12:32, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

Statement by MastCell
While this particular joke wasn't funny, making a federal BLP case out of it is exceedingly dumb. (Most of the people advocating a case here are not dumb, of course, but seem to have taken temporary leave of their common sense or sense of perspective). It makes no sense to apply Wikipedia policy to April Fool's Day jokes, since they are, by definition, not intended to be verifiable or true. I think our whole approach to April Fool's Day is silly, juvenile, and (worst of all) unfunny, but to single this particular joke out for condemnation as if were somehow beyond the Pale makes all of you look very silly.

This is hardly the most hurtful or offensive April Fool's joke of the year, so the amount of wikidrama and sanctimony seems excessive. By way of illlustration, let's look at a few other untruths about living people that appeared on Wikipedia, in projectspace, on April Fool's Day. To highlight the idiocy of this case request, let's further confine ourselves only to untruths about Donald Trump:
 * An editor described Trump as "a pumpkin topped with a dead badger", and for good measure stated that Ted Cruz was "a serial killer".
 * Donald Trump presidential campaign, 2016 was nominated for deletion: "Obvious hoax. Is clear subject of article has no intention to be president, and is merely running to troll the entire country."
 * Donald Trump was nominated for deletion. Commenters stated that Trump had a "poor command of the English language", was a "complete idiot [who] doesn't deserve the Presidency much less a Wikipedia article", and repeatedly mocked his hair.

Most, if not all, of those items are more offensive than repeating a well-worn innuendo about the size of Trump's hands. But yet no torches and pitchforks. Why is that? I can think of a few predictable justifications:
 * It was in The Signpost! Yebbut no one, outside the usual Wikipedia bubble of about 30-40 hardcore editors, reads the Signpost.
 * Gamaliel is an Arb!! OK, fair enough, he should know better... maybe. But the community clearly endorses and tolerates this sort of thing on April Fool's Day, so he could be forgiven for not seeing his joke as outside of Wikipedian cultural norms.
 * But he edit-warred/wheel-warred/etc! True (I think; the evidence in this case is a complete mess), but that's sort of like impeaching Bill Clinton for perjury. What Gamaliel did wasn't admirable, but I'm inclined to cut him some slack because the people out for his blood seem misguided, myopic, and/or hypocritical.

Unless and until I see people taking a principled, sanctimonious BLP stance against all April Fool's jokes involving living people (or even all jokes involving Donald Trump, FFS), it's hard for me to see this as motivated by any real concern for BLP. It looks more like a tactical deployment of weaponized policy. MastCell Talk 21:56, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

Statement by MrX
has more or less articulated my own thoughts about the series of events triggered by Gamaliel's joke, except that I don't regard the comment about libel as a legal threat. The April Fools gag, while not very funny, certainly did not cause harm to a living person. In the context it was made, it's hardly a BLP violation. That said, it is in poor taste. When so many editors tip toe around political articles in fear of discretionary sanctions, while trying to keep their own biases in check, seeing a member of enwiki's highest authority breach the standards of conduct in this way is slap in the face. It furthers the perception that admins and Arbs can do whatever they like with impunity.

I watched the ANI discussion painfully unfold, while mutual trust and respect disintegrated. However, I don't think a full Arbcom case is needed because this seems to be an isolated incident and there is no reason to expect that Gamaliel will go amok again. I do think he should step down from Arbcom though, as he has aptly shown that he doesn't possess the bearing for such a serious role and has lost at least some of the trust, of several users, including myself. I genuinely like Gamaliel and think he is a huge asset to Wikipedia, but I'm sorry, I can no longer support him in this role.- MrX 23:34, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

Statement by Jytdog
To be clear, the proposal as brought is focused squarely on a possible BLP violation by Gamaliel. Examining that, this is ridiculous as we are talking about Signpost and something that was clearly satire. We would be having a different conversation if this had unfolded in the encyclopedia. I urge the committee to decline. Jytdog (talk) 00:03, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
 * I am pretty surprised that this is being accepted; especially leaning on Fram's statement which pretty much says this is a molehill, and ignoring Mastcell's and now Sarah's comments about "weaponized policy". Is the committee just wanting to not look like it is protecting its own here?  The case that was brought has no grounds.  Yes Gamaliel could have acted better in all the following mess (as everyone has noted) caused by the fake BLP warriors (again as pointed out by MastCell).   I urge the Arbs to pivot and decline.. Jytdog (talk) 05:51, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

Statement by John Carter
I really don't see this as rising to the level of needing ArbCom attention, except perhaps only if the ArbCom decides that some sort of clear indicator of what sort of political humor is acceptable or how to possibly enact disciplinary action against an Arb for either poor judgment or other misconduct. Trump is a living person, I guess, depending on how you define the terms, and jokes about his hands which have been presented in the media, unless clearly repeated here in a way which makes it abundantly clear that they are jokes, do not belong here anywhere. I am no fan of Trump myself - far from it. I have a relative in the New York financial sector who has said several things about Trump over the years, most of which I can't repeat here because of various guidelines and policies regarding civility and the like. So I won't, and will confine myself to saying that I hope someone else wins the nomination. Anyone else - I don't care, maybe even this guy. But using any aspect of wikipedia in a way which others might see as being "in wikipedia's voice," to, perhaps, promote a political agenda or candidate is unacceptable, particularly in an election year regarding a highly controversial candidate.

If the committee finds that there are no pressing issues regarding either possible disciplinary action against an Arb, in this case Gamaliel, or a need for a clear indication of where the line of humor is crossed in issues regarding BLP and active politicians in particular, though, I think this could probably be handled elsewhere. John Carter (talk) 00:36, 12 April 2016 (UTC)


 * P. S. Cirt expresses a comment below, I think reasonably, that the Signpost is officially independent of wikipedia. Even if it is published on the wikipedia website and is more or less basically a "house journal" of wikipedia. Indicating whether the committee believes that gives it or any similar sources a status perhaps similar to user talk pages or similar might be useful. John Carter (talk) 15:54, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

Statement by Liz
Just a question. If the association of Donald Trump with a joke about small hands is a BLP violation, isn't this whole complaint (as well as prolonged discussion on ANI) a violation of BLP to a much greater degree than the original April Fools joke? I mean, this whole issue would have been quickly forgotten but instead the Trump/small hand association doesn't die, it gets repeated and explained ad nauseum.

I would think if an editor found this joke offensive, you would let it die a quick death instead of prolonging the discussion, dissecting it, repeating over and over again as is done in this complaint and which will be done to an excessive degree if this is actually accepted as a case. If this association is a BLP violation, you are taking a molehill and building it into a mountain covered with flashing billboards. You moved the reference from a weekly Signpost page and put it right on ANI and Arbitration request page, where so many more people would see it. I would think "not letting the Trump/small hands joke die" would be the last thing that editors upset by the joke would want. Your repeating the joke over and over again is worse than the original joke because you are claiming it's offensive yet repeating it. And I didn't automatically associate small hands with penis size as I am a woman with small hands and I'm proud of them.

Any way, the reference to small hands isn't about penis size, it's a reference to how obsessed Trump is with the claim he has small hands. Whether he has small hands or not is irrelevant. And now I'm guilty of a BLP violation as well!

Statement by Cryptic
The ANI closes and reopenings (including diffs modifying closes for completeness):                  I'm pretty sure that's all of them. —Cryptic 01:01, 12 April 2016 (UTC) Clerks: I know how the "watch this page" button works, too. Don't add me to the lists.

Statement by Euryalus
Resolve via a motion of admonishment. Callanecc gives a good summary of the issues below, and a full case is not likely to add anything to that list. The following are irrelevant to the case request: Gamaliel being an Arbitrator, Gamaliel being a Signpost editor, Gamaliel being an arbitrator and Signpost editor at the same time, and who anyone supports in the US elections. The following are relevant: an admin engaged in a low-level edit-war, low-level restoration of BLP-violating material and an unwise use of tools to protect the BLP concern in their own userspace. Also not dropping the stick, when stick-dropping might have been worthwhile. It's just another (slightly grumpy) day in the office - the Committee should pass a motion saying "Hmm. Please don't do it again," and we can all move on.

In passing, I also am surprised by all the recusals. -- Euryalus (talk) 04:40, 12 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Further: 's hypothetical wording for a motion covers it exactly. It should be proposed as written, in preference to anything longer and more portentious. -- Euryalus (talk) 05:46, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

Statement by Ryk72
There are several aspects which speak to acceptance:


 * 1) Closing comments imply Arbs members are immune to sanction at ANI . Unacceptable that Arbs be immune from sanction for clear violations; if ANI will not address this, ArbCom must.
 * 2) Gamaliel's clear violations. These include: Removal of CSD tags (deleted page). Edit warring reverting clearly identified, good faith, BLP redactions ([1][2][3]). Edit warring the ANI close .  WP:POINTY Userbox creation/protection (deleted page).
 * 3) 's page protection, preventing BLP redactions; graciously self-reverted (deleted page). NOTE: Recommend no sanction.
 * 4) 's ANI close; clearly without consensus.
 * 5) Gamaliel's personal attacks, aspersions & general incivility at ANI. Focuses on other editors' motives; particularly on Gamergate . NOTE: Shows required degree of objectivity has been lost w.r.t that topic area; it would be better policed by others.
 * 6) Disruptive & derailing shitposts at ANI; particularly by MarkBernstein  and  . Shitposting appears to be the stock in trade of the former; disappointing to see it spreading to others. NOTE: Some of MarkBernstein's attacks there target me.

Broader questions exist: Should The Signpost be exempted from our policy on biographies of living persons; use of Wikipedia to promote political agendas - concern is not only puerile "small hands" sub-article, but main News & Notes article from the 1 April 2016 Signpost - political satire about a U.S. politician, links to external disparaging portrayals.

Wikipedia is not a publisher of political satire; including being a signal boost for political commentary. These questions are perhaps better addressed elsewhere; support calls for RfCs. NOTE: Earlier attack in 16 March 2016 Signpost, implying U.S. citizens should emigrate if that politician was elected. No longer viewable, due to Signpost internals.

I supported resolution by: acknowledgement of wrongdoing; sincere apology; commitment to not use Wikipedia for partisan politics; later adding, per : resignation from ArbCom, Signpost or, per the highly estimable : recall vote.

Reviewing Gamaliel's statements, these are insufficient. Per, any contrition is a "non-apology apology"; assertion of agenda-driven drama stirred up against me demonstrates lack of understanding of the core issues. These issues also appear more long standing than just this incident. There is also a concern of involved use of admin tools; as highlighted by. Particularly a "30/500" restriction on an article Talk page, causing COI discussion to be quashed (details at WP:AE WP:A/R/M; diffs & links on request); and misrepresentation of that restriction.

We need to be considerate of living persons, and follow WP:BLP; but we don't need admins using heavy-handed restrictions in protection of polarising editors.

I believe the committee needs to send a strong message that it holds itself to the same standards as our editors.

It is clear that the community cannot trust Gamaliel to not act when WP:INVOLVED - support proceeding to a case - unless the committee will support removal (WP:ARBCOND) and desysop by motion. - Ryk72 'c.s.n.s.' 09:01, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

Statement by Ultraexactzz
In regards to kelapstick's comments on arbitration committee members and their immunity at ANI, et al - would it be reasonable to clarify (by motion, I assume) that point? Some of my esteemed colleagues in the admin corps seem to believe that membership on this committee brings with it some form of immunity from sanction. It would be useful for the committee to state unambiguously that no, committee members are not immune to sanction for their conduct as editors and admins. This isn't a policy change, or shouldn't be - and doesn't seem controversial.

No other comment on the merits, except to echo that you all set an example for editors and admins alike. Please be mindful of the example you set. Thanks. UltraExactZZ Said~ Did 13:25, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

Statement by wbm1058
makes some valid points, though I won't go that far. My advice to : "We have no intention of letting humor or fake news spread beyond April 1." Ahem. What do you call this? wbm1058 (talk) 16:15, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Focus your Signpost work on writing factual news articles, rather than opinion or humor pieces, for the duration of your Arbitration Committee membership
 * Your only opinion pieces for Signpost, should you write any more this year, should be made from your official position as an Arbitration Committee member, and should be reflective of the opinion of the committee as a whole

We can't delete that I suppose, Freedom of the Press and all. Sure, you can continue using The Signpost to make political commentary, but that would mean you should recuse from all the cases coming to ArbCom. I ask the Committee to take this case, to consider whether such behavior is compatible with sitting on the Committee. We've recently seen the Wikimedia Foundation vote out one of its own on grounds less well-understood than what is on public display here. wbm1058 (talk) 16:43, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

Statement by Capeo
The real joke is this ArbCom. Yngvadottir got desysopped for far less than the laundry list of bad behavior on display by a sitting Arb here. That's the level of behavior we are to expect from our Arbs? Blatant political POV pushing, edit warring to keep a BLP issue, a host of pointy edits and protections basically giving the finger to the community's opinion on the matter and now it's all recusals and declines except for one Arb with some good sense? Unreal. Capeo (talk) 18:56, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
 * , I never said if I agreed with Yngvadottir's desysop or not. It followed the letter of the law but an argument could be made for mitigating circumstances surround the SINGLE action that led to the desysop.  I brought it up as a point of comparison to juxtapose the huge difference in degree here.  Look at Hammersoft's and others difs here.  This was a long string of repeated awful judgments that would have gotten anyone else blocked in the very least.  This isn't even about the argument of whether or not the article was a BLP violation.  It's about the fact that the community decided it was and Gamaliel acted as though he didn't need to abide by the community's decision.  When finally forced to he acted like a child with a string of pointy edits and policy violations and seemed to care more about the Signpost than showing the level of decorum expected of an Arb.  Sidenote: Gamaliel should be staying a million miles away from AE comments about Gamergate at this point yet there they are right now. Capeo (talk) 15:27, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
 * I have to note that it seems pretty much every Arb that has declined this case seems to be mistakenly viewing this as about the joke itself. It's not.  One of your own has outlined enough difs themselves to warrant a case and that's ignoring the many more that have been added by other editors since.  The request is about edit warring, involved actions, abuse of tools, lack of judgement and a serious lack of accountability. Capeo (talk) 20:03, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
 * I have to concur with Fram. The Signpost gallery, titled A History Lesson no less, is just more pointy behavior.  I can't quite grasp if the intent is to draw a comparison between the joke article and past political satire or what but either way it's not what the Signpost is for and it's certainly not an action from someone who is taking seriously that their apparent pointy, politicized editing is one of the issues being discussed here. Capeo (talk) 14:35, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Well, that "coda" sums up exactly the issue here. Every bad action by Gamaliel was apparently provoked so I guess that explains the misuse of tools. I guess that explains why Gamaliel felt they were free to provoke back. It's all about his gamergate opponents. Even though very few of the folks that have issue with his recent actions have anything to do with gamergate. Putting aside the ridiculous excuses, the lack of being able to admit fault without qualification, there is a glaring issue that makes Gamaliel unfit for ArbCom that's clear from this coda. He views it as a political position. One from which he can right great wrongs. A view that is fundamentally contrary to what ArbCom is.  Capeo (talk) 05:01, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

Statement by Davey2010
Had they been an admin I probably would've said let it slide however they're apart of Arbcom which is worse, Anyway IMHO I would say it was a BLP violation however we all make mistakes and I'm sure won't repeat it again ... well not whilst he's at Arbcom anyway...., I personally don't think this should be accepted either - I do however agree they should probably be admonished for it. – Davey 2010 Talk 19:35, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

Statement by Sir Joseph
While I'm not sure if the behavior violates BLP, it most certainly violates "Conduct Unbecoming" which should be a policy, if it isn't one already. While I doubt any serious repercussions will occur, at the very least Gamaliel should be admonished that this most recent episode is not the way an editor, let alone an admin, let alone a member of Arbcom should act. Sir Joseph (talk) 20:44, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
 * The claim that the Signpost is independent and therefore subject to 1A and not BLP would work if Wikipedia didn't host the signpost and have it within Wiki's purview of laws. It's not independent, it's part of Wikipedia. Sir Joseph (talk) 20:36, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

Statement by Ched
OK - I have no standing in the community anymore (my choice), but WTH - I'll run my mouth. I really don't care if yinz take the case or not - folks are having a good enough laugh as it is. Gam is a good guy, and lord knows he's gotten the short end of the stick on many occasions. He kinda pisses me off at times though. Arbs should be held to high standards ... but all we have is a few brief things at ... idk .. arbpol or something? (I did try to come up with a wp:arbacct thing a while back - but NOOO) Anyway ...  Arbs shouldn't twist things. Arbs shouldn't lie. And Arbs shouldn't be the ones offering the news(?) on arbs. Signpost reports wiki things. Arbs make decisions on wiki things. Sorry, but I'm having a really hard time understanding how absurd this is to y'all because it's a special kind of stupid. Risker told me long ago that humor doesn't play well in text .. she was right.

I finally do have a chance here to disagree with User:kelapstick (which is probably a first). re: " I don't think anybody on the Committee believes they have any such immunity" ... ummm. yea ... NO. There's a few - but read up on the George Orwell stuff. Power does corrupt. I won't play the shame game by pointing fingers ... but history can't be denied.

In closing .. Iri is spot on - as usual. Gam .. you really should step down from AC, not that you're the first or most blatant person to shame the holy grail ... but it would be nice to pretend that there's a modicum of honor in our leadership. (no comment on Jimbo) — Ched : ?  06:39, 13 April 2016 (UTC)


 * addendum: I've seen several posts asking arbs "why" they recused. I don't feel this should be required. (and the last time I looked, it wasn't).  There can be any number of reasons ... from "involved" to being friends with someone in real life.  In general, I applaud anyone who recuses because it indicates they are not sure they would be fair, and it's better to be safe than to do the wrong thing. — Ched :  ?  01:36, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

Statement by Pldx1
User:Gamaliel recused himself. This doesn't requires explanation: this is the involved rule. But three other Arbcom members have recused too: User:Kirill Lokshin, User:Keilana, User:GorillaWarfare. And this looks strange. Are they that involved in the facts to deal with ? Pldx1 (talk) 07:31, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

Statement by Only in death
Given that Short-fingered vulgarian was in the process of being deleted (in part due to a number of delete voters expressing BLP concerns) at the same time as this kerfuffle, it should have been clear to anyone that there was a BLP discussion to be had that could not be summerarily reverted/waved away. It should also be clear to anyone that a well-sourced encyclopedia article (despite being overly negative) is very different to a non-article piece of political smearing. Article space is sourced and the intent is to inform the reader. The signpost essentially exists to provide a place for its writers to pontificate. What made this a BLP violation was not the content specifically, it was that it was from the start intended to demean and disparage a living person for no purpose other than entertainment of its author/s. That is absolutely a BLP violation and Gamaliel's subsequent actions (including edit warring, abuse of tools as per Fram etc) have deserve, at the minimum, a topic ban from American Politics. Only in death does duty end (talk) 08:07, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
 * In reply to John Carter, the status of Signpost is irrelevant to any BLP discussion, likewise talk pages or other non-article space pages. BLP policy applies to *all* content at en.wikipedia.org with no exceptions as anyone with even a passing familiarity with the policy understands. The only way any discussion about signposts status would be productive is if that discussion was about where to host it outside of ENWP. Only in death does duty end (talk) 16:09, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

Statement by Hasteur
I would note that this the perfect form of the "Super Mario Problem" in which an editor who has "more" privileges gets off with significantly less sanctioning than one with lesser privileges. Notings as well that the arbcom of last year reinforced the viewpoint in Wifione that Administrators should be held to a higher standard of scrutiny than regular editors. With that in mind Arbitrators (being selected almost exclusively from Administrators) are expected to maintain an even higher level of behavior. I would suggest that this be immediately referred to the foundation ombudsman or to Jimmy Wales as the committee (as evidenced by the great amount of recusals) cannot be asked to investigate one of it's own members while still maintaining the impartiality that is expected of the wiki's highest form of conduct dispute resolution. Hasteur (talk) 12:40, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

Statement by Starke Hathaway
In light of the concerns raised here about Gamaliel's conduct during the April 1st Signpost incident and its sequelae at ANI, together with the concerns raised here and at this AE request about Gamaliel's potential WP:INVOLVED administrative actions in the Gamergate topic area, I think the committee ought to accept a broader case examining his conduct in general. More and more it begins to appear that Gamaliel considers himself to be "above the law" in a sense, and I think a strong statement that this isn't so is needed. Additionally, let's be clear that the alleged BLP violation in question here is not the "joke" about small hands but rather the false assertion that a living person has sued Wikipedia. To further clarify, I don't think most commenters here are nearly as concerned about that BLP violation as they are about Gamaliel's WP:PRAM reaction to the community's decision to delete it. -Starke Hathaway (talk) 15:36, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
 * , in point of fact WP:BLPTALK does draw a distinction between linking to potentially objectionable BLP material in non-article space and outright posting it on Wikipedia. -Starke Hathaway (talk) 13:49, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

Statement by Tony1
What a beat-up. Tony  (talk)  14:31, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

Statement by Beyond My Ken
FWIW, I am recusing myself from this tempest in the proverbial teapot. BMK (talk) 01:21, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

Statement by Resolute
This is beyond stupid. Gamaliel's great crime was, once faced with the reality that an April Fools joke fell flat, to try to stick with it rather than just accept it was a bad joke and move on. Not smart, I think, but certainly not worth burning them at the stake like some people here evidently want. This RFArb strikes me as more of an attack based on previous grievances - real or imagined - than the small hands joke. Resolute 14:19, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

Statement by The Wordsmith
I take no position on whether or not Gamaliel's edits were a BLP violation. However, as a longtime BLP expert, I can firmly state that suggesting the policy does not apply to humor on Wikipedia is a lie. BLP applies everywhere. In fact, quoting from the policy itself, "BLP applies to all material about living persons anywhere on Wikipedia, including talk pages, edit summaries, user pages, images, categories, lists, article titles and drafts." So since Gamaliel's edits were on-wiki and thus within the jurisdiction of BLP, it is up to decide whether the policy itself was actually violated. I'm not sure a full case is necessary because the issue itself is fairly narrow (Did the edits violate BLP or did they not); this seems more suited to a motion.

I would also recommend that, if the Committee accepts the case, they narrow the focus to the specific incident brought up initially. If somebody wishes to present evidence about Gamaliel's involvement in GamerGate or Signpost outside of this one issue, they are free to do so at AE or ANI. This is not an RFC/U as a referendum on all of a user's conduct, nor should it be (though sometimes I wonder if it might be helpful to bring that venue out of mothballs). The Wordsmith Talk to me 15:06, 14 April 2016 (UTC)


 * It appears that the case has expanded in scope somewhat. I believe it would now be appropriate to examine all of Gamaliel's administrative actions, including at Gamergate. However, I do not want this to become Gamergate 2. After all this time we're finally starting to see progress and a breath of fresh air, so I caution the Committee against being heavy-handed here and interfering in the cleanup overmuch. The Wordsmith Talk to me 13:33, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

Statement by Cirt
The Signpost is an independent publication and a member of the press. It is protected by the unanimous US Supreme Court decision Hustler Magazine v. Falwell protecting freedom of the press, specifically parody and satire as forms of freedom of speech related to public figures.

We ought to value a free and independent press within our context -- that's the mission we give The Signpost. Indeed, from its very first issue The Signpost made clear: "Since this is not in the article namespace, guidelines such as "no ownership of articles", and particularly "no original research", will not necessarily apply."

Wikipedia has a long history dating back over ten years of April Fools' Day humor.

If the test "A moron in a hurry" is applied, even a moron in a hurry would likely conclude that The Signpost article published on April Fools' Day is considered humorous and not to be taken seriously.

&mdash; Cirt (talk) 16:22, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Addendum: Additionally, I wish to note here that I agree with statements written on this page by the following administrators: (DIFF),  (DIFF),  (DIFF),  (DIFF),  (DIFF), and  (DIFF). Thank you all for your thoughtful comments injecting some wisdom into this discussion. Much appreciated, &mdash; Cirt (talk) 19:30, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

Statement by BU Rob13
I was the original nominator of the Signpost page for MfD on the basis that I believed it was a BLP violation. I continue to believe that. I have a fairly harsh opinion of Gamaliel's actions here, especially when it comes to reverting other editors who were attempting to remove the BLP violation. With that in mind, I have to wonder what anyone hopes to accomplish here. The problem is solved, and it's unlikely to be an issue going forward. ArbCom cases are meant to break the back of an ongoing dispute that can't be solved by the community. We have here a dispute that was solved via MfD, a community process. For that reason, I urge ArbCom to decline this case.

If ArbCom would like to narrowly consider the issue of whether an uninvolved administrator can take action against a member of ArbCom, then that's worth doing, but it doesn't require a case. That can be solved by motion with no reference to this specific situation. ~ RobTalk 21:57, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

Statement by Kharkiv07
Due to BLP concerns, a not very strong consensus as to if it should've been accepted in the first place, and the fact that the issues in question took place over a period of days rather than weeks, months, or years (like most cases); I'd encourage the Committee to significantly shorten this case from the normal length. Kharkiv07 ( T ) 23:55, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

Statement by Neutrality
I agree wholeheartedly with MastCell's wise comments. I see little or no evidence of a long-term or enduring problem here (though undoubtedly this was nobody's finest hour). I cannot help but feel that the full Arbcom treatment would shed far more heat than light. In sum, I do not think acceptance of this case would help build the project. Neutralitytalk 03:16, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

Statement by Dan Murphy
Perhaps "arbitrators" like "Drmies" should have to declare on their userpages their special status before they claim special privileges for themselves. It would help members of the general public keep track of the elect, at least. To my shame I twice reverted an effort to give "Gamaliel" an advantage in an arbitration request I'd never come across in my eight years of paying attention to Wikipedia. "Drmies"'s failure to disclose his possession of special buttons was the reason. But I am the one to blame.Dan Murphy (talk) 05:44, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
 * "Gamaliel's" statement is currently about 2,500 words. The arbitration committee and its factotums routinely enforce a strict 500 word limit on contributors to its request pages. Special leeway is being given to "Gamaliel" without even an attempt at explanation. Why is this the case and how do you think it makes you look, arbitrators? In case the instructions at the top of this page has slipped your minds: "Without exception, statements (including responses to other statements) must be shorter than 500 words".Dan Murphy (talk) 15:49, 16 April 2016 (UTC)
 * @clpo13 So, arbitrators can just arbitrarily grant an exception to the "without exception" rule for their friends without even taking a stab at an explanation? They don't call it the arbitrary committee for nothing.Dan Murphy (talk) 15:56, 16 April 2016 (UTC)
 * @Clpo13 you need to read with closer attention. Here: "@Lankiveil: Are you including in your count the addition that Drmies made on Gamaliel's behalf? Since an Arb added that bit, I don't think it should count against Gamaliel.--v/r - TP 06:16, 16 April 2016 @TParis: No, just text added directly by Gamaliel themselves. Lankiveil (speak to me) 06:25, 16 April 2016." There you have it.Dan Murphy (talk) 16:05, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

Statement by SSTflyer
I think the committee ought to accept this case. Evidence shown by other editors here has shown that the problem goes far beyond the BLP violation on the Signpost. A full case on a single BLP violation alone would no doubt be excessive, but the community has shown that they were unable to resolve the problem on ANI themselves. Expanding the scope of the case seems to be the correct approach here. SST flyer 12:04, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

Never mind, the majority of the committee has already accepted the case. SST flyer 12:06, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

I would recommend the committee to change the case name to "Gamaliel" or something with a wider scope, to reflect the scope of the problem. SST flyer 12:12, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

all admins receive harassment, more so than non-admins, and stress is no excuse for improper admin action. SST flyer 04:26, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

Statement by Miborovsky
The broader implications of this case apparently involves answering the question of whether ArbCom members are above the rules that govern this project.

At the top of the page, in a red text box, a rule is clearly stated: "Without exception, statements (including responses to other statements) must be shorter than 500 words".

Even without the addition of the "coda" from Gamaliel added by Drmies, Gamaliel has clearly already been afforded an apparent exemption from the rules that pertain to the arbitration process. The convenient word count tool provided shows that the coda itself clocks in a rule-breaking 675 words, which of course stands in addition to the very impressive 1725 he had already accrued in his original statement.

Being an ArbCom member himself, I find it unlikely that Gamaliel would be unfamiliar with this particular rule. However, it is apparent that this rule does not apply to him. It also gives the impression that he is attempting to get around this by having a fellow arbitrator post his "concluding remarks" now that this case seems to be headed to acceptance, a privilege that does not seem to have been extended to anybody else, who have to make do with their statements in 500 words.

How much can sitting ArbCom members get away with breaking the rules?

At least 470% as much as the rest of us, apparently.

At this point, why even go through the motions of pretending to have a fair and balanced process?

I would advise anyone following these proceedings adjust their expectations accordingly.

--Миборовский (talk) 14:01, 15 April 2016 (UTC) (270 words, inclusive)

Statement by Masem
Assuming that ArbCom is going to take this case based on current !votes, I would recommend they clearly define the bounds of behavior that the case will cover. I have nothing to say in regards to the Signpost and resulting use of admin tools (others that were more involved have covered what I feel can be stated), but should the case include the Gamergate topic area, I have several concerns to present about what I felt was inconsistent and preferential handling of disruption in that area by Gamaliel that shouldn't have happened (related to the questions raised by Gamaliel's coda), but otherwise for the most part unrelated to the Signpost issues. --M ASEM (t) 16:07, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

Statement by SlimVirgin
By accepting this case, the committee is in danger of being used as a platform for harassment. This weaponization of dispute resolution has happened several times over the years, and it's a very ugly thing. It damages the committee, and it has a horrible (and lasting) effect on the person at the centre of it.

Gamaliel is clearly under stress because of the long-term harassment he has experienced. It's very difficult to explain the effect that kind of persistent attention has on the target; I have experienced it, and it tooks me years to understand what it did (and I'm still learning).

Three things should happen here. (1) Gamaliel should agree to stop adminning Gamergate. (Gamaliel, take those pages off your watchlist and never look back.) (2) He should consider taking a wikibreak to get himself back on track. (3) The community should wait a couple of weeks, then open an RfC to decide whether holding editorship of the Signpost should preclude people from holding other positions at the same time.

I hope the committee members who have voted to accept will reconsider. SarahSV (talk) 19:15, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

Statement by clpo13
If ArbCom accepts this, I hope to see a clear revision of the BLP policy, explaining that saying mean things about politicians, even if reliable sources said it first, is a clear no-no. Also, for the greater good, ArbCom should outlaw Gamergate forever so it doesn't keep getting brought up where it's not welcome. clpo13(talk) 06:08, 16 April 2016 (UTC)
 * User talk:Gamaliel
 * Yes, asking someone to trim their statement is the same as giving them permission to break the rules. Obviously. I'll also note that Gamaliel hasn't edited since before that notice was given. clpo13(talk) 15:59, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

Statement by Coretheapple
Whatever is done in this case, the "tradition" of April Fool's Day "humor" needs to be stopped. Evidently this unfunny Signpost article is material to this dispute. Most April Fool's Day "humor" on Wikipedia is sophomoric and forced. April Fool's Day "humor" reached its low point this year with a "joke" close of a lengthy, ridiculous but totally serious ANI case. Just plain stupid. Enough already. Coretheapple (talk) 20:58, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

Statement by (involved) Montanabw
As one of the co-authors of the April Fool's story, this is truly a tempest in a teapot. The side issues came to dominate what was basically a last-minute April Fools' Day satire piece that was as much about making fun of Jimbo as mocking "the politician." Gamaliel experienced a meltdown in the face of ongoing harassment and the bottom line here is that the pitchforks need to be put away and we need to not lose yet another good editor. Here, Gamaliel apologized for his actions and, frankly, he is not apt to do the same thing again. I see no reason to force his resignation from anything. Montanabw (talk) 03:33, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

Statement by Neonorange
I see two aspects to this case. One facet is the behavior of in reaction to pushback on his contributions to the Trump/Jimbo ticket article. That's just an ordinary WP:OWN aggravated by stick-poking. The other is the behavior of en.wikipedia in failing to recognize that a journalistic endeavor within the project is bound to provoke conflicts of interest: the tension between a publisher and a managing editor—and the tension between those who cover the news and those who make the news. The first facet is perhaps trout-worthy. The second is outside the competency (by which I mean remit) of ARB. I think should decide fish or fowl, but ought not to be pushed. Finally, if The Signpost is to be journalism it must forswear humorous lead articles. — Neonorange (talk) 04:11, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

Statement by TParis
"Satire", "Joke", "Funny", "Minor", "humorous", "well-known", "silly" - None of these are an exemption to WP:BLP. The editors minimizing this issue are participating as bystanders in the attack.--v/r - TP 06:32, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

Note by RexxS
In response to the concern expressed by, arbitrators don't have to give reasons for recusal, although the principle of transparency would encourage them to do so, if asked. In the cases of Keilana and Kiril, both of them serve as directors of Wikimedia District of Columbia, along with Gamaliel, so I'm sure that recusal is a sensible option for both in this case. No matter how impartial they may be, it is always better to avoid any appearance of a conflict of loyalties in these situations. There are plenty of other arbitrators available to look at the case. --RexxS (talk) 12:11, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

Statement by GorillaWarfare
I'm fairly certain this is the first statement I've made as a party to an arbitration case (besides that one filed against me some time ago), but I guess I'm allowed to do that when I recuse. I chose to recuse from this case because I consider Gamaliel to be not only a colleague on the Arbitration Committee, but a dear friend. I suppose that should be considered when reading my statement here.

I feel that my time as an arbitrator has taught me some skills that allow me to see things fairly neutrally, and I extend this to issues concerning friends of mine. That said, I recognize that there is no way to be neutral in a case regarding a friend, which is why I have chosen to recuse. I feel that I am not blinded by this friendship, and I hope people reading this statement feel the same. When this deletion discussion and surrounding drama was happening, I privately advised Gamaliel to take a step back. I felt he was feeding the trolls and baiting other users. When he reverted the discussion closure, I felt it was entirely out of line. When BLPREQUESTRESTORE was brought up, I agreed with Ryk72, and with The_Ed17's decision to take a step back, remove protection, and allow the discussion to run its course. I would have liked to see Gamaliel do the same.

Gamaliel has been strongly involved in the GamerGate topic area. However, speaking for myself and outside of my Committee role, I feel his decision-making has overall been very clear, despite the massive stress he has been subject to. My long history of involvement on Wikipedia has, outside of arbitration matters, been almost entirely outside of contentious areas, including GamerGate. This has not been the case for Gamaliel, and I am impressed with administrators such as him who are able to function as constant fixtures in these environments. I feel that Gamaliel, although showing some poor behavior and judgment in these very recent and particular areas, has overall been a positive influence on the project. As a result, I think a topic ban from these areas would be a net negative to the project.

Given that it appears the case will be accepted, I urge the Committee to take into account not only extenuating factors on-wiki (of which there have been many—not least but also very much not most, DHeyward's conduct, which I think merits a more permanent resolution than a temporary topic ban). In my opinion, Gamaliel has been not only very valuable to the Arbitration Committee, but to the community and the project as a whole.

Again I would like to reiterate that this statement is not a part of my role on the Arbitration Committee. Although I am a member, I am recused on this case and am offering my opinion as anyone else. GorillaWarfare (talk) 09:55, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

GorillaWarfare
Responding to your comments here instead of putting this in two different places. Recused arbitrators may still participate in arbitration cases in the same ways as non-arbitrators, and I stated clearly that "this statement is not a part of my role on the Arbitration Committee. Although I am a member, I am recused on this case and am offering my opinion as anyone else." I will not be voting on the case, and I am not privy to internal discussions about the case. GorillaWarfare (talk) 17:25, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Am I allowed to reply here? Seems reserved for privileged users.  My section was closed with instructions.  Is this the Animal Farm coda section?--DHeyward (talk) 17:56, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
 * What is there to reply to? GW is simply saying above that she is recused from the committee for this case, and that a recused arb, like anyone else, is capable of participating in a case like any other non-arbitrator. If she is not privy to any internal matters regarding this case, as she indicates above, then there is also no reason to suspect that any comments of hers will necessarily be made on the basis of any internal information. Of course, it might be available elsewhere, maybe at WO or some other site, but, potentially, anyone else is just as privy to that information as she, me, or anyone else might be. John Carter (talk) 18:03, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
 * I only noticed that my section was closed. Her section was closed but then she started a new section.  Can we all start new sections after they are closed or is that a reserved privilege?  --DHeyward (talk) 18:10, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes, anyone (well, I guess anyone who's autoconfirmed, as the page is semiprotected) can start sections here. This is just the talk page for the case; it's meant to be used to talk about the case. The preliminary statements are put here after a case request is accepted, but that is not the sole purpose for the page. GorillaWarfare (talk) 18:17, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Somehow I think not given the "Close" hat. Which arbitration clerk is willing to delete a sitting arbs statement even though the claim like anyone else, is capable of participating in a case like any other non-arbitrator. is made?  I have no doubt that had I started a new section, it would be deleted post-haste and the editor directed to evidence or workshop.  But this is not and the reason is "privilege."  This is not a level playing field and I suggest "recuse" means "recuse" and not "participate."  Despite the suggection that a sitting  arb can participate without a COI regarding another sitting is ludicrous.  REsign or sit out.  There are no other ethical choices as you place disagreement in an untenable predicament.  Agreement will also lead to more questions.  --DHeyward (talk) 18:29, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
 * This kind of meta-discussion about whether I can participate in the case is appropriate for this page. If you do not want to take my word that non-arbitrators can use this page, ask a clerk or look through some of the past cases where it's been used.
 * Recusal from a case has always meant not participating in a case as an arbitrator. Recused arbitrators can participate in cases in the same ways as non-arbitrators; they of course give up their ability to vote or involve themselves in the Committee's discussion of the case. Again, if you don't want to take my word for it, feel free to ask the arbitrators. GorillaWarfare (talk) 18:57, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
 * The problem with that analysis,, is that it is best not to just avoid any conflict of loyalty, but also to avoid any appearance of a conflict of loyalty. No matter how scrupulous you are - and I have no doubt that you would be - taking an active part in a case involving a fellow arbitrator that you describe as a "dear friend" is ill-advised. It feeds the trolls who want to damage Wikipedia and weakens your own authority as an arbitrator. My advice is to wait it out. If there is vital evidence that you feel is absolutely crucial for the other arbs to know about, wait patiently for a while. If it is that vital, it may well be that somebody else will submit that same evidence. --RexxS (talk) 19:25, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
 * I don't intend to submit evidence or be active in the workshop phase of the case. GorillaWarfare (talk) 22:58, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
 * So your participation will be done publicly? As opposed to via private emails? I'm confused. You said recuse, but you're not named and yet you have already admitted your stance and are openly participating in the case on behalf of a fellow sitting arbitrator and admitted colleague.--MONGO 19:30, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
 * I concur with RexxS here. Just because you can do something doesn't mean you should, and regardless of whether it's permitted by policy, to neutral observers (let alone hostile observers) it looks extremely dubious for you to be taking part in a case, particularly regarding another arbcom member. If whatever you plan to say is readily apparent, someone else will say it; if it's not readily apparent, you may want to ask why nobody except you perceives it. &#8209; Iridescent 19:34, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately, I tend to myself think that under the circumstances, it is probably best for any sitting arbitrator who is not themselves a party to an arbitration to refrain from really taking an active part in any arbitration beyond supplying evidence or input which they believe is clearly germane to the case and of a kind which is unlikely to presented by others. I have no way of knowing whether GW believes any input she might reasonably think she should make to the committee is likely to also be put forward by others, but were it me, which it never will be, of course ;), in that situation, I might at least wait a few days to see if any commonly known evidence is presented by others before submitting evidence myself. Taking part in the workshop is another matter entirely, and I would under no circumstances wish to tell an arb they can't at least express opinions there, like anyone else, including me, who tend to apparently hang out at pages like this far too much.
 * FWIW, I am trying to get together "WikiProject libraries" pages to match the extant "WikiProject prospectuses" pages, with a few additional pages, and, when and if that ever gets done, I might be a bit more active in general. You have all been warned now. ;) John Carter (talk) 21:02, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately, I tend to myself think that under the circumstances, it is probably best for any sitting arbitrator who is not themselves a party to an arbitration to refrain from really taking an active part in any arbitration beyond supplying evidence or input which they believe is clearly germane to the case and of a kind which is unlikely to presented by others. I have no way of knowing whether GW believes any input she might reasonably think she should make to the committee is likely to also be put forward by others, but were it me, which it never will be, of course ;), in that situation, I might at least wait a few days to see if any commonly known evidence is presented by others before submitting evidence myself. Taking part in the workshop is another matter entirely, and I would under no circumstances wish to tell an arb they can't at least express opinions there, like anyone else, including me, who tend to apparently hang out at pages like this far too much.
 * FWIW, I am trying to get together "WikiProject libraries" pages to match the extant "WikiProject prospectuses" pages, with a few additional pages, and, when and if that ever gets done, I might be a bit more active in general. You have all been warned now. ;) John Carter (talk) 21:02, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

I can't see the harm. has recused herself. She isn't included (as I understand it) on the mailing list that will discuss the case, and she won't vote. She's here as an ordinary editor and admin, and friend of Gamaliel, offering the view that his admin work on Gamergate has been positive, and that she hopes extenuating factors will be taken into account. That's a helpful perspective. SarahSV (talk) 20:36, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Just confirming that I'm not included on the mailing list where this case is being discussed. GorillaWarfare (talk) 22:58, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
 * But the case notification states, "The scope of this case 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." I'm confused why Gamaliel's work on gamergate related issues are being brought up of that's not part of the scope.--MONGO 20:52, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
 * She also said another editor should be sanctioned. Does anyone here really think that's appropriate for a recused Arb to be doing? I get that a WP recusal seems to have little in common with a real world recusal but can't people at least pretend that some level of propriety should be adopted?  By contributing to the case all GW is doing is making so that she'll have to recuse again if any of the principal actors come before ArbCom. Not to mention the optics are horrible. Capeo (talk) 21:10, 18 April 2016 (UTC)


 * , the issue is that this is an editor who has done a lot of good work, and who has been under protracted stress because of his admin work on Gamergate. SarahSV (talk) 21:12, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
 * I fail to see how any stress from adminning gamergate issues gives an editor the right to violate BLP on an unrelated issue. With that said, I reiterate that like the idiotic American Politics 2 case that no one wanted or needed, this is a case that could have been avoided by a motion of admonishment. Gamaliel isn't an idiot...he would have abided by such a motion.--MONGO 21:42, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

I don't think GW has shown good judgement by publicly commenting on the case. Recused or not, she is an Arb. Her statement is of course meant to influence the case, and it will influence the case, even unwittingly, because of her seat on ArbCom. It is rather silly for her to claim that she is commenting as a normal editor. This is absurd. Kingsindian &#9821; &#9818; 21:36, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

NOTE: As an aside, it is highly disappointing, for those who have suffered actual on Wiki abuse from persons protected by involved admin decisions, and have called out those decisions as lacking the requisite impartiality, to now have harassment, perpetrated by persons unknown, and a subsequent loss of objectivity, leveraged in mitigation of those admin actions. - Ryk72 'c.s.n.s.' 00:49, 19 April 2016 (UTC)
 * My concern is that this would encourage deception. If we say an Arb can't speak because of their position, it doesn't encourage them to recuse.  Wait to see if someone else makes a point - sure, good advice in any situation.  But people should be applauded for their honesty and integrity - not restricted for it. — Ched :  ?  21:44, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
 * We have different definitions of honesty and integrity then. What's the point of recusing then at all? You can arguably have more influence over a case by bringing reams of evidence. At that point recusals are meaningless. If you honestly don't believe you can be impartial then the proper display of integrity is to recuse and not try to influence the case at all. That shows trust in your fellow Arbs as well. If we're worried that we'd be "encouraging deception" by a recusal actually being a recusal then the whole process is fucked beyond repair to begin with. Capeo (talk) 22:02, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
 * I understand what you're saying, but my thinking is this: Evidence is evidence, regardless of who posts it. Diffs are facts.  Voting on any degree of sanctions is in large part a subjective process.  It's a judgement call.  If I'm an Arb, and I really REALLY want to have "more influence over a case" - I'm going to not say anything until it's time to vote on sanctions, then support my friends, and sanction our opposes.  Now it very well may be "fucked beyond repair" - but given my druthers, I'd rather have honest discussion than secretive decision making.  Just my own personal choice. — Ched :  ?  22:10, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Evidence is evidence, regardless of who posts it I wish that were true. It isn't. It is human nature to consider the source of any statement, and a good thing too. It is simply untenable to assume that a statement by an Arb carries anywhere near the same significance as a statement from a nobody. This is precisely the situation for which a recusal is appropriate. As to your dichotomy about "honest decision vs secretive decision making", why should it be one or the other. I trust GorillaWarfare will not privately lobby ArbCom on this matter. Kingsindian &#9821; &#9818; 00:11, 19 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Also - I see the "he was under stress". Well - admins tell non-admins all the time "WP:NOTTHERAPY (and similar things where they don't listen to excuses/reasons) - they evaluate behavior. Maybe some of the friends that noticed this should tell their friends to take a break? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ched (talk • contribs) 21:47, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Well, not listening to reasons sounds eminently reasonable to me. Clearly, WP:NOTTHERAPY is the gold standard to aspire to.
 * Just stop for a minute and ponder the title. 'This is not therapy'.  Is that something you would ever say to somebody's face and not feel physically sick for days after?  What kind of culture is this?  I fucking despair.  Izkala (talk) 00:26, 19 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Respectfully, I do not believe that it would be improper to say The expectation is that you will act fairly, impartially, and in accordance with the rules. If you find that you are not able to so act, the expectation is that you will not act, but declare a conflict. I abhor and condemn harassment in all its forms. I do not however, see that it is a mitigating factor to the involved use of admin tools; I would suggest that it is rather a confirmation thereof.
 * It wouldn't be, but the circumstances that led to it being breached can't be examined in a vacuum. If people were unjustly punished before, the solution's not to keep on punishing people unjustly in the name of fairness and impartiality.  But I don't see what's this got to do with the abhorrent essay I was commenting on.  Izkala (talk) 01:08, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

Evidence shows the notion that the framing and presenter of evidence doesn't matter clearly isn't true. If it was, evidence sections would consist simply of links and diffs. The reactions of arbitrators during the case acceptance makes this clear; as a non-admin filing party, I couldn't very well generate diffs of a deleted page, and I don't make statements of fact I can't support with diffs. I wasn't concerned because the filing template requires linking to the prior discussions, and I figured it didn't matter whether I can see the evidence, because having been crushed in last fall's election, I don't get a vote -- it only mattered whether the voters could see it. As it turned out, my primary role was simply getting the camel's nose in the tent, it fell on others to develop the argument to garner the necessary votes for acceptance -- but all the actual evidence was referred to in the initial filing. Therefore, the presenter really is quite important and that's why Iridescent is entirely correct; not all that is permitted is wise, and GW's participation is problematic. Not because she'll be secretly communicating with the rest of the committee -- the suggestion itself it is insulting to both her and the rest of the committee, but because, a) having participated in prior internal discussions about other cases, she'll have insider knowledge of what arguments will be most persuasive with which arbitrators, and b) the arbitrators, having worked with her in the past and know they will have to in the future, may have a tendency to give her arguments greater (or possibly less) weight that a non committee participant. Again, not doubting the good faith of any committee member here, just stating what lots of psychological research has indicated about unconscious and unintentional bias. NE Ent 01:59, 19 April 2016 (UTC)
 * is recused, and once that happens, she can make any statements here that she'd like without worrying about her conflict of interest. Given that she says she's a good personal friend of Gamaliel's, I'd be pretty disappointed if GW didn't stick up for what she feels is right. I want more stand-up arbitrators like her. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 06:09, 19 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Respectfully, by the meaning of recuse as understood elsewhere, without exception, if Arbitrators (who are not a party to the matter) have recused themselves for cause (a conflict of interest or similar), they should not pass comment or involve themselves in the case in any way. Commentary on potential resolutions, which may be seen as influencing the committee's decisions, is particularly troubling. - Ryk72 'c.s.n.s.' 07:38, 19 April 2016 (UTC)
 * The part on WP:ARBPOL about recusal mentions nothing about what they may or may not do after recusal, and hasn't since it was ratified in 2004. The good news is that Arbcom answers to the community, and the policy can be changed by referendum. I don't believe it currently has sufficient support, but it might be worth looking into. The Wordsmith Talk to me 13:54, 19 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Exactly. Respectfully, let's all remember that Arbcom != a Supreme Court or any other sort of legal body. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 17:58, 19 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Actually, it's commonly perceived as such; The Guardian wrote ...were sanctioned by “arbcom” in its preliminary decision. While that may change as it is finalised, the body, known as Wikipedia’s supreme court, rarely reverses its decisions . NE Ent 23:40, 19 April 2016 (UTC)
 * And honestly, arguing that ArbCom isn't a court at all is like arguing that a tomato is a vegetable: It's treated as a vegetable in one sense, but if you look at it close enough it's clearly a fruit. —/M endaliv /2¢/Δ's/ 23:44, 19 April 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm concerned that "recuse" is a codeword excuse for following me around to a number of pages I outlined in evidence because her friend is at arbcom. I don't recall her rev dels on Talk:Gamergate controversy, User talk:Newyorkbrad or BLP violations on the case talk page as a reply to my comment.  I'm unaware of any prior contact before her friend was brought here.  --DHeyward (talk) 08:02, 19 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Well, whatever yinz decided, thanks for letting me have my say. — Ched : ?  18:03, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

Hubris
I was going to reply to the above section, but then it disappeared, and has since re-appeared.

I believe the gist of the question was "can arbitrators act with impunity?" That's probably what the case should be about, but clearly it isn't going to be, because the answer seems to be "yes". -- SB_Johnny &#124; talk✌ 01:04, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

Injunction?
Doesn't go here: Arbitration/Requests/Case/Gamaliel_and_others? (Just for clarity, I'm not claiming conspirarcy, hubris, or coverup, just wondering if someone forget to copy it or something.) NE Ent 01:43, 19 April 2016 (UTC)
 * It was moved to the PD page since it hadn't passed or failed when the case was opened, at least I assume that is the reason. --Jnorton7558 (talk) 01:55, 19 April 2016 (UTC)
 * 6 votes, 11 active -- that's a passing majority, isn't it? NE Ent 02:03, 19 April 2016 (UTC)
 * It waits for 24 hours after the fourth net vote before being enacted (which is in around 4 hours). Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 02:36, 19 April 2016 (UTC)
 * So, it appears ARBCOM is still ignoring WP: ARBPOL. Whether or not this injunction is a good idea it is apparent that this injunction is invalid. --Kyohyi (talk) 15:26, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

Please remove me as a party
No accepting arb mentioned me, my actions or my comments. This Kafka meets Alice in Wonderland. I do not wish to flood the gates but the lack of information makes the reasoning difficult to understand. I notice there are no recuses based on personal relationships with me, Team Arbcom has many recuses based on their relationship with Gamaliel. Unless they all resign, it's hard to imagine a fair outcome with two years of collegiate respect given their friendships. I am not at fault here. --DHeyward (talk) 06:50, 19 April 2016 (UTC)


 * The eventual outcome is obvious. The ArbCom has baited all the enemies Gamaliel has made over the years like moth to a flame called "BLP and the American politician". After it was accepted, the scope of the case was suddenly and arbitrarily changed to "Gamaliel and others". As Gamaliel is a sitting ArbCom member, the outcome is all but guaranteed. Gamaliel will receive a slap on the wrist (at most) and continue his ArbCom career, and all the idiots like you and me who have made statements on this case will be put on the enemy list, and the more outspoken ones such as you will be made an example of. What did you expect, that ArbCom will honestly and fairly examine one of their own? --Миборовский (talk) 15:34, 19 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Reminds me of times during the Great Proletarian Cultural Revolution that people were told to report to the village square for a struggle session against X, except that when they get there they suddenly find themselves the actual intended target of the struggle session. --Миборовский (talk) 15:37, 19 April 2016 (UTC)
 * I don't think there has been any entrapment. Frankly, the current case name is more incriminating against Gamaliel than the original one. If the only other is DHeyward then they should change it again to just his and Gamaliel name or simply "Gamaliel and other".--MONGO 22:38, 19 April 2016 (UTC)


 * The current name does explicitly name Gamaliel as a party, sure. But Gamaliel's involvement was never in question. Gamaliel's conduct is, and was, the original issue that the filer of this complaint wanted ArbCom to address. DHeyward's name was arbitrarily added as an involved party without any answer as to why, despite numerous editors protesting the fact and asking ArbCom to explain their reasoning for doing so, which they have so far refused to do. At best it's scope creep, at worst it's a transparent attempt at dragging Gamaliel's opponents down with him. Depends on how much confidence you have that the ArbCom can address this issue in an impartial manner, I suppose. --Миборовский (talk) 22:02, 20 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Perhaps you could offer some relevant moments from the dispute. Anything that went on like a month (outside of GG) might work. Discuss-Dubious (t/c) 21:29, 22 April 2016 (UTC)


 * We normally add parties without explaining why. We wait to see what if any evidence is offered, consider that, and then either sanction or not according to the evidence. Addition as a party does not mean that we intend to sanction them, it means that we see their actions as relevant to the case. I don't see any reason to change the way we've worked for years. Doug Weller  talk 09:51, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

Secret Private Mailman Email List?
It appears that all the recused arbs are aware of the secret non-recused email address. Has the committee disclosed this email list or is it only known by the recused and non-recused ArbCom members. Submitting evidence via email is kinda difficult if all the recused arbs see it. --DHeyward (talk) 08:06, 19 April 2016 (UTC)
 * In the header on every page here
 * --Jnorton7558 (talk) 12:20, 19 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes, who is a member of that list? And is problematic.  This means it's not a private list if a recused and accused aritrators have access at the end of the case.  --DHeyward (talk) 13:47, 19 April 2016 (UTC)


 * I see your confusion. The way the mailing lists work is that you only see the emails sent through it if the list admin lets you subscribe. For example, we on MedCom use mediation-en-l, but that doesn't do you any good at all if you're not a subscriber. It might be helpful if Arbcom disclosed the complete subscriber list for arbcom-en-b, but I don't see it as a problem. The name of this list is also listed publicly on WP:MAILINGLIST. The Wordsmith Talk to me 13:48, 19 April 2016 (UTC)


 * I don't think I am confused. I use listserv.  They reuse the same list name at the end which means all the recused will be added once the case concludes.  The archive is then accessible.  That's not private to the committee hearing the case, it's only temporary.  And yes, publicly publishing the listmembers (en-wp Usernames) now would be a good idea.  --DHeyward (talk) 14:00, 19 April 2016 (UTC)


 * It's a private list (not "secret", though I suppose you could use that as a codeword if you like), and when the case is over the case is over. All arbs who have access to the archives at the end of the case are still arbs, who signed an oath of secrecy with their own blood. Who's on it now? The arbs active in this case. You can compile the list of members yourself by looking up the arbs and then subtracting the recused arbs. None of this is new, secretive, or insidious. Drmies (talk) 16:25, 19 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Eh? Did I read this correctly, that unless Gamaliel gets removed from Arbcom, he will have full access to Arb discussion and private evidence about this case after it is over? It should not really be necessary to point out obvious problems with that if true.--Staberinde (talk) 16:52, 19 April 2016 (UTC)
 * The purpose of private submission of evidence is not to withhold the evidence from the accused, but rather to allow evidence to be considered that cannot be published. The right of an accused person to be confronted with the evidence is fundamental; without it, we might as well proceed with the verdict and skip all this folderol. Moreover, the scope of the case obviates almost any conceivable concern: what possible evidence could there be concerning an April Fool’s WikiJoke that could not be published on wiki? And even if there were such evidence, why would it be necessary to hide it from the Gamaliel?   It’s not like this joke impinges on national security or threatens anyone’s health and safety. MarkBernstein (talk) 17:12, 19 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Note that the fundamentality of "the right of an accused person to be confronted with the evidence," was rejected by the current committee in January. I hope, and expect, that Gamaliel will be given the opportunity to respond to evidence in this case. However, the objection raised is that he will also have access to the entirety of the deliberations surrounding the case, giving those deliberating cause to limit their arguments when those arguments are not in Gamaliel's favor.Evangeliman (talk) 17:42, 20 April 2016 (UTC)
 * , we can hardly kick an Arb out of ArbCom permanently the moment a case is brought up against them. Drmies (talk) 17:38, 19 April 2016 (UTC)
 * I think the theory being advanced is that recused/party arbs should by default not be granted access to those cases, even after the case ends... which is a thought. But given ArbCom's almost grand jury-like function, I don't think that's practically possible (e.g., what happens six months down the line if someone submits private evidence to the main list?). Those more in the know than I may wish to correct me. —/M endaliv /2¢/Δ's/ 17:46, 19 April 2016 (UTC)
 * , obviously not, but neither needs one party of case to have privileged access to discussions related to case right after it ends compared to others, even if that one party is arb himself. Surely a technical solution can be found, like creating a separate list that would be used just for this case. People more experienced with managing such lists can probably offer additional solutions. There is also another alternative, you could make a decision that whole Arb discussion will be made public after the case is over, obviously redacting sensitive personal information.--Staberinde (talk) 18:16, 19 April 2016 (UTC)
 * I think the latter suggestion, that what can be made public from the lists should be made public, is a cool idea, though I imagine it will prove contentious in practice. At least a summary would be nice. But I think we're getting far afield of practices in this case versus practices more generally. —/M endaliv /2¢/Δ's/ 18:26, 19 April 2016 (UTC)
 * considering one recused Arb has already stated her preferred outcome ("Sentence first, verdict after" - Red Queen style - I think the exact threat was "something more permanent" which I hope is only scoped to Wikipedia but YMMV) and considering the preliminary injunction - Do you think it's fair to give them access to correspondence? I have great trepidation providing evidence with the preliminary injunction anyway (not sure how that all went down as I was never presented the rationale or right of reply or the reasoning behind its scope). I am basically boxed as I cannot discuss evidence on talk pages and private evidence will be viewable to my detractors and their close friends when this is all over.  Grand jury proceedings are sealed so the comparison may be apt as the next set of grand jurors don't get access to the previous set without an order.  This process weaponizes private correspondence for my detractors when I will have no such access.  --DHeyward (talk) 19:57, 19 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Sorry DHeyward, but I have reached insinuation overload for today ("...which I hope is only scoped to Wikipedia but YMMV"). Drmies (talk) 20:13, 19 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes, welcome to the club. It was meant to be over-the-top as the insinuations against me have been.  I am literally a marginal figure in all of this yet scope creep seems to have occurred because of comments like the one I highlighted. Why am I named if the insinuations were not completely overblown and not brought up by any other editor or arbitrators?  My insinuation meter topped out at being named with no calls by anybody but a "recused" arb and vague accusations of psychological abuse on the talk page.  No one one seems willing to identify how or why I am named.  No one in Workshop has understood it either. Really?   --DHeyward (talk) 20:54, 19 April 2016 (UTC)
 * First off, that is not a threat—I gave my opinion on what I think the ArbCom should consider, but I am in no way threatening to take any action against you. Second, I would appreciate you quit casting aspersions, such as the very pointed out-of-context quoting above which implies I am actually threatening your safety. (The full quote, which is visible in my preliminary statement above, was Given that it appears the case will be accepted, I urge the Committee to take into account not only extenuating factors on-wiki (of which there have been many—not least but also very much not most, DHeyward's conduct, which I think merits a more permanent resolution than a temporary topic ban)., which I think clearly expresses that I think a temporary sanction may not be sufficient, and a more permanent one would be appropriate). GorillaWarfare (talk) 21:37, 19 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Whether the committee had decided to include DHeyward as a party in this case before or after your comment is less an issue than why he is included at all, much less why they have an interaction ban. It appears someone asked for that...who that is mere mortals such as DHeyward may never know.--MONGO 22:18, 19 April 2016 (UTC)
 * I do not know why the Committee decided to include DHeyward. I have not been going behind the scenes to the Committee to lobby them to add parties or somesuch, if that's what you're asking; all of my involvement in this case (which is really just that statement above, and then responses to various inquiries) has been on-wiki. GorillaWarfare (talk) 22:41, 19 April 2016 (UTC)
 * I honestly do not doubt that your involvement has been limited to a recusal and a statement online. I'm not being sarcastic either. Did not think it was your idea.--MONGO 22:46, 19 April 2016 (UTC)
 * The issue isn't really your statement, which I viewed more as a passive/aggressive method of naming me without calling me out as best or worst (but not naming anyone else). The concern is that there is serious doubt that any arbitrator will be candid in discussions knowing you can read their every word later.  It should be firewalled.  If a sitting arb really thought your statement was a threat, would they state it now, on the record to the mailing list knowing you could read it?  You took me task for writing it.  What will you do when in deliberations, they interpret your statement differently then you?  You have set the tone for how you will respond and notice has been given.  Candid arbiters beware as the lesson is not lost.  I don't get to read their deliberative statements puts me at a fundamental disadvantage.  --DHeyward (talk) 01:44, 20 April 2016 (UTC)
 * If a sitting arb really thought your statement was a threat, would they state it now, on the record to the mailing list knowing you could read it? Yeah, I think they would. The Arbitration Committee is not a fifteen-person hive mind, nor are we fifteen people working in terror of disagreeing or criticizing one another. Neither the AC nor the admin corps nor the Wikipedia community in general has much tolerance for threats, so I imagine I'd hear from someone pretty damn quickly if this could even possibly be construed as one. GorillaWarfare (talk) 02:18, 20 April 2016 (UTC)
 * The grand jury analogy falls apart, unfortunately, because ArbCom sits in permanent session, much like a modern court. Arbs may come and go, but the session never ends. I would, honestly, rather see an assize-like system for ArbCom, even if the analogy to a real-world outdated judicial proceeding will surely draw WP:NOT complaints. —/M endaliv /2¢/Δ's/ 20:35, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

I have to say, I agree. I have nothing against Gamaliel. I've worked well with him in the past. But he should not get access to the archive after this case. It would have a chilling effect on any hypothetical evidence that might be submitted against him. It would have a chilling effect on discussion between the arbs who want to preserve a good relationship with him after the case and might feel restrained knowing he could read what they say. Make a new list just for this case, and do not give him access to it ever. Gaijin42 (talk) 20:32, 19 April 2016 (UTC)
 * I have to say, Gaijin, I have nothing against you, but that's a ridiculous proposition. Do you really think an arb, or maybe next year an ex-arb, is going through the archives to see what might possibly have been sent to the committee's alternate list and start putting hits on people? And that no one will notice, or will call them on it? Chilling effect...seriously. It is beginning to appear as if...let me use an analogy. Editor A is in trouble; their solution is to insult admins X, Y, and Z so much that A argues that X, Y, and Z can't take action because they're involved. That's what we have here. Then throw in accusations about death panels and comparisons to the Cultural Revolution, and really, only Hitler is missing. Chill out. No one is getting a neck shot. Drmies (talk) 22:30, 19 April 2016 (UTC)
 * That seems like quite the overreaction to my statement. But are you saying you could see no (appropriate) statement which one of the arbs might want to say during deliberations that they prefer Gamaliel not see? Might they not self-censor that statement since he will have the ability to see it? If there is no issue with parties to the case seeing the deliberations after the fact, it seems like a (redacted for oversight) version of deliberations should be released to all parties in all cases.Gaijin42 (talk) 23:00, 19 April 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm synthesizing, Gaijin, from your comments but also from others. For now, I think the answer is yes, I do not see that problem. We're not a bunch of psychopaths; we're all adults--well, most of us: Kelapstick is a whippersnapper--and we can look each other in the eye and disagree. Besides, also--please remember we're a website run by volunteers. Drmies (talk) 23:11, 19 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Given the history of known leaks Wikipedia_Signpost/2011-06-27/News_and_notes, limiting access of private evidence to the minimum number of individuals is a reasonable suggestion. NE Ent 23:37, 19 April 2016 (UTC)
 * I actually don't think it's that ridiculous of a proposition. I don't really think any arbs care to spend their time slogging through archived arb emails about their case, but I do somewhat understand the concern that they might (though I do agree that others would notice and call them on it if they started "putting hits on people," as you put it). I think a separate list could make sense, though I also think that comes with some other considerations (see my longer post below, outside of this maze of indents). GorillaWarfare (talk) 02:54, 20 April 2016 (UTC)


 * A very good idea; although I'd phrase it as "make a new list for this case, and permanently limit access to the 11 arbitrators hearing the case" rather than naming anyone specifically. Given the cost of creating a new list on a listserv is very close to zero -- like five minutes of time for whoever does that task, this should not be a thing. NE Ent 23:37, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

Why is questioning how (since no evidence has been publicly posted) DHeyward is a named party, and why he and Gamaliel have been placed on an interaction ban? There was ZERO online and visible discussion or evidence...and you think it's odd that peons like me believe that shit is going on behind the scenes? Do you folks communicate with telepathy?--MONGO 22:43, 19 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Have you read the case request, Mongo? No candygrams there. Drmies (talk) 23:12, 19 April 2016 (UTC)
 * I've read it and I'm baffled. No reason to think arbiters will be candid knowing their colleagues can read everything they wrote. If that's not a problem, we don't need a mailing list and arbiters can be candid on the case page.  --DHeyward (talk) 01:48, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

Starting a new outdented bit just to speak generally on this subject. Numbering my ideas because I have several thoughts on this, but also too much homework (aaahh finals week) to do the work to putting this into some sort of cohesive prose. Anyway, a little food for thought. As I said in point 1, I'm all for this being moved to a separate list. I have no interest in going through any discussion or evidence submissions after I'm re-added to the arbcom-en-b list (and if you folks knew how annoying it is to try to look through the ArbCom mailing list archives, you'd probably be a lot more likely to believe that). I was a party to a case a little while ago and have not looked through those discussions either. GorillaWarfare (talk) 02:29, 20 April 2016 (UTC)
 * 1) I have no objection to a new email list being created for this case. It seems like it would make sense, in that there's really no need for the four of us who've recused to go back and look at the correspondence, and it would ease the concerns of some who don't want Gamaliel or any of the other recused arbs eventually having access to their evidence (or those who are concerned that the arbs cannot speak freely if the recused ones will later have access).
 * 2) I don't actually know who would be tasked with the technical job of creating the list. Of course the eleven remaining arbs could simply start an email chain with the other arbs as recipients, but this complicates non-arbitrators sending in evidence. From my understanding when I first became an arbitrator, it is the WMF who actually runs the list, and who would be responsible for not only creating a new list, but being sure that passwords (both to access and to moderate) were distributed. Given that I'm fairly certain there are still arbitrators who do not have access to the arbcom-l archives, I'm a little worried this wouldn't be able to happen in time.
 * 3) One benefit of arbcom-l is that the archives are easily accessible (okay maybe not that easily accessible—see the end of point 2) to new arbitrators—even arbitrators who were not on the Committee when the archived discussions took place. This can be extremely useful, as it provides context for repeated ban appeals, previous issues resurfacing, or case reviews and amendments. But this also begs the question: if we implement a new system (such as creating a list for this case such that myself and the other recused arbs do not have access in the future), do we need to try to do this retroactively? For example, if User:Foo was the focus of a 2013 arbitration case, or if someone submitted a private concern about them to the Arbitration Committee, and then they are elected for the 2017 Committee, does the onboarding process also need to be modified to include sifting through all archives to ensure they are not able to view this kind of thing? And do we need to come up with a technical solution (because given the state of the art of Mailman, I'd be shocked if it exists...) to actually allow us to do so? Don't get me wrong, I'm all for ditching Mailman...
 * But is the idea here then that we create an arb list for the arbs who are active on the case, and which is then archived in such a way that the recused arbs (and the arb on the hot seat) are never able to look at it? But what about the next batch of arbs--it sounds like this will be an archive that is accessible to all arbs, past, present, and future, except for these five. But isn't the essence of being an arb also that, afterward, after something has happened, we go back and see what all there was? The now-recused arbs don't have to be "recused" from the same case if it comes up again in two, three, or five years. You're friends with Gamaliel--maybe by that time you two will have come to blows (like Trump vs. Clinton, or something--one day you're at each others' weddings, the next you're mortal enemies) and friendship is no longer a reason to recuse. I mean, we deal with old cases all the times--and yes, I am one of the ones who still don't have access to the archives, and between you and me, the WMF is not exactly building a server park for us with an IT professional at our disposal 24/7. No, I believe that all arbs, past, present, and future, should have access to all the same material; again, we have sworn a blood oath to handle this material properly, and I for one take mine seriously. Shit, GorillaWarfare--you're recused. We shouldn't be seen in public together; what will people think? Drmies (talk) 03:15, 20 April 2016 (UTC)
 * I guess I don't really see the benefit in recused arbs later going back and looking at cases they were recused on. As for arbs needing to recuse, but down the line not needing to... That also seems weird to me. If Gamaliel and I become mortal enemies, I sure as hell would need to recuse. Even if Gamaliel and I fall out and just become rather "meh" on each other, I still think recusal would be wise just to avoid the appearance of a conflict of interest. GorillaWarfare (talk) 03:27, 20 April 2016 (UTC)


 * , thank you for your understanding of the concern., An arb is currently up for examination. To a degree, the committee itself is as well (as some of the allegations are regarding a general "above the law" issue). Even if everyone is going to behave perfectly, the appearance of an issue is just as relevant as an actual issue when the trust and confidence of the community is in play. If all of these issues are trumped up by Gamaliel's GamerGate enemies, its even a stronger reason to take these precautions - don't give them any additional ammunition that this is just a mock trial. Some of your oath deals with confidentiality of protected confidential information. I don't think anyone's concerns are in that area. But for the other information (non oversight evidence, deliberations, etc) if it is acceptable for Gamaliel to see that information in his own case, why is that courtesy not extended to others?  I certainly wouldn't mind perusing the deliberations in the GC case where I was sanctioned.  One of the allegations in the case is hypothetical disparate treatment between the plebes and the admins/arbs - why would one create that exact issue during the case when it is easily avoidable? Gaijin42 (talk) 03:30, 20 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Just a technical question, has the administrator of the arbcom lists even tried to create a new list from scratch? They have access to all the listserv commands and creating a list is just another command.  They may already have the privileges and the words written far exceed the complexity.  (I have a different concern if the list administrator lacks the experience to try this).  --DHeyward (talk) 04:53, 20 April 2016 (UTC)
 * No, we don't have the privileges to do that. (These are all mailman lists, BTW, not listserv lists.)
 * I think people here are hugely overestimating how interesting it might be to read an unfiltered archive of other people's old mail, even if you think there's something juicy about you in there. Because I was inactive for a long time, and some of the issues that have come up had a long backstory, I've probably made more-than-average use of the archives, and they're really pretty boring, in addition to being extremely inconvenient to find anything in. Opabinia regalis (talk) 06:11, 20 April 2016 (UTC)
 * The issue is one party will eventually have access to the data and the other will not.--MONGO 07:06, 20 April 2016 (UTC)
 * However, at that stage the case will be over so it won't matter anyway. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 07:30, 20 April 2016 (UTC)
 * The issue is that one party will eventually have access to the data and the other will not. In case you missed it. This committee is trying to deflect blame away from Gamaliel by naming another party that no one presented evidence against. Repeatedly, the community has voiced concern over the course of many arbcom elections about the lack of transparency and many potential arbcom members run on partly that platform...that they will be more transparent. Now not only does the committee pull up a sacrificial lamb almost out of the blue, to add to the mix, a unneeded interaction ban is posted to boot. And this party will never be able to see what went on behind the scenes that led to this so far.--MONGO 07:47, 20 April 2016 (UTC)


 * So if candid commentary is unnecessary, can I subscribe to the list? I have no problem identifying to WMF, agreeing to its privacy agreements, etc. If I can't, what is the rationale if not the ability to be candid? Jury deliberations are private without a recorder for the reason why they should be private. My request is rhetorical because the justification for denial is the same reason as why they should not be made public. And if no one ever looks at the old stuff, google groups are available. Delete when done. Keeping it is an indication that it is relevant. It's human behavior to identify allies/opponents/neutral/useful idiots/pontificators/progressive/conservative/etc.  This is natural.  But candid views may insult those so identified.  I respect being privately candid over public/neutral/AGW.  Knowing that I won't see it but others will changes the debate.  Anybody who has every been involved in employee performance reviews know that candid discussion is required regardless of whether those views ever make the performance review.  Anyone that has ever provided review of a supervisor knows that input is very different if names are attached to comments or they are filtered and anonymous.  Ask any of your friends id they vote for Trump.  Guess what happens when the curtain closes.  Privacy is paramount to candid.  --DHeyward (talk) 09:14, 20 April 2016 (UTC)


 * To be more blunt, most people are very polite publicly. Knowing that I and the public can read it, the comments are round about.  In a private email list, I would not be surprised if someone candidly wrote "DHeyward is acting like a complete asshat.'  But if I can read it, the language changes: "DHeyward's actions are subpar for a Wikipedia user."  Now considering who might be discussed, the language changes if the subject can read it.  Even if the actions are identical the language is different.  -DHeyward (talk) 09:39, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

The silence on whose idea it was to add DHeyward is deafening. Why not just say who brought up the idea? Why the secrecy? The list can of course be private, but if this was such a noble and obvious action, why not say whose idea it was? Are you ashamed? Is that it? Marteau (talk) 15:53, 20 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Quite frankly - I think it's foolish to squirm around about email lists. If people want to email each other - that's their business. If it's all that super sekrit - hide it on Hillary's server ... ooops.  But Mongo makes a good point, this case is about Gamaliel and if y'all try to turn this on someone else - then you're no better than a few other Arbcoms.  You folks had an uncomfortable situation handed to you, and kudos for accepting it.  Given the history of Arbcom, Gam is hardly the worst offender of the collective group.  Quite honestly?  The "evidence phase to be followed by the workshop phase" is bullshit.  Y'all know the score.  We await your most honorable decision with baited breath. — Ched :  ?  08:57, 20 April 2016 (UTC)
 * It is all about having as level playing field as possible then parties of the case stand in completely different levels of wikihierarchy. With current system the committee will be discussing this matter knowing, that immediately after the case is over, their colleague, who is party of the case, will be able to read all their opinions about it. The other parties will not be able to do so. The "we're all adults" argument sounds hollow then lots of wikipedia's problems can be described as "adults acting like children", in fact the incident which sparked this case could possibly fit such description too. Obviously nobody can force you to change anything, but aspects like this will affect perception of your proceedings, result, and the committee in general.--Staberinde (talk) 15:57, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

the bar
OK - let's face the elephant in the room. People like NYB, Risker, Iri, Cas, Carch, Floq, and a few other set a pretty high bar in what we expect in an arb. Very few folks can reach that standard, lord knows I couldn't. To be honest? I'm pretty impressed and happy with this current group. Y'all know what's going on ... so tell us what you're thinkin.
 * Hi Ched, sorry for the (mostly) arb silence recently. There's an issue we're dealing with off-wiki at the moment and we're also trying to close out some of our current business at the same time (hence the announcements posted recently). Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 11:45, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

Sooooo... no answers to questions asked multiple times above?
Namely, who asked to add DHeyward as a party? Or who asked for the injunction? Or if this is just the whim of the Arbs maybe we could get a rationale at least? Capeo (talk) 16:12, 20 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Endorse this. Arbcom is answerable to the community, and I have yet to see any community member say they understand why this was done. The Committee needs to either remove DHeyward as a party or state their reason, even if it is as simple as there being private evidence of harassment. How can DHeyward properly refute claims that haven't been made? As Jimbo said here, "no secret trials, and no convictions without giving the opportunity to present a defense. That's just basic justice, and I will overturn any ArbCom decision to the contrary". The Wordsmith Talk to me 16:21, 20 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Endorse also. Who proposed adding DHeyward to the case? Where was the voting on this proposal? Who proposed the injuction between Gamaliel and DHeyward? Where is the evidence (diffs please) that this was necessary? Thank you in advance for providing this answers. Mr Ernie (talk) 19:06, 20 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Weak endorse I'm more just interested in what ArbCom's impleader practice is than thinking there's something nasty afoot. —/M endaliv /2¢/Δ's/ 19:52, 20 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment My thinking is that the reason DHeyward was added relates to the fact that DHeyward has mentioned multiple times that he has locked horns with Gamaliel for quite a while, given their opposite-ish points on a politics spectrum. Discuss-Dubious (t/c) 20:22, 20 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Personally, I think, for the case to be make sense and have context or whatever, we're going to need more editors that Gamaliel's had to deal with. I don't want this to be "let's dig up only the best dirt on Gamaliel and drive a massive pile-on!". Maybe it should show cases in which he had to deal with an editing dispute (preferably in an admin capacity) and it went on for slightly over a month, or at least 2 weeks or something reasonable for "long editing disputes". Users have a certain degree of turnover here. Discuss-Dubious (t/c) 20:22, 20 April 2016 (UTC)
 * The idea though, to my understanding, was to avoid scope creeping this into Gamergate 2.0. During the recent BLP incident the people Gamaliel was "locking horns" with were mostly admins and regulars that have no involvement with GG at all. It seems strange to me to grab an editor that wasn't even the main focus of the conflict and toss them in there for the hell of it. Particularly when nobody asked for it (that we know of) and no evidence was brought against them. Maybe the Arbs' reasoning is perfectly sound. I just think they ought to tell us, particularly the party they just dragged into an ArbCom case. Capeo (talk) 20:58, 20 April 2016 (UTC)
 * If I remember correctly, DHeyward has disagreed with Gamaliel on politics or whatever even before GG. Obviously, it's token.

Discuss-Dubious (t/c) 21:34, 20 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Undoubtedly. The question is, what the hell do these past conflicts have anything to do with Gamaliel's actions that brought him here?Capeo (talk) 02:45, 21 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Endorse. ArbCom ought not be a kangaroo court, a show trial, or a struggle session. The rationale for examining Gamaliel's conduct has been clearly established. The rationale for adding DHeyward as an involved party, has not. Why was he included as an involved party? For what reason was an injunction imposed upon him? How can he be expected to offer evidence to defend himself when nobody except the ArbCom even knows what the charges against him are? Until the community receives an answer to this, these proceedings are the very definition of a Kafkaesque trial. --Миборовский (talk) 22:10, 20 April 2016 (UTC)
 * I find myself wondering what would have happened if the committee had ever been asked the question with good faith and politeness rather than accusation and snark? I've always find polite far more likely to produce the result I desire under most circumstances.  In any event, given the question has been raised repeatedly, and arbcom policy states fairly clearly "the Committee will make public detailed rationales for decisions related to cases, unless the matter is unsuitable for public discussion for privacy, legal or similar reasons. " -- so I reckon the question is "Is there a privacy or legal reason the committee is not explaining the adding of DHewyard as party?" NE Ent 02:10, 21 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Thank you Ent. Just as a minor note, this case involves a whole bunch of stuff on different pages and mailing lists, and it's not always easy to keep track. If we get insulted or snarked at, it makes me less likely to put forth the extra effort. In addition, and I'll say this off the record (haha!), as a new ArbCom member I feel the need to be terrifically on my guard, and have a tendency to say much less than I'm used to. Drmies (talk) 18:12, 22 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Endorse an explanation of the rationale of adding the additional party, even if that explanation is just "Can't say due to privacy issues". There's no need to identify the specific arb who suggested it, though. ~ RobTalk 02:42, 21 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Endorse: per my evidence statement. Kingsindian &#9821; &#9818; 04:41, 21 April 2016 (UTC)


 * (Note I'm not speaking on behalf of the Committee.) DHeyward was primarily added as a party as due to comments in the case request phases which indicated that there was significant aggravation between he and Gamaliel related to both the April Fools issue and elsewhere which was going to come up during the case and be looked at. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 05:06, 21 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Having watched them have some back and forth discussions I do not recall that either stooped so low as to engage in outright personal attacks. There isn't any love between them but compared to some ongoing disagreements, their arguments seemed to have remained relatively collegial. But if the committee felt that sending each to their respective corners was best then so be it.--MONGO 05:21, 21 April 2016 (UTC)
 * See also this thread on DHeyward's talk page. And, come to think of it, a few threads further up, containing warnings about conduct during the case request. Opabinia regalis (talk) 04:39, 22 April 2016 (UTC)


 * What Callenecc says. Content and tenor of comments deserve looking into with closer scrutiny. Drmies (talk) 18:12, 22 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Since no one else seems to understand the need for an IB, much less adding Dheyward as a party, who is going to submit evidence? I find this rather distasteful as it makes the Arbitrators seem aloof and capricious.  Reasonable questions have been asked, most without "snark". Are sensitivities high?That man from Nantucket (talk) 02:10, 23 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Endorse adherence to clearly stated policy: "... the Committee will make public detailed rationales for decisions related to cases, unless the matter is unsuitable for public discussion for privacy, legal or similar reasons. ".  Marteau (talk) 09:59, 21 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Callanecc has answered the question. NE Ent 10:49, 21 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Callanecc has indeed replied, but I still can't find the answers to who proposed to add DHeyward as a party or who proposed the injunction. Mr Ernie (talk) 19:03, 21 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Having thought about it, I've decided this is over-personalizing. A majority of the committee voted in favor of the injunction. We the voters are the ones who are responsible for it, in equal measure. Opabinia regalis (talk) 04:39, 22 April 2016 (UTC)
 * I imagine DHeyward was added just for the interaction ban. Do you think would be a good choice for a party? He was one of the most vocal people in the Signpost dispute, both at the MfD discussion and the AN/I thread. Discuss-Dubious (t/c) 16:55, 22 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Meh, I guess they could, would seem pointless however. I can/could be blocked quite easily without the need of an arb case.  Arkon (talk) 17:01, 22 April 2016 (UTC)
 * True, but I mean for like examining or investigating or something. Your comments would be more important to the deliberation. DHeyward/Gamaliel is attempted to go outside of the dispute, but isn't nearly deep enough to go 'deep' for "other disputes". We need... more editors, people who have interacted with him positively or opposed him temporarily. Discuss-Dubious (t/c) 18:12, 22 April 2016 (UTC)
 * We've been discussing adding Arkon and JzG as parties for a while however it kept getting forgotten/dropped as we had to deal with other things. I've now added them both as parties. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 03:06, 23 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Do not endorse: I don't know the reasoning at ArbCom, but I suspect that this post on Commons was part of it.  DHeyward clearly inserted himself right into the middle of the issue.   Montanabw (talk) 22:49, 23 April 2016 (UTC)
 * The point is, we don't know the reason. If that's the reason, then it can be stated and DHeyward can provide evidence and respond about it. The person doesn't need to be stated, just a better idea of the scope then. Would it really be fair if someone else was thrown in, not told the reason why and then was punished (even just admonished) all the while people knew without providing the rationale? -- Ricky81682 (talk) 08:08, 24 April 2016 (UTC)
 * No one should be sanctioned or admonished during the case without evidence being provided by other editors (unless something extremely unusual occurred). The way it works is we name the parties without providing reasons (which is how we've worked in the past), editors interested in the case either provide evidence concerning the editor or don't. During the workshop phase people discuss the evidence. The proposed decision is based on the evidence. If there's no evidence or the evidence is too weak to justify a sanction, we won't sanction. If we think there is evidence strong enough to require a sanction, we'll sanction. Doug Weller  talk 09:03, 25 April 2016 (UTC)
 * That's fine with me. I don't endorse essentially a mob mentality that says ignore general Arbcom procedures in this case so this is moot basically since it's been later resolved via an explanation of the scope of the case in the evidence discussion. I just don't think it's helpful to speculate either. It seems like there's been some questions about the procedures that Arbcom follows but I suspect that's normal with any conduct done here. I ask that the people questioning that consider a separate outside-Arbcom discussion about these procedures. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 22:27, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

Co-authors question
Can someone explain how the co-authors are not part of the BLP thing? If anyone could explain, that's fine. I'm not saying you did anything; this is just to clear things up for me. Thanks. Discuss-Dubious (t/c) 21:50, 20 April 2016 (UTC)


 * The co-authors are not part of the "BLP thing" because this isn't a "BLP thing". Despite Montanabw et al's claim that the BLP issue has been blown way out of proportion, it is actually not what the case is about. The BLP issue in question was resolved through community consensus in other channels. The reason it was brought over to ANI and eventually ArbCom is because of Gamaliel's allegedly inappropriate/unprofessional/unbecoming behavior following this. Everyone whose statement was to the effect of "ArbCom should not take this case because it's completely ridiculous to punish Gamaliel for this trivial BLP matter that's been blown way out of proportion" is either missing the point, or intentionally trying to muddle the water. Gamaliel is not being put in front of ArbCom for BLP violation, but for allegedly poor behavior while trying to keep (what others perceived to be) BLP vio material from being deleted. --Миборовский (talk) 22:42, 20 April 2016 (UTC)


 * I'd say that's what would be good to be true. Problem is, the article is becoming part of the discussion.  Montanabw (talk) 00:14, 21 April 2016 (UTC)
 * The BLP concerns raised in the MfD were not focused on the April Fools' Signpost piece itself (which was dated April 1 and clearly recognisable as humour – as evident from the comments it got on the day) but the standalone dummy page that had a fake date (not April 1) and could, despite the humour template placed on it, conceivably have led to confusion if someone found it by chance later on. As JzG put it in the MfD discussion, "this is a joke but it's in a location where readers would not expect one, so needs to go from there." DHeyward said, "Backdating fake articles as if they ran earlier misses the April 1 aspect of the joke." The dummy page was only created because we were in time trouble – by the time the Signpost came out, it was April 2 in half the world – and it was the quickest and easiest way to populate a sidebar. But it somehow sparked a conflict that took on a life of its own. Andreas JN 466 02:08, 21 April 2016 (UTC)
 * It took on a life of its own because after the community said remove it Gamaliel pushed back with the use of admin tools then refused to explain any of his actions until an ArbCom case came against him. That's being generous by the way. He still hasn't explained anything. Capeo (talk) 02:41, 21 April 2016 (UTC)
 * So, this case is about how the idea of deleting the article and N&N page was treated, in addition to what was written in the first place, right? Discuss-Dubious (t/c) 00:18, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

Arbitrator accountability
Whether an arbitrator is accountable to the community is a central issue in this case and a primary reason for acceptance. I have a lot of faith in ArbCom, and I have a deep respect for the several members who I've come across in my usual editing activities. But I'm sorry, ArbCom is blowing it on this issue. How on earth can the Committee say they're accountable to the community while the community is asking for clarification on major issues of an ongoing case and every single arbitrator is silent? Like I said, I have profound respect for every ArbCom member who I've worked with, and I'm not the typical ArbCom hater that dislikes the very idea of ArbCom. You guys (and gals) take on the most difficult and thankless job on a site full of difficult and thankless jobs. You have got to provide some explanation when the community at large is confused about a major issue in a case, though. Even if that statement is just "We can't comment due to privacy issues," you have to say something, or you're implicitly saying that ArbCom as a whole is not accountable to the community in any sense. This specifically concerns the issue of parties on this case, which has been discussed at length at Wikipedia_talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Gamaliel_and_others. ~ RobTalk 02:38, 21 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Moving from evidence to comply with word count. ~ RobTalk 20:44, 21 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Is Callanecc's answer sufficient? It was made after your question. Normally and in this case the drafters decide who should be a party, ie me, DGG and Callanecc. Doug Weller  talk 17:03, 22 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes, it is, and thanks for the answer . ~ RobTalk 18:07, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

Scope change
With slightly less than the half of the evidence time period having passed, the scope of the case has changed with the addition of two additional parties. This makes optimizing evidence while meeting the committee's length restrictions et. al. challenging.
 * At this point, does the committee anticipate any further changes to the involved parties?
 * Would the committee an extension to the evidence deadline? NE Ent 10:19, 23 April 2016 (UTC)


 * There's been no discussion of any additional parties. And while I can't predict the future, it seems unlikely we will be adding more.
 * At the moment the case doesn't seem complex enough to extend, but it's possible. If you need more words because of the addition of parties just ask. If it's really justified it should be granted. Unfortunately we have had some editors who need 500 words to say something that shouldn't require more than a couple of sentences, so we do need evidence to be as concise as possible, hence word length restrictions. Doug Weller  talk 08:56, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

Uneven treatment
So, Dheyward gets clerk reverted in an hour, but JzG can post to the same "arbcom/clerk only" page and not get reverted in two days? When looking at what gets removed at the evidence page, and what is allowed to stay there, I se a distinctly uneven treatment of different sides in this dispute. Please make sure that the clerking is done impartially. Fram (talk) 07:16, 25 April 2016 (UTC)
 * The clerks do not have conscious biases for or against any side in this dispute. What you might see as biased clerking is simply a lack of personnel on this case, as three of our most active clerks are recused in this matter (and I am formally inactive). I'm reverting 's statement on the main case page as a clear-cut action, however. Thank you for your attention. Kevin ( aka L235 ·&#32; t ·&#32; c) 08:12, 25 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I just try to express the impression I get without pointing at individuals. I am probably not unbiased in this case, which may colour my view of this. Fram (talk) 08:47, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

Statement by JzG (after case opening)
Thanks to Johnuniq for emailing me - as the note on my talk page say, I am in the middle of a building project and not active on Wikipedia at the moment (and indeed for the next couple of months).

As far as I can see, I have nothing to do with the case. I closed the ANI for one simple reason: it was a collision between people who violently asserted that the Signpost joke was (a) absolutely and incontrovertibly a BLP violation and (b) a pressing violation requiring immediate and harsh action. Numerous uninvolved editors, including me, concluded that it was a matter on which reasonable people could differ, and that the normal Wikipedia processes already in train would (and as it turns out did) fix it.

It became obvious that those engaging in WP:CRYBLP were unwilling or unable to assume good faith. At that point I walked away. The complaint here appears to be that I failed to assume good faith in respect of their abject refusal to allow of even the smallest possibility that anybody else was acting in good faith.

I should not have used snark. Mea culpa, but we are talking here about one attempt to close an obnoxiously worded ANI, reverted by the filer (an obvious partisan), who was very sweary about it, which I reverted and then stopped because people other than the filer decided it should stay. This is stretching the definition of involvement to breaking point.

My personal view is that it's a lame joke, but after, what, three decades it's a bit late to try to put that particular genie back in the bottle. The whole short-fingers thing is well known in the media here in the UK. The funny bit is not the joke itself but Trump's comically disproportionate reaction to is, as evidenced in the WashPo thing.

People should have assumed good faith and been less strident in asserting that only their interpretation was valid. The only qualifying language I saw in any of the posts was from those advocating leaving MFD to do its job. Obviously absolutism is a defining characteristics of political debate, but we're supposed to be above that.

Some have said that this is residual Gamergate score-settling. I sincerely hope that is not the case. It is hard to think of any agenda less compatible with Wikipedia's core ethos than Gamergate.

Wikipedia fixes issues like this by thoughtful debate, not by mobs with pitchforks and burning torches. Some people were not prepared to allow the usual process to take its course. I think they were wrong, but a brief period of trying to prevent it showed that any such attempts were quixotic, so I stopped.

I simply have no time to take any further part in this. Real life wins. Guy (Help!) 09:04, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

Arbitration motion restricting Gamaliel
Per his request, communicated off-wiki to the Committee, Gamaliel is indefinitely restricted from taking any action to enforce any arbitration decision within the GamerGate topic, broadly construed. Any violation of this motion must be reported to WP:ARCA. He may appeal this decision after 12 months to the Arbitration Committee.


 * Support: Doug Weller, Courcelles, Opabinia regalis, Drmies, DGG, Kelapstick
 * Oppose: Salvio giuliano, Casliber, Callanecc
 * Recuse: Gamaliel, GorillaWarfare, Keilana, Kirill Lokshin

For the Arbitration Committee, Kevin ( aka L235 ·&#32; t ·&#32; c) 21:16, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Discuss this at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard

If this case is not about gamergate, why post a notice about gamergate here? NE Ent 22:13, 30 April 2016 (UTC)


 * My suggestion, although I made a mistake in the wording due to late night copy/paste. I believed that any action involving Gamaliel was relevant here. Although the case is not about GamerGate, it is about administrative actions in all areas which obviously includes GamerGate. Doug Weller  talk 07:14, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

Announcement regarding Gamaliel
has resigned as an arbitrator because he is currently unable to edit the English Wikipedia and is therefore entirely inactive as an arbitrator. This has come about as a result of circumstances which have been disclosed to the Committee, and which in no way reflect negatively on him. We thank Gamaliel for his service on the 2016 Committee to date and wish him the best.

For the Arbitration Committee, Opabinia regalis (talk) 03:04, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

For the Arbitration Committee [ cross-posted ], Kevin ( aka L235 ·&#32; t ·&#32; c) 03:16, 22 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Discuss this at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard