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

Who proposed the IBAN and what evidence was used?
I and User:Gamaliel should know the proposer, the evidence that creates the necessity and the expected benefit it provides this case. We should have a Right of reply. We should know the evidence. We should know the boundaries. The community has ignored it for 10 years. What say you? --DHeyward (talk) 04:59, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

Sorry, but thanks
I think that this is one of those cases where, in a lot of ways, pretty much everybody wishes it didn't exist, and that they didn't have to deal with it. That includes me, although, admittedly, all I have been doing is mouthing off for no particularly obvious or apparent purpose. But, like a lot of other things you arbs have to deal with, it apparently pretty much has to be done, and you are the ones in a position to do it. Thanks to all of you who have been in the past or still are willing to put yourself through this, and trusted enough by others to be elected to do so. John Carter (talk) 18:21, 16 May 2016 (UTC)
 * This case could have been prevented if the individuals involved could've put their pride away and admitted fault. It was caused by doubling-down on a crappy position.  I would hope this could be a lesson to everyone the dangers of prideful stubbornness, but it won't be and we'll have another case like it in the future.  But, it is not anyone else's fault, except those who refused to budge, that we're here.--v/r - TP 17:11, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

Alanscottwalker section
In the first Principle, can you be clearer about what is "outside article space", for example is the article talk page outside article space?

Regardless of the above, in general, I think it's a bad idea to make such a broad claim about a huge swaths of the project lacking consensus (in other words, something outside article space, however defined, could be immediately and generally be seen as a BLP violation, while something else, depending on circumstance may not be so easy). I think you invite people saying, 'no there is no consensus, so I can assert whatever I want about LP's, here.' (ie., every BLP assertion becomes not easy to deal with). Alanscottwalker (talk) 12:51, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

Further to the above, that last sentence of Principle 1, does not appear to be a principle at all, more in the nature of a finding, but without evidence to explain it or support it. Alanscottwalker (talk) 13:08, 22 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Article talk space is outside article space, and my experience is that BLP is applied differently on article talk space. We can discuss BLP issues in article talk space, at BLPN, etc. saying things that perhaps we might decide would be breaches of BLP if added to an article. Context matters. And I don't think it's possible to draw a clear hard line and still be able to discuss what is a potential BLP violation. Although I take your point about the last sentence fitting oddly within the principle, I thought the case itself - the evidence, the talk page discussions, etc. provide ample evidence. Doug Weller  talk 13:29, 22 May 2016 (UTC)
 * The policy already has WP:BLPTALK. It would be bizarre, and likely to lead to all kinds of disruption to claim parts of BLP policy are without consensus. As I suggested, yes there are circumstances to evaluate, but that does not lead to a broad, no consensus principle. Alanscottwalker (talk) 13:33, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

Suggestion: Replace last sentence with: "Current BLP policy addresses matters outside article space at WP:BLPTALK, which requests various levels of careful judgement concerning assertions about living persons." Alanscottwalker (talk) 13:59, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

AL BLPTTALK establishes that at least for article talk space and related discussions about possibly BLP-violating content, there needs to be some flexibility in the interpretation. The question for the community is to establish a guideline for what the level of flexibility should be outside article space. As I see it, no policy is self-interepreting--all policies are general rules, not detailed regulations. Even if you disagree with that, and think some particular policy is so clear as to leave no room for interpretation, there stiwould still need to be decisions about whether something in particular falls under it.  DGG ( talk ) 17:40, 22 May 2016 (UTC)
 * AL? What's that?
 * Besides, your and User:Casliber's comments in  demonstrate in fact how mistaken your argument is:  You can't contend on the one hand, 'no, it's perfectly clear that's a BLP violation in non-article space and must be removed according to policy', except, on the other hand, 'on principle, according to principle 1, there is no such consensus about BLP and non article space in policy.' Alanscottwalker (talk) 18:09, 22 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Judgement is required in applying BLP policy, and that's my judgement about the edits in question.  DGG ( talk ) 21:32, 22 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Then you are plainly outside your own declared principle 1 - and taking unprincipled positions is usually to be avoided by principled decision making. The principle you have supported is at odds with your judgement because you have declared, on principle, you are acting without consensus.   If you actually want to talk about judgement then actually do so, as in my proposal, because your proposal does nothing of the kind, and is much worse in multiple other ways, being vague, ambiguous, and over-broad. Alanscottwalker (talk) 23:02, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

ANI finding
ANI discussion is correct but fails to note that it's also pretty much "situation normal" on that forum. (Hence the community accepted shortcuts WP:CESSPIT, WP:PITCHFORKS et. al.) NE Ent 12:52, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

Committee members
Committee action as it relates to its members is very equalitarian but not realistic. People fear what can hurt them, and the only people who can directly hurt admins is arbcom. Furthermore, there's no mention in WP:ARBCOND of any community recourse regarding arbitrator misconduct. NE Ent 13:07, 22 May 2016 (UTC)
 * I suspect if there were a broad RfC with some damning numbers from a large section of the community then some recourse would be available. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:34, 22 May 2016 (UTC)


 * WP:ARBPOL is written by the community, and can of course be modified by the community. That said, on a number of occasions in the past ArbCom has willfully violated that policy. As noted, people fear that which can hurt them. Nothing can hurt ArbCom. Principle 10 even delineates that line; "ArbCom is responsible for investigating misconduct by its members". I.e., the community has no jurisdiction over their arbitration actions. Nobody watches the watchers. The only 'power' we have is to vote them out of office, if they should stand again. A case example of this is right here in this case; one of the remedies being suggested is Gamaliel to be desysopped. I'm confident he will not be so, despite violating no less than eight policies in his greater than week long spree of violations. What instead will happen is ArbCom will view his self removal from ArbCom as enough to satisfy the situation, even though his conduct as an arbitrator was never in question; it was his responsibilities as an admin that brought this case to where it is. Even the remedies are written in such a way to encourage the admonishment rather than the desysop, even though both are based in the same serious breaches. The case was structured from the very beginning to have this result. The scope (which is rarely delineated) of this case was established to be only recent actions of his. This, despite many other cases having unlimited scope allowing a witch hunt to ensue (not that I agree with witch hunts; just the juxtaposition of allowing it when it's not an arbcom member vs. not allowing when it is, is rather telling). In this case, ArbCom refused to allow the scope to extend. Of course, in a very chilling move, ArbCom is now making it illegal to criticize conduct of ArbCom. It is interesting to note that while this is stated as a "principle" in this case, there is no finding of fact or remedy that has anything to do with it. I.e., ArbCom is laying down the law for future cases to act against people who criticize them. So, in short, only ArbCom is allowed to investigate the conduct of its members in relation to ArbCom duties, they will limit the scope of cases involving its members but not other cases, and if you don't like it and decide to complain about it, you can now be sanctioned by ArbCom simply for saying so. And people wonder why ArbCom is widely disparaged and not trusted? --Hammersoft (talk) 16:06, 22 May 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm perhaps naive, but I don't see the point about decorum on case pages in that light. I think "decorum" is not the best choice of word, but it is very much true that we are expected to be civil everywhere on Wikipedia, including in this corner of it. What I miss, as I've said below, is the context of that - that incivility degrades the editing atmosphere and thereby weakens us as an encyclopedia-writing community. In other words I think ArbCom, by omitting the context, has among other things allowed that statement to be read as referring specifically to criticism of Wikipedia ArbCom - but I don't see it that way. I see it as applying also to the repetitions of the aspersions against editors criticizing Gamaliel's conduct. As I say, maybe I'm naive. Also ... I share the concern expressed by that the Committee is not recognizing what was very clear at the AN/I - that only ArbCom can censure an admin. I wouldn't put it in terms of fear, so maybe I'm not fully appreciating Ent's point, but that AN/I demonstrated very clearly that the community does not feel itself empowered to act on complaints of admin misconduct. I'd say that is simply the way things are: there is generally no other avenue, and I'm sorry if that adds to ArbCom's workload, but that's what we have. Yngvadottir (talk) 16:18, 22 May 2016 (UTC)
 * The fact that the principle is in no way tied to any findings of fact is very telling. ArbCom's findings point to conduct off of arbitration pages, but points to nothing on such pages. Further, the principle is very broadly worded. I'm not attempting to screw my tinfoil hat on here, but absent any explanation of the intent here, there is nothing in this case that has anything to do with conduct on arbitration pages. Why have it at all? Lastly, by placing of such a principle on a case regarding the conduct of one of its members, in a case where they strictly limited the scope where in other cases they rarely state a scope, they themselves juxtapose this principle into that context. --Hammersoft (talk) 16:31, 22 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Uh, I am pretty sure the decorum principle has to do with statements that occurred during the arbitration (it certainly stuck in my mind, when someone called someone else a "cancer"). -- (At any rate now the format of this page is blown - suppose to comment in our own sections. So, clerks move this, if need be.) Alanscottwalker (talk) 16:44, 22 May 2016 (UTC)
 * I readily grant it can be read that way. However, it is poorly worded at best. "Strident rhetoric" in particular is very chilling. Criticism of ArbCom, even harsh but otherwise civil criticism, is the only avenue by which the people have any ability to amend their behavior. The definition of rhetoric is language designed to have a persuasive effect. The definition of strident modifies that to include loud and unpleasant. Mixing the two leaves a definition that is highly subjective; such a principle can later be used (as principles are) to sanction someone for criticizing arbitration. While we have WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA policies, we do not have a WP:RHETORIC policy, and for good reason. Criticism, even harsh but otherwise civil criticism is an absolutely necessary component of what we do here. To have it as a principle and then show nothing at all connected to it in the case is wrong. --Hammersoft (talk) 16:55, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

The "conduct on arbitration pages" principle is not novel to this case or some sort of power-grab by the Committee as a result of this case. The wording derives from language first used in a decision I wrote more than eight years ago (see, Requests for arbitration/Mantanmoreland), and has been used a couple of dozen times since without creating any issues I am aware of. Newyorkbrad (talk) 20:56, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

I do not accept "that only ArbCom can censure an admin" is a point made clear by the ANI discussion. The ANI discussion made it clear that there was not going to be a quick agreement on whether to maybe block Gamaliel for admin abuse, or Arkon for edit warring, or whatever else you can see in that discussion. Someone said "ah it's so clear that only ArbCom etc", and that got elevated to truth. How, I don't know. Drmies (talk) 23:08, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

Signpost
I'm surprised by the absence of two things: the statement that the purpose of Wikipedia is to write an encyclopedia, and any mention of the Signpost per se, as opposed to its having been the location of the BLP-infringing page, and its being mentioned in the suggestions for future RfCs. I share the concern that BLP policy is being unduly cast into question in this proposed decision, and I feel that one reason for that is the Committee has chosen not to examine the question of how the Signpost relates to Wikipedia - is it or is it not subject to our policies - and instead to suggest very broad RfCs. This sequence of events arose because Gamaliel placed the Signpost's having the hoax page in use above the concern based in BLP policy. The Signpost context is therefore central to what happened. And without a statement that we are here to write an encyclopedia, that issue is more or less a matter of whim. I have a less important concern that the proposed RfC on April Fool's will needlessly take up a great amount of time and energy going over what one of the motions states, that April Fool's Day is honored on Wikipedia by consensus. (I happen to have written the text that motion is based on.) Do we really need to re-tread that ground because the Signpost went outside the established convention of April Fool's Day on Wikipedia? I'm disappointed that the Committee thinks so, and I suspect this comes from not considering the Signpost issue in the light of our purpose here: the missing statement that we are here to write an encyclopedia. On the other hand, I may just not understand how the committee does things. Yngvadottir (talk) 16:07, 22 May 2016 (UTC)
 * I found the Community encouraged (BLP) remedy to be rather surprising. If this remedy passes, it essentially undermines the applicability of BLP policy in anything other than articles. The "remedy" makes it a question as to whether BLP applies outside of article space. As written, the WP:BLP policy applies to "any Wikipedia page" (italicized emphasis NOT mine). Even if ArbCom is so short sighted as to question whether BLP applies fully outside of article space, the BLP policy is absolutely unequivocal about it. From WP:BLPTALK; "Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced and not related to making content choices should be removed..." (emphasis in this case is mine). Signpost has nothing to do with making content choices. I.e. anything Signpost writes that is unsourced or poorly sourced should be removed. I seriously, seriously doubt the Foundation intends for it's BLP policy to apply fully only to articles. The overreach here is astonishing. ArbCom has grossly overstepped their bounds here, even questioning the applicability of Foundation resolutions. Of course, criticizing them for doing so is about to become illegal. --Hammersoft (talk) 16:25, 22 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes, I find that surprising. I thought it was a settled issue, and not just because the WMF insists on it. (As does Jimbo - there's a quote from him about the need to remove unsourced potentially damaging information from BLPs, immediately, rather than templating it as needing sources.) IANAL, but maybe this is an example of hard cases making bad law: the Committee does not appear to have accepted that the hoax page was a BLP violation, despite the consensus at the MfD, which I would have thought established that. Yngvadottir (talk) 16:32, 22 May 2016 (UTC)
 * As much as I like the fact that they used something I wrote, I'm wondering how they get around Ent's well-reasoned argument and mention of the civ RFC. Discuss-Dubious (t/c) 01:37, 23 May 2016 (UTC)


 * ↑ What they said; at root this is a case about under what circumstances WP:LOCALCONSENSUS can overrule usual procedures and policies, and not addressing that just kicks the can down the road. Regarding April Fools, "[AFD is] tolerated by established consensus supported by the outcome of various noticeboard and deletion discussions" should probably be reworded, as it gives the impression that that's the current state of play Wikipedia-wide. This isn't the case; indeed, what used to be the highest-profile AFD item, the April 1 TFA, has been deprecated altogether. &#8209; Iridescent 16:33, 22 May 2016 (UTC)


 * I do note that at least one arbitrator (Courcelles) has recognized now that WP:BLPTALK is policy. You can not have both "Applicability of the BLP policy", questioning BLP policy outside of article space, and WP:BLPTALK both be valid. Since ArbCom can not write policy, their proposed principle is fundamentally wrong and can not exist. Should they pass it, it is instantly void as ArbCom does not have the remit to write or undermine policy. I'm astonished that Callanecc, Cas Liber, Doug Weller and Salvio would support such an obviously flawed principle. --Hammersoft (talk) 16:48, 22 May 2016 (UTC)
 * noting this diff; whether BLP policy applies outside of article space or not is not undermined by discussion as to whether it does or not. It IS the standing policy that it does. That is the current consensus. The wording of this principle leaves the applicability of that policy in doubt. I assure you most emphatically, as most certainly would the Foundation, that there is no doubt whatsoever about the applicability of the policy outside of articles. Remove the last sentence and it agrees with policy. Include that last sentence and it does not. With all respect, the policy trumps whatever ArbCom says. The principle as written is utterly void. You (ArbCom) can pass it if you like, but the community can and will ignore the principle at your (ArbCom's) peril. ArbCom can't rewrite policy nor sanction someone for applying it properly outside of article space. --Hammersoft (talk) 17:02, 22 May 2016 (UTC)
 * One of the (exceedingly boring) things that are on Arbwiki is a list of principles so useful they're stored in easy-to-find format. One of them is "Editors must take particular care when adding biographical material about a living person to any Wikipedia page. Such material requires a high degree of sensitivity, and must adhere strictly to all our content policies, especially: neutral point of view, verifiability and no original research. Articles must use high quality references. Unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material about living persons—whether the material is negative, positive, or just questionable—should be removed immediately." (emphasis mine).  See also Principle 3 of the GamerGate case.  I don't get this proposed principle at all. Courcelles (talk) 17:07, 22 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Indeed, and Doug's reasoning does not help. When individual Users argue against the direct words of policy, individuals loose, with an oft repeated statement along the lines of 'change the policy, don't pretend it does not exist'. Alanscottwalker (talk) 17:31, 22 May 2016 (UTC)
 * (to Courcelles) Concur (and thank you about the ArbWiki info and link to the GamerGate principle). Of note; if this principle passes as is, it significantly affects FoF #3 and #4, significantly reducing their severity where such reduction is not supported by policy. It's as if saying "well, it's not a policy breach because we're not sure if the policy really applies". That further undermines remedies #1 and #2. Remedy #7 is already void and meaningless. This principle is way outside of the remit of ArbCom, and the FoFs and subsequent remedies tied to it are dramatically affected by its presence. Indeed, the entire tenor of the PD is affected by the inclusion of the last sentence in that principle. "It's really not so bad, is it?" Yes, Virginia, it's serious. --Hammersoft (talk) 17:34, 22 May 2016 (UTC)
 * (to Alanscottwalker) I agree as well. It's even more emphatic in the case of BLP policy, as we extend policy of removal of content under BLP to default to not include. We can't pretend it doesn't exist. --Hammersoft (talk) 17:34, 22 May 2016 (UTC)
 * To further emphasize ArbCom's error in questioning the validity of BLP policy outside of article space; let's view another example. At WP:NFCC we have a statement preventing the use of non-free content outside of article space (with few exceptions). At WP:BLPTALK we have a policy showing that BLP clearly applies outside of article space. In abstract, these policies are similar. ArbCom is now questioning the validity of the latter. Imagine if ArbCom questioned the validity of WP:NFCC? Absurd you say? So is questioning WP:BLPTALK. As the Foundation states, search results increasingly contain results to Wikipedia. Those results are, as we well know, not limited to just articles. We have a very strong obligation to the BLP policy, and that is most emphatically not restricted to article space. This isn't a question; it's policy. Period. --Hammersoft (talk) 17:49, 22 May 2016 (UTC)
 * I didn't view it as questioning policy. The issue for me is how consistent people are in supporting that policy. As I say below, I'll think about it. Doug Weller  talk 18:35, 22 May 2016 (UTC)


 * I hope everyone is aware that when ArbCom's drafters write something like "DHeyward (talk · contribs) is admonished for engaging in incivility and personal attacks on other editors. He is reminded that all editors are expected to engage respectfully and civilly with each other and to avoid making personal attacks.", this is a BLP violation by the letter of BLP policy as cited many times in the course of this case. It's contentious, makes assertions not based on a high-quality published source, expresses a personal opinion in the voice of Wikipedia, etc. Would I be in my rights to go and delete that from the proposed decision page, citing BLP policy? Or do we accept the fact that the way BLP and other policies apply in project space differs from the way they apply in article and article talk space? Andreas JN 466 20:57, 22 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Uh, No. Read the policy, which records the consensus on claims of disruption against editors and how they are handled under BLP. Alanscottwalker (talk) 21:07, 22 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Actually, I apologized for it but the evidence doesn't support "editors." It was one incident (Signpost edition) and one editor.  A "reminder" is more appropriate.  As far as I recall, there was only one personal attack.  Restoring a user box is hardly a personal attack, but it was listed (it was pointy).  I also object to the language that I engaged in "personal attacks" while others "cast aspersions."  One is an essay, the other policy.  It's classist to use different language for what I only see as a difference in station.  Aspersions are personal attacks.  --DHeyward (talk) 21:15, 22 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Classist? Workers of Wikipedia, unite! Socialize the means of production! Oh, wait, we kind of already did that, and we even have a policy about how nobody owns anything, and there are still class wars? Shit.
 * Anyway. Referring to "casting aspersions" is just being specific about the type of personal attack. Nothing more interesting than that. Opabinia regalis (talk) 03:46, 24 May 2016 (UTC)
 * I just note that the current proposals have equal punishment, evidence against me is a personal attack on one editor vs. numerous policy violations including personal attacks noted for others. Equivocate all you like about the differences, the reality is that with all those FoF's, the punishments are the same.  One personal attack directed at one editor doesn't even match the language.  You don't see Super Mario?  --DHeyward (talk) 04:29, 24 May 2016 (UTC)
 * The section is called "remedies", not "punishments". Opabinia regalis (talk) 06:44, 24 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Wow. Language has never meant so little.  Okay, despite just one personal attack against one editor, I have the severest "remedy."   Play with language all you like but when the remedy for so many policy violations equals the remedy for one, something is broken.  Is the "remedy" proportionate to the infraction?  The equal remedy implies an equivalence of infraction.  It doesn't follow the FoF that two admins broke multiple policies.  Want to make it all equal: strip bits from everyone you wish to admonish for misbehavior.  Then we will be equal (that would at least be a starting point and we can all stand for an RfA).  I acknowledged my wrongdoing so vilify me for it and reward the defiant.  Heck, no one even considered to block me for it, yet I face the severest remedy in this case with hardly an acknowledgement that I should be here.  One personal attack directed at one editor with which I was prevented from providing evidence of tool misuse from only last November (against me).   Remind me of the "attacks" and "editors" (plural) mentioned in the remedy because that's what it says so it should be easy to find clear pluralities, correct?.  None of the diffs seem to support it but I'm not sure anyone has actually read them other than PeterTheFourth that only provided evidence to sanction me (figure out why that is, and you could discount all of it instead of counting).  I know you are aware enough to discern sarcasm from attack and wit from sincerity as you just employed it above.  Ask yourself which of my comments were personal attacks and which were hyperbole.  I admitted where I crossed the line a single time.  Apparently defiance is a better strategem. --DHeyward (talk) 08:17, 24 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Look, you vandalized Gamaliel's userpage out of sheer pettiness and malice, and with a phony, passive-aggressively "helpful" edit summary. (If Gamaliel had done something similar to you&mdash;for instance, by putting a "This user is a GamerGater" userbox on your page based on your perceived agenda&mdash;you'd be screaming for his head; don't pretend otherwise). If you were a brand-new user, that vandalism alone would probably earn you an indefinite block. And yet no one blocked you, nor is anyone proposing anything harsher than an admonition here. Why is that? Because you're an established editor, not a new account. You are Super Mario, too, although you lack the insight or self-awareness to understand that. Nonetheless, I will treat future edits by you the same the way I'd treat them if they were from a brand-new editor, out of respect for your concerns. MastCell Talk 18:50, 24 May 2016 (UTC)
 * There was no 'malice.' That userbox had been there for years and is not insulting in any way.  If I had a GamerGate userbox on my page for years and somebody restored it, I'd be laughed at for claiming 'malice' almost as much as I'm laughing at your statement - and I'd have a better beef as it actually is insulting.  Seriously?  It was pointy, political "good for the goose" "irony meter all the way to eleven" but it was hardly malice.  Good grief, I don't think anyone has said Signpost article was malicious yet "supporting the Democratic Party" is now a malicious act? Come on.  --DHeyward (talk) 02:27, 25 May 2016 (UTC)
 * OK, this is hitting diminishing returns, but: "Democrat party"? Opabinia regalis (talk) 06:08, 25 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Gee whiz. Really?  I didn't capitalize either.  First draft was "this user is a democrat" and then checked that it was "supports" and "party."  The exact wording of the "epithet" you imagined in the Userbox is "This user supports the Democratic Party of the United States."  Are you really suited for this if that slighted you in such a way that you had to reply (not substantively, but indignant that some imagined "inside baseball" political slight needed to be called out even though it never happened?).  Do you only take offense and only see offense? Now that I quoted exactly what I added, do you still support it as a malicious personal attack considering it was there for 4 years?  The userbox said "Democratic Party" to be exact so do you agree that adding it was not not malicious?  Seriously, you need a bigger perspective if you can only focus on minutiae.   Feel free to correct obvious errors if they bother you (see how how I fixed it?), but casting aspersions on imagined slights is just odd.  "Classist" bothered you first and now it's "democrat."  Well, okay, I guess but life is more enjoyable if you don't imagine a slight at every turn.  Do you imagine I am a Democratic Marxist or Marxist Democrat? Compare and contrast which is more offensive.  --08:06, 25 May 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by DHeyward (talk • contribs)
 * The thing is, you're still being dishonest about your motivation in vandalizing Gamaliel's user page (and yes, it was vandalism). You edited his userpage in a way which you knew would be unwelcome, as a childish way of poking at him in the midst of a dispute with him. I'm actually more inclined to think you should have been blocked or sanctioned, not so much for the vandalism itself (which was petty and malicious, but is now water under the bridge), but rather for your ongoing dishonesty and feigned incomprehension of your role in escalating this unfortunate incident. Frankly, if you come away from here feeling anything but ashamed of your role, then something is wrong. MastCell Talk 18:47, 25 May 2016 (UTC)
 * It really does get old to hear people tell me what my motivation was or that I'm being dishonest. I've said from the start this was "American Politics" related and that was my entire motivation and experience.  If you can only see through your narrow slit that it was "vandalism," I can't help you.  No, I'm not being dishonest.  The user box addition was "pointy" and highlighting a position being taken that was inconsistent with hosting that user box for years ("journalistic independence of Signpost" from BLP regarding a republican presidential candidate - it was "pointy" and "ironical" as was an edit I made to Signpost article itself but not "vandalism").  This  wasn't vandalism either.  Or "malicious."  And no, I didn't escalate this tiny tempest into an ArbCom case.  I had walked away from it 4 days before it started.  What you are failing to recognize is everything was "unwelcome." Akron blanking the Signpost page was unwelcome.  The ANI was unwelcome.  The advice to walk away was unwelcome.  My regret, as I said, was after, when ArbCom request was filed and the statement I made that was removed from ArbCom space.  But those who really should feel shame are those that told him he was in the right and egged him on to keep fighting.  Those editors that wrote "#smallhandsghazi" or blamed gamergate or even now, after sustaining it for days, wonder how it came to ArbCom and look for someone else to blame.  We're here because those editors kept finding new shovels for days after the digging should have stopped.  Focusing on me misses the entire point.  But I'm glad you stopped by to tell me what my motivation was and that I'm dishonest.  Any more insight you have about me while we are here? Free/cheap shots will only last so long before this fora will close and you've been taking them since your opening statement.  --DHeyward (talk) 00:43, 26 May 2016 (UTC)
 * MastCell should feel free to continue to call other people "pett[y]", "dishonest", "malicious", "vandal", "feign[ing] incomprehension" and so forth. It's not like there are policies against personal attacks for which a party who was arbitrarily added to the page is being sanctioned. Kingsindian &#9821; &#9818; 05:03, 26 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Look, the evidence indicates that DHeyward carries an intense and long-standing animosity toward Gamaliel. In the course of a heated dispute with Gamaliel, DHeyward made an obnoxious and intentionally provocative edit to Gamaliel's userpage (that's "petty" and "malicious", and arguably "vandalism"). Userpages are the most personal and private space on Wikipedia, and vandalizing another editor's userpage is significantly more transgressive than name-calling on a noticeboard. DHeyward knows this, but he now pretends not to understand that his edit was inflammatory and grossly inappropriate (that's "feigning incomprehension"). If the positions were reversed, DHeyward wouldn't be making excuses; he'd be demanding Gamaliel's head on a platter. That's "dishonesty" (and I'll throw in "hypocrisy"). If you can think of better words to describe these behaviors, I'm all ears. MastCell Talk 06:59, 26 May 2016 (UTC)
 * You have been banging this drum for a while now. Time to give it a rest. Kingsindian &#9821; &#9818; 07:19, 26 May 2016 (UTC)
 * In my view nobody is saying much that is new anymore. All the horses are very very dead.  Smithereened.  The case is pretty much decided, via action here and via Gamaliel's resignation from Arbcom, self-requested TBAN from Gamergate, and whatever is driving his leave.  What is hardest for me to see is that those who generated all this from an april fools day joke have pretty much gotten Gamaliel's head on a platter, yet they are pushing for even more.  He is smithereened. Sheathe the swords, fold your tents, and go home. By continuing to fight for more, you are not helping the community one iota. Jytdog (talk) 07:36, 26 May 2016 (UTC)
 * From the sense-of-proportion department: nearly two months after the original April Fool's joke, the "remedy" that applies to you amounts to our official dispute resolvers formally saying "tut tut, DHeyward". Opabinia regalis (talk) 22:12, 24 May 2016 (UTC)
 * I can do without "tut tut" and if that's all it is, why do it all? Seems a lot of time for "tut tut." I already pointed out that the remedies are the most serious of any that are passing.  Go read the FoF's and think how that is any sense of proportion to anything.  --DHeyward (talk) 02:27, 25 May 2016 (UTC)
 * I think you'll find that it's a bit more than a "tut, tut". An admonishment is basically a half a sanction: people have cited admonishments on this very page to argue for desysop in the case of JzG. In an earlier case, Black Kite escaped a desysop (and was instead admonished) when it was pointed out that he was in fact not admonished in a previous case. As I argued below, giving admonishments to both Gamaliel and DHeyward for wildly differing behaviour in this case is simply false equivalence. Not to mention that the finding of fact on which the admonishment is based is itself faulty. Kingsindian &#9821; &#9818; 02:45, 25 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Indeed if you look at the editor who presented the evidence cited in the FoF, (literally says Arb Com knew what I was thinking - copy/paste=bad law), you'll see a rather long list of unsuccessful attempts by that editor to bring me to the Boards of Justice. Note, I was the only one he discussed and per the regular pattern it will be regularly dragged out like old fruitcake at Christmas. It's the Scarlett Letter and I'll be accused of personal attacks simply because of the finding/remedy with very little to do with any acts I do. --DHeyward (talk) 03:41, 25 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Well, I didn't vote to accept this case, didn't bring up parties' previous admonishments, opposed the suggestion of desysopping JzG, and wasn't on the committee when Black Kite was in the hot seat. So if you want to complain to the people who did those things, you should probably ping them :) We're not the Borg. Opabinia regalis (talk) 06:08, 25 May 2016 (UTC)
 * That is irrelevant to my point. The point is that an admonishment will be used by future Arbs, like past Arbs and present Arbs have done. Therefore it is half a sanction, whether you like it not. The only point which is relevant is whether the admonishment passes. Nobody is going to read the discussions here in future Arb cases. Kingsindian &#9821; &#9818; 06:21, 25 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Sorry, DHeyward, that cancer comment looks like BATTLE, so that's the only thing missing from that admonishment. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 03:02, 25 May 2016 (UTC)
 * I've never defended it and I apologize for it unreservedly. I'm not going to make excuses for a single indefensible comment against one editor. People keep repeating it, though, and it will show up as a diff many more times as "see this bad person over here?"  It was frustration, not 'battle,' which is borne out by the lack of DR over a very long time period.  I don't BATTLE well so I don't and it can be frustrating, as everyone knows to have disputes with people that never back down or take a breather.  --DHeyward (talk) 03:41, 25 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Well, no, explicitly BATTLE is born of grudges and ideological dispute. What you said, certainly lays out a context of years and years and years. Sorry, or no, it was very revealing. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 11:33, 26 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes and no, . Yes, the policy states "Although this policy applies to posts about Wikipedians in project space, some leeway is permitted to allow the handling of administrative issues by the community, but administrators may delete such material if it rises to the level of defamation, or if it constitutes a violation of no personal attacks." (italics mine) No, calling Arbcom, ANI, and any other number of similar pages "administrative" is not a good descriptor. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 21:49, 22 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes and no, . Yes, the policy states "Although this policy applies to posts about Wikipedians in project space, some leeway is permitted to allow the handling of administrative issues by the community, but administrators may delete such material if it rises to the level of defamation, or if it constitutes a violation of no personal attacks." (italics mine) No, calling Arbcom, ANI, and any other number of similar pages "administrative" is not a good descriptor. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 21:49, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

Kingsindian's section
If this case ends in no worse than an admonishment of Gamaliel (as it should, in my opinion), it would be absurd that there is also an admonishment for DHeyward. This is just false equivalence. In the workshop phase, I have already demonstrated (in my opinion, of course) that only one of the diffs by DHeyward is a personal attack.

We know that admonishments have no real meaning, except as a black mark against the editor to be used in future disputes. Please correct this travesty. Kingsindian &#9821; &#9818; 16:32, 22 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Agreed. As the standards for admins are higher, numerous major deviations from those higher standards should carry strict penalties.--MONGO 17:01, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

I agree with Milowent's comments. This case is drama addiction. There are two main issues to look at. Was there damage to the encyclopedia? And was there disruption?

The answer to the first question is obviously no. Please don't talk to me about BLP concerns. The Trump/Wales 2016 article is still up.

The answer to the second question is: yes, there was disruption at ANI - though this is a bit like saying there is shitposting on 4chan. Regarding the (dummy) article itself, it was MfD'ed and deleted with little or no disruption. There was some drama about CSD but not much. Half of the associated drama was due to the case itself - Gamaliel with his "coda", DHeyward with his "cancer" comment for which he apologized and many other things.

Gamaliel should be admonished for this storm in a teacup and no more. There shouldn't be anything for the others, perhaps an admonishment for JzG. Kingsindian &#9821; &#9818; 19:22, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

Grammar problem
The third sentence of the proposed principle “Decorum (2)” changes horses in midstream, so to speak: it begins with the singular subject conduct but ends with a plural complement. A minimal recasting might be Unseemly conduct—including, but not limited to, lack of respect for other editors, failure to work towards consensus, disrupting Wikipedia to make a point, offensive comments, trolling, harassment, gaming the system, and failure to assume good faith—is inconsistent with Wikipedia. (Inserted a dash to end the parenthesis, substituted is for are all. Keeping the emphatic all would require a more radical revision.)—Odysseus 1 4 7 ' 9 ' 17:18, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

Townlake section

 * "This page is for statements regarding the proposed decision, not discussion. Therefore, with the exception of arbitrators and clerks, all editors must create a section for their statement and comment only in their own section." I think it would be fair to strike the comments of anyone who hasn't complied with this requirement. This horse has left the barn, and it's a trivial topic in context anyway. Townlake (talk) 17:30, 22 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Yeah. Everyone, including arbitrators, is violating that here. I honestly think it should be removed as instruction for this talk page. Sure, arbitrators are exempt from that restriction but to allow threaded discussion and then not allow it...just bizarre here. This page IS for discussion, not presentation of evidence or as a workshop. --Hammersoft (talk) 17:36, 22 May 2016 (UTC)


 * WP:BLPTALK rather clearly applies outside of article space, and not just to Talk pages. In light of that, the fact the first principle is currently passing 4-1 is absolutely hilarious. Townlake (talk) 17:30, 22 May 2016 (UTC)
 * re : "The point about WP:BLPTALK has been made on this page's talk page. However, this case has seen a lot of debate about where BLP should apply and how vigorously." The discussion at this case is not more important than the broader community consensus that led BLPTALK to be established as policy. The Signpost's editors' bizarre insistence they have independence from the site they publish on does not excuse their unwillingness to accept site policy. Townlake (talk) 17:39, 22 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Thinking about what I wrote, obviously the group of editors commenting on this case is much smaller than the community that you are referring to. The issue is I think whether policy is being interpreted consistently. I'll have to ponder on it. As for threaded discussions, I've already commented on the Arb mailing list that I'm not convinced we need sectioned discussions here.  Doug Weller  talk 18:33, 22 May 2016 (UTC)
 * I appreciate your consideration, and I've stricken my first bullet above -- if the arbs are cool with the format, no need for me to quibble. Townlake (talk) 18:41, 22 May 2016 (UTC)


 * re : "In practice, saying they do not need interpretation means supporting the most restrictive and broadest of any proposed interpretations." Yes, in the context of BLP, that's exactly what it means. I have yet to see a single good reason advanced for any looser application of BLP policy on this project's servers. Townlake (talk) 18:48, 22 May 2016 (UTC)
 * you do realize that you are saying  that if you assert something is a  BLP violation, this makes it  almost impossible to discuss whether it actually is? that if you say it isn't adequately sourced and I say it is, you always win; that if you say someone is not a public figure and I say they are, you always win?  Your view is essentially identical to he view we shouldn't cover living people at all., because anyone could destroy any article by such claims.  I reject this approach entirely, and have always said so. My own approach can best be summarized as "strict, but narrow".   DGG ( talk ) 21:11, 22 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Now you're just making up silly impractical absolutes. Little wonder you don't want to address the issue I brought up head on. Townlake (talk) 21:30, 22 May 2016 (UTC)
 * BLPTALK specifically addresses this: you remove the link and then discuss: "For example, it would be appropriate to begin a discussion by stating This link has serious allegations about subject; should we summarize this someplace in the article?" Likewise, if an edit is in question in can be reverted and then discussed via diff e.g. I removed  as a personal attack because blah blah blah. NE Ent 22:46, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

Arkon's section
I'm not particularly opposed to being reminded of anything, but I have to note that the Edit warring and BLP principle and this proposed FoF, seem to be conflict with each other. I may not have been as quick in noting it as some would like, but I did note that the BLP vio in the closing summary was partially the reasoning behind my reverts. Arkon (talk) 19:05, 22 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Pinging those who've voted on that so far   Arkon (talk) 19:55, 22 May 2016 (UTC)
 * For starters it could have been left closed minus the offending statement. You didn't do that. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:58, 22 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Totally could have, I am certainly far from perfect, but as I said, it was just partially the reasoning behind my reverts (one of the other reasonings is listed in the remedy section here). My question regarding the conflict between the principle and FoF remains.  Arkon (talk) 21:14, 22 May 2016 (UTC)
 * The devil is in the detail, which is why I clarified my comment here Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 21:18, 22 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Apologies if I am missing something obvious, but that's not the principle I am referring to. It's the BLP and Edit warring one.  Arkon (talk) 21:20, 22 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes, edit warring and BLP generally applies to mainspace and straight removal of violations. You used indignance of the comment made by JzG to keep a page open. Regarding how we interpret BLP in talk space, it becomes tricky when we look as it's all about how we write and discuss material. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 21:24, 22 May 2016 (UTC)
 * (Not gonna ping you since that can be annoying after a while) But the principle says no such thing, it is not limited in any fashion to any space.  won't argue with your characterization of my actions, but your edits to a separate principle referencing inline citations and discussions about potential BLP issues, when in response to the actual BLP issue in this case doesn't seem particularly relevant to the disconnect between the principle and FoF I mention.  Appreciate the responses though.  Arkon (talk) 21:29, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

Adding ping since you just voted. Arkon (talk) 21:40, 22 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks, yes there are BLP exemptions to edit warring, and while you could claim BLP exemption on the edit warring, it's a pretty lame BLP violation to claim it on, in particular when there are other means available (notwithstanding there was a personal insult towards your understanding of policy in the close as well). It, like a lot of things in this fiasco, could have been handled better. --kelapstick(bainuu) 23:55, 22 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Thank you, your vote/comment makes total sense. Arkon (talk) 00:55, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

Again, not going to dispute your characterization of my comment. However, not sure how you can possibly use that as justification for supporting that particular FoF. Arkon (talk) 18:42, 23 May 2016 (UTC) Since you just voted. Arkon (talk) 00:43, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

I think the suggestion made by Callanecc of removing ""violated the three revert rule to" from the FoF, fits in without issue with the principles, and is certainly indisputable. Arkon (talk) 00:43, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

Well, here's certainly an opinion I will challenge. You have absolutely no basis whatsoever for assuming bad faith on my part. I find that quite insulting. Arkon (talk) 21:44, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

Section for DHeyward
Proposed finding of fact in line with the April Fools Day principle: 1. The April Fools Day edition of Signpost did not archive on April 2 with "Humor" tags as other non-article space jokes normally do. --DHeyward (talk) 19:11, 22 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Also please consistently use "casting aspersions" or "personal attacks." Favoring one description for some editors and another for different editors sounds classist.  "Casting aspersions" is an essay about "personal attacks."  One or the other please.  --19:11, 22 May 2016 (UTC)


 * First pinciple: Let's call it what it is: There is very clear consensus that BLP policy should should be applied, the issue is the reluctance to enforce it when the violator is an Admin and even more reluctance when they are an arbitrator.  We saw in evidence an example of rev-del being used on a WaPo sourced statement.  That action was upheld at ANI.  The only reason it wasn't enforced here was the status of those keeping it in place.  Please don't codify the Super-Mario problem as something do with lack of consensus in the community.  Admins shouldn't edit war to keep a BLP violation and they are not exempt from BLPREQUESTRESTORE.  The principle is fundamentally flawed if it doesn't reinforce BLP, BLPTALK and BLPREQUESTRESTORE.  All have very broad community support and followed by regular editors everywhere and are sanctioned if they don't.  That wasn't followed here.   --DHeyward (talk) 19:20, 22 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Per your comment, does resigning ArbCom "under a cloud" mean the extra tools of checkuser and oversight are removed?  If not, why not?  --DHeyward (talk) 11:21, 23 May 2016 (UTC)
 * As Callanecc says below, we're discussing this. I think it should be a separate motion not part of the case. We can't just remove them peremptorily but I agree they should be removed. Doug Weller  talk 13:18, 23 May 2016 (UTC)
 * I do too, but I am hesitant to say "under a cloud" as if it were a simple matter. Drmies (talk) 14:07, 23 May 2016 (UTC)
 * It doesn't get much cloudier. "Under a cloud" is often used as a synonym for "under controversial circumstances". If resigning in the middle of an Arbitration case where multiple Arbs have discussed desysopping or removal from the Committee isn't a controversial circumstance, then I think you probably have a lot of desysopped former admins to apologize to and reinstate. The Wordsmith Talk to me 19:40, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

Tryptofish's section
Principles 6 and 7 talk about the need for editors to behave in a "dignified" fashion. I recommend changing the word "dignified" to "responsible" or "respectful" or "collegial". The emphasis should be on how an editor treats other editors, rather than on how that editor projects him or herself. "Dignified", when applied to editors, makes me think of comical behavior, with someone acting haughtily, rather than someone acting kindly. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:02, 22 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Hear, hear! Good point.   Montanabw (talk) 05:01, 23 May 2016 (UTC)
 * This is still a potential problem in Principle 7, "Fair criticism". --Tryptofish (talk) 17:47, 24 May 2016 (UTC)
 * I realize that this is a very minor issue and I know that I am kinda picking at a scab, but I cannot resist pointing out that the repeated references by Arbs to "boneheaded" make an ironic contrast with the call for "dignity". --Tryptofish (talk) 18:19, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

BU Rob13's section
I just want to thank ArbCom for their handling of this case. I think you reached the right place more-or-less. Admonishments is what this case needed, not a desysopping, topic ban, etc. ~ RobTalk 21:30, 22 May 2016 (UTC)
 * The scope of this case is "Gamaliel's recent actions (both administrative and otherwise) ...". Pardon me for being blunt, but an opinion that a desysop can't be considered here due to the scope of this case (as suggested) is going to make ArbCom seem like a joke. There are plenty of reasons a desysop isn't necessary (mitigating factor of ongoing harassment, brief nature of all of these lapses of judgement, unnecessary escalation from topic ban to desysop without seeing if the topic ban will end the issue, etc), but please don't use the one reason that will essentially confirm that ArbCom is incapable of handling a case dealing with one of its own. The scope has been controversial enough as-is, and declaring Gamaliel's admin tools off the table by virtue of scope when the scope explicitly includes his administrative actions is indefensible. I certainly hope a desysop isn't handed out here because I think Gamaliel is an obvious net positive to the project as an admin, but all ArbCom members need to supply a rationale that makes some sense if they wish to maintain credibility. ~ RobTalk 00:57, 25 May 2016 (UTC)
 * I've been working on the house and running around town with kids and stuff, so sorry if I missed something. An option for desysopping is part of the PD, so I don't understand where this "can't be considered here" comes from. We considered it. It's not looking like it will pass. Drmies (talk) 00:22, 26 May 2016 (UTC)
 * I was responding specifically to your comment that "A case against Gamaliel's adminship as a whole is a different case," which implied there was a case to be made but it couldn't be considered here. Did I misunderstand? If so, my apologies. I'll certainly be happy if it doesn't pass, as I don't think it should (a few reasons of many mentioned above), but I think this is one of those cases where ArbCom is going to be judged both on outcome and rationale. It's very important that rationale makes sense to the average editor regardless of the outcome because this case will be used as the answer to very serious questions about whether ArbCom can be effective in self-regulating its own members. ~ RobTalk 00:37, 26 May 2016 (UTC)
 * I didn't mean to make any such implication. A case can always be made against any admin, and it could have been made against this admin, but that was not the case that was made. This has nothing to do whether Rob is one of us or not. Whether we can judge our own shouldn't be decided on the outcome per se but on how the outcome reflects the facts. Thank you, Drmies (talk) 00:47, 26 May 2016 (UTC)
 * That's not the case that was made because we simply refused to admit any evidence relating to Gamaliel's use of admin tools before 1 April. How could such a case be made, in light of the scope restrictions we imposed? Salvio Let's talk about it! 12:29, 26 May 2016 (UTC)
 * I concur. Plus, there is prior evidence. Regardless, it doesn't matter at this point. Everything in the PD that needed to be decided has been decided. I'm sure there are some who view this as a perfect case; everyone walks away dissatisfied. --Hammersoft (talk) 13:35, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

I can't properly express how strongly I'm opposed to the newly-proposed remedy regarding a BLP RfC. The BLP policy, as written, is extremely clear. BLP applies on all pages, and there's an exception for good-faith content choices written in to WP:BLPTALK. This is written in much the same way as WP:3RR. We have a blanket rule and a handful of exceptions. Just because we don't explicitly say "you can't edit war to remove a perceived POV" at 3RR doesn't mean that it isn't covered. Its absence on the list of exceptions says as much. The same is true of BLP. There may be editors who wish to change this, but they would be doing just that – changing policy, not clarifying it or fixing a grey area. ArbCom should not be used as a venue to influence the creation or amendment of policies or guidelines. It's outside your scope to influence the creation of policy, as per the Arbitration Policy. And that's not even getting into how bad of an idea it is to encourage the community to prolong the BLP/Signpost discussion; just let it die, already, unless they introduce another potential BLP issue in the future. After this hubbub, I'm certain they won't. ~ RobTalk 05:46, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

Andreas' section
Dear BLP champions on this page, do you want a Signpost that only publishes stuff you could have read in the press a week earlier, and that has an inline citation to a previously published source after each sentence mentioning a living person to prove that it's old news? One that doesn't publish or report Wikimedians' opinions on matters affecting the community (Wiki-PR? Arnnon Geshuri? The background of James Heilman's ouster?) and tells them instead that they have to go off-wiki because their views are not encyclopedically relevant and publishing them in Wikipedia would be a violation of the biographies of living persons policy?

I'm not writing this to defend April Fools' jokes about politicians – we'll all live happier without those in future – but in defence of the coverage of the Wikimedia world the Signpost has provided to the community for the past decade. If y'all think Wikipedia would have been better off without it, then carry on, because much of it could not have been written and read if BLP policy were applied to Signpost articles the way you seem to want it to. Andreas JN 466 21:39, 22 May 2016 (UTC)
 * 100% behind Andreas here. I wrote the Wiki-PR stories. In one from 2014, for example, I used a non-public off-wiki source to establish that the head of Wiki-PR, Jordan French, agreed to a list of terms that included "Wiki-PR has seriously abused the Terms of Use (TOS) and community policies." This was far from the first non-public document the Signpost has used. It's also made non-trivial use of anonymous sources. Yet by my memory, there has only been one post since 2012 that has raised the specter of BLP.
 * Yes, the April Fool's piece was a poor idea in retrospect. However, using it as an axe head atop a weaponized BLP policy, contrary to past practice, will muzzle necessary community journalism. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 21:57, 22 May 2016 (UTC)
 * In an article that directly addresses the encyclopedia and is meant to improve the encyclopedia by revealing abuse and misuse, I'm willing to stretch the definition of BLP to the furthest extent possible. But, this case is not the one to argue CRYBLP on.  If anyone makes a BLP argument on an article similar to Wiki-PR, feel free to argue CRYBLP.  But this case will earn no sympathy for the Signpost.--v/r - TP 22:09, 22 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Of course this particular case (I assume you mean April Fools) is not the hill to die on, but I'm looking past that. What I'm worried about is the future use of BLP to muzzle journalism like that linked above and below. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 22:17, 22 May 2016 (UTC)
 * User:TParis, you do realise that no one is defending the Trump piece, or says the Signpost was right to run it as it did? And that no one intends to ever run a piece like that ever again in the Signpost? I'm concerned about the other casualties a ham-fisted reading of BLP policy will impose. I'm concerned about the cases for which you would be "willing to stretch the definition of BLP to the furthest extent possible", because that subtlety will be lost in the letter of policy – and it only takes one person to disagree with your judgment, and the story is gone. Andreas JN 466 22:28, 22 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Andras, I think you're mistaken. Many people, particularly on the case talk page and evidence talk page, strongly defended the Trump piece.  One editor even threatened to resign from Signpost if the newsletter's right to post the Trump piece were not validated as a result of this case.  Now, this is to you and Ed, I think you're both mistaken if you think that the BLP argument in this case is going to have far reaching effects on Signpost.  It won't.  The Signpost stepped too far out of the already lenient line being granted it and the community reacted.  That doesn't mean the community will react similarly in cases that are far within the purpose of the Signpost.  Reporting on Wiki-PR is absolutely what the Signpost should be doing and the community will back it up in that regard. When I see comments like the one you just made, Andres, the way it reads to me is "Well if this piece can get criticized, then all pieces can get criticized."  This piece got criticized because it had nothing to do with journalistic integrity, became a Signpost power-struggle for independence, and was defended as a first amendment right.  The level of opposition would not have ever raised to this level had the Signpost backed off right away - or at the very least had followed the WP:BLP policy which calls for a discussion before restoring the material.  But the facts, as demonstrated in this case, are that a Signpost editor edit warred and used his tools to stifle opposition.  Then a week later, another article/gallery was written to use the Signpost to win a content dispute.  That is why we are here. Go Phightins!'s links do not demonstrate the same circumstances of this case at all.  In fact, it presents a slippery slope argument.  This case was handled this way because the article was outside of the scope of the Signpost's remit and the Signpost doubled-down.  The material Go Phightins! presents is clearly information of significant importance to the project.  That's the hill to make a stand on.--v/r - TP 22:43, 22 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Well, you may very well say that, but people are arguing categorically here, not in the nuanced way you advocate. (I'll pass over the fact that the Trump piece, unlike the MfD'ed dummy page, is still live on Wikipedia today.) As a practical matter, how would you suggest Signpost editors should "make a stand" if someone comes along and blanks a Signpost article you'd consider fully within the Signpost's remit, or a part of it, with the edit summary "BLP"? Andreas JN 466 22:56, 22 May 2016 (UTC)
 * I truly believe folks are arguing "categorically" because the signpost took the argument "BLP doesn't apply to us" rather than "BLP may not apply in some scenarios". But, that is going to get resolved by the end of this case.  At least in a way that protects us for now while we entertain another arrangement.  But, how would I expect the Signpost to make a stand?  Pull the article for next week and engage in a discussion in accordance with WP:BLPREQUESTRESTORE.  As you like to associate yourself with news media, I'll remind you that many electronic news media pull articles.--v/r - TP 23:03, 22 May 2016 (UTC)
 * No media organisation pulls articles because a single reader complains, or lets its readers blank paragraphs they don't like. If they did, you'd have no news to read. The mechanisms for post-publication changes are a bit more complex; they involve press complaints commissions and such. I guess we could add a large red banner to every Signpost article affected by blanking, directing our readers to the relevant discussion at BLPN or elsewhere so they can voice their opinion whether the content should stand or not ... but it seems overkill. The Signpost has existed for over a decade. How many BLP complaints have there been? Given that the worst BLP problem the Signpost has had in that time is a rushed April Fools' joke about a billionaire presidential candidate, all this zealous officiousness seeking to ensure that every single Wikipedia editor or IP can turn every Signpost article they don't like into Swiss cheese by saying "BLP" seems way out of proportion to me. You might use that ability responsibly, but Wikipedia does not just attract reasonable people. Andreas  JN 466 08:19, 23 May 2016 (UTC)


 * None of this soliloquies and the one below, really has anything to do with the specious, unsupported, and overboard "principle" in the last sentence of Principle 1, which is what people are rejecting and would have the possible effect of gutting BLP across the project - if you are certain, really certain, you are being responsible, then most likely nothing will happen to you (as with all of us under any and every policy on the project) but that does not assume you are exempt you from being irresponsible, and being called to account. Alanscottwalker (talk) 22:41, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

I would prefer that the Signpost not write articles that engage in American political satire. I do not enjoy reading satirical articles concerning American politics on Wikipedia. I hope there are no other changes to content, style, and publishing location. Mr Ernie (talk) 22:45, 22 May 2016 (UTC)
 * +1. --Andreas JN 466 22:58, 22 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Same, but should be world politics. The Signpost should be not used as a political smear tool.  I'm backing off my early comments saying that is what happened in this case, but I'm still of the opinion that it should never be used for political satire.  If Donald Trump hires a team to edit Wikipedia, then put him on blast on the Signpost.--v/r - TP 23:06, 22 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Here's an undertaking from me, as one of the two co-editors-in-chief: as long as I have any say in the Signpost, I promise you it will never again run a piece of satire focused on US politics or the politics of any other country on earth. --Andreas JN 466 08:24, 23 May 2016 (UTC)
 * So far from "gutting BLP across the project", the principle --which explicitly endorses the current BLP policy --  is merely clarifying that the apparent lack of consensus on how to apply it outside of article space  requires a   more exact definition of it by the community. That the existing manner of applying it in article space remains could have been specified, but I think is obvious. That there is no consensus outside of article space, is clear from this discussion. The committee could conceivably have laid down rules for how to interpret it outside article space,  but did not do so--partly because we probably would not have agreed, but mostly because this is the role of the community.  DGG ( talk ) 23:56, 22 May 2016 (UTC)
 * No, this discussion among a few does nothing of the kind. Let me apologize to the committee, if need be, then on behalf of the community for being too unclear in WP:BLP first sentence, and in WP:BLPTALK and in WP:BLPREQUESTRESTORE, we're so sorry (really, could we be any clearer), but that does not give the ctte the right to declare, on principle, that our policy is without consensus when our policy specifically and unambiguously addresses how to handle things 'outside article space'. Alanscottwalker (talk) 00:42, 23 May 2016 (UTC)
 * BLP policy (like other core policies, incl. WP:NOTNEWS) was not written with the Signpost in mind. There is not a single discussion of how BLP policy should apply to the Signpost in the history of the BLP policy's talk page. What references there are to the Signpost in the archives are people quoting it. The topic has not been thought through, and the reason for that is that it did not come up in over a decade's worth of the Signpost's reporting. --Andreas JN 466 08:47, 23 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Your argument appears to be that the last sentence of principle 1 is for the Signposts benefit. So, we need to cast the whole policy concerning non-article space as being without consensus.  That's no basis for a principle.  Indeed, it's unprincipled or silly 'tail wagging the dog'.  If you really want the policy to specially mention the Signpost then that's not an Arbcom function, that's and RfC Village Pump function.  See, if the community agrees with you that the Signpost should get special dispensation in that policy. The policy already has a section entitled Biographies of living persons (explicitly listing things outside article space) and then explicitly describes how it operates outside article space. If you don't like the policy, get it changed, but the Signpost is not and never will be the Project. And more important, here, the Arbcom should not be casting aside the actual policy's "Applicability of the policy" with their own "Applicability of the BLP policy" declaring, on principle, the policy un-functional, as being without consensus.  - Alanscottwalker (talk) 11:14, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

Signpost editors: Stop digging. You've posted numerous examples and are totally missing what they mean: as long as the Signpost was doing its job -- reporting on WMF hosted projects -- no one interfered with pedantic nonsense over technical BLP violations. Choosing to extrapolate this into an We're special, we can do whatever we want! over what, if I'm finally understanding correctly was a red / blue link on a joke issue was just really stupid. Per the community tolerance for 1 April hijinks, no one even called you on it until 3 April. Continuing with a WP:PRAM attitude here isn't making you look good. I have no problem with an occasional really stupid idea - see stupid workshop proposal -- but when you get pushback ya'll need to start asking questions: This helps the encyclopedia, how? and It this really important? NE Ent 11:40, 23 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Really, I was about to add that the Signpost people's "fear" is rather lugubrious: 'we never had a BLP problem, until we started making things up about living people (which we no longer can even defend)' Well, lesson, don't make up things about people. Alanscottwalker (talk) 11:57, 23 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Agreed. Signpost keeps making the unsupported claim that they're some sort of independent media outlet (that is merely hosted by Wikipedia and not subject to its rules) and BLP doesn't apply to journalism. They're not and it does. Signpost is a glorified Wikiproject and needs to obey like all the rest of us. Don't like it? There's an easy solution: take the Signpost off-wiki. They can publish whatever they like with a Wordpress blog or MediaWiki installation and nobody here will bother them about policy. Wikipedia is not a webhost and if editors want to write things on it they need to follow our rules. The Wordsmith Talk to me 14:11, 23 May 2016 (UTC)
 * FWIW, I've seen this attitude from the Signpost before, some years ago over the use of NFC there ; obviously it never blew up into anything close to this case and was resolved in talk pages (but with the result being that a review wasn't published because we wouldn't let them include a non-free book cover), but the same types of arguments on this BLP aspect are recurring. --M ASEM (t) 14:20, 23 May 2016 (UTC)
 * In fairness, US fair use completely applies in that instance as it's a critical review of the book. It's just Wikipedia's NFC policy that stopped them. (note: all of that was before my time) Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 19:58, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

I will just note that I agree with Andreas' point here. There are no BLP problems in the Signpost in general; evidence of this is that there have been no complaints about it outside of this bizarre case. Luckily ArbCom hasn't proposed any meaningful remedy to change the status quo (and the one muddled remedy it has proposed is rightly going down). It would be be totally fine for me if this issue dies a quiet death as it should. Kingsindian &#9821; &#9818; 18:17, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

Signpost Co-EIC Go Phightins' section
I just wanted to take a moment to echo Andreas's comment above. I understand the temptation in a blanket policy application to the effect of "BLP applies to the Signpost just as it does for everything else", but consider the ramifications of that. The Signpost could not cover anything it does now as fast as it does now, and in some cases, could not cover stories that do not gain wider media attention at all. This article on Doc James' removal from the Board and its utility as a microcosm for WMF culture based on quotes we gathered, this article exposing Wiki-PR based on information from a Google Document, and this article on the impending ouster of former WMF executive director Lila Tretikov would not have been possible if we were beholden to the BLP policy, which requires secondary source coverage prior to publishing anything, coverage that in some cases would not happen without journalists specifically dedicated to Wikipedia searching for stories of interest to the WMF movement.

Am I in favor of making sure that The Signpost doesn't engage in wanton defamation? Of course. Would I stipulate that in hindsight, our April Fools Day coverage this year may have gone too far after the fact? I probably would. But I think if this is the biggest gaffe to which the community can point in 11.5 years of publication, that is evidence that we do a pretty good job of self-regulation to follow responsible industry standards for journalistic ethics. Thank you.  Go  Phightins  !  22:14, 22 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Well, Andreas and I apparently were thinking on the same lines, so here are two more examples of stories that would not have been possible if BLP applied to the Signpost the way it does to the rest of the community: Wikipedia_Signpost/2013-04-08/News_and_notes and Wikipedia_Signpost/2013-02-11/News_and_notes.  Go  Phightins  !  22:22, 22 May 2016 (UTC)
 * As Ent and others point out above, Signpost editors might be making too much of this. The Signpost has been given lots and lots of rope over the years without anyone minding at all (except this incident, and rightfully so), but it is just that, rope.  It is still subject to the same policies as the rest of Wikipedia, just as a Project would be.  Traditionally, when the Signpost pushes the letter of policy, it stayed within the spirit so there wasn't an issue.  I think leaving well enough alone is probably best.  If it turns into a big stink and the community has to decide, I am pretty damn sure that WMF Legal will also pipe in as well, and their first instinct is to protect the Foundation, not promote free speech. In other words, the more that Signpost editors push back, the worse it could get for them.  Not by any individuals hand, it is just that if you force the community to draft out every right, privilege and obligation that the Signpost has, they will, and doing so in the shadow of this case means it won't end well.   Dennis Brown - 2&cent; 20:20, 23 May 2016 (UTC)
 * There seem to me to be two issues involved here, one about whether the Signpost can cover internal matters quickly, which I honestly think it was probably created to do, and another regarding application of WP:BLP to Signpost material when that material is not specifically relevant to wikipedia- or WMF-related topics, like Donald Trump. Maybe addressing the matter as two different things might be best. I tend to agree with Dennis above, something I do a lot of, in thinking the best thing to do would be for this to basically be left alone, because if this does go to broader community discussion that discussion would probably implement any number of rules which might even make, as GP points out above, the primary original function of the Signpost one it pretty much cannot fulfill. I don't think anyone wants that. I actually suggested on Andreas's talk page a while ago maybe trying to set up some sort of offshoot WMF site which might allow by its rules a greater degree of freedom than that available here, with watchlist and username integration, and which can still have links here which can be used in the Signpost as delivered, and think if it comes to that point maybe that might work as well. It might also have the advantage of being better able to do something Jimbo suggested in the past, about editors blogging material on elections and the like, because I think it might be able to allow editors who qualify to edit there to do some "blogging" type editing, some of which might be very useful and maybe help, in some cases, retain editors. Maybe. John Carter (talk) 23:11, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

kcowolf's section
Out of curiosity, is an arbitrator's resignation reversible, similar to how an administrator can give up the admin bit and request it again whenever they feel appropriate (minus the "under a cloud" situation), or is it considered permanent? kcowolf (talk) 22:33, 22 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Admin have a complete policy regarding surrendering the bit, losing it to inactivity, regaining it, etc. I do not know of any similar policy for Arbs.  One would assume it is permanent unless policy allows otherwise, as it is a resignation, not a surrender because they are elected by raw count rather than selected by consensus.  Dennis Brown - 2&cent; 22:45, 22 May 2016 (UTC)
 * There is no provision in WP:ARBPOL to reverse a resignation. There is, actually, only one explicit mention of resignations -- "In exceptional circumstances, the Committee may call interim elections, in a format similar to that of the regular annual elections, if it determines that arbitrator resignations or inactivity have created an immediate need for additional arbitrators." So, as is proper, the committee's power extends to calling a special election, not appointing new arbs.  So, long way of saying, "no, a resignation cannot be reversed", though I'll also admit there is nothing to point to regarding that at all.  For the real history buffs, there is something from 2007 about, see Template:ArbitrationCommitteeChart, but you'll have to get that story from someone who actually knows it!  Whatever happened then, it was long before ARBPOL was ratified, though.  (God, that was long-winded and said nothing, wasn't it?)  Courcelles (talk) 23:34, 22 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Well done Courcelles. Proud of you. BTW, all of this makes sense too. "Being" an admin means getting a bit, a tool (really a set of tools), which you can lose or give up. While arbs get some more tools as well, "being" an arb doesn't mean "wielding a few tools". Drmies (talk) 01:26, 23 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the replies, all. kcowolf (talk) 04:52, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

SB_Johnny's suggestions
Almost everything about this case has me smh. Gamaliel clearly isn't an evil demon, but he did seem to be assuming impunity and was slow to realize how inappropriate that was. If I understand the behind-the-scenes situation correctly, he's also getting worse treatment than what he might deserve via other channels.

I'd like to recommend that two additional "remedies" be adopted. First, The Arbitration Committee is reminded that it's members are expected to live up to the very highest standards, and second The Members of the Arbitration Committee are discouraged from closing any AN/I discussions where a committee member is a party to the dispute. -- SB_Johnny &#124; talk✌ 02:21, 23 May 2016 (UTC)
 * See below. Cryptic sums up what I was going to say....Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 03:40, 23 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Perhaps "...where a fellow committee member..." fixes that, though I thought the meaning was pretty clear. -- SB_Johnny &#124; talk✌ 03:51, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

Cryptic's section
No arbitrator closed (or reopened) the ANI discussion except Gamaliel, so no need to be more specific than everyone is discouraged from closing ANI discussions they're party to. —Cryptic 02:46, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

re this: There's no exemption for personal attacks in policy at WP:NOT3RR, which is where it should appear. Admins are perfectly free to show lenience if someone technically violates 3RR for removing personal attacks, but writing it into policy is probably a bad idea; it's pretty common for people to interpret any criticism at all as personal attacks. Sort-of-recent example. —Cryptic 02:46, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

Rschen7754's section
So far, it looks like an interaction ban on Gamaliel has a good chance of passing. With that being said, is it appropriate for a functionary with access to private data to remain a functionary and CU/OS access if they are currently under an interaction ban imposed by ArbCom? (This is not intended to be a comment on the merits of the interaction ban itself). I know there are administrators with active sanctions against them, but I don't think we would allow for an ArbCom or SPI clerk to have them, at least not to the level of an interaction ban. --Rschen7754 05:35, 23 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the note Rschen. We're discussing at the moment. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 11:09, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

Montanabw's section
I think that ArbCom is, so far, handling this matter in a far more measured manner than previous incarnations have handled contentious issues in the past. I concur with those who state that admonishments fit and that desysopping, topic bans and the like do not fit the circumstances. Admins are human, and everyone makes mistakes; the question is if people learn from mistakes and move on. All the individual editors named in this case are now on notice that they have a pretty short leash when it comes to their personal behavior and how they handle disagreements, which is, at the end of the day, what this case is really about. All else is a red herring. Montanabw (talk) 05:36, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

GoldenRing's Section
Partly in response to User:Montanabw, I agree that Gamaliel is not the root of all evil but seems to have lost perspective. So what about a temporary desysop as a remedy, rather than a permanent one? He is clearly a good admin in general and is going through a rough patch; so why not desysop for six months to give him some space to deal with the issues that are going on and regain some perspective, but not force him to go through RfA again to regain the bit? GoldenRing (talk) 10:21, 23 May 2016 (UTC)
 * (Breaching etiquette by replying here, but whatevs) If Arbcom did that in this case, they'd (rightly) be mercilessly pilloried for it to the extent that recall petitions would probably succeed for any arb who'd supported it. It's not a courtesy the committee has ever extended to anyone else; inventing a new process to avoid treating one of their own as harshly as normal editors and admins have been in the past would be signing their death warrants as an institution to be taken remotely seriously. &#8209; Iridescent 10:31, 23 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Compared to not passing a desysop remedy at all? GoldenRing (talk) 11:24, 23 May 2016 (UTC)
 * I don't think such a remedy is appropriate here for a number of reasons, but for what it' s worth, the Committee used suspensions (rather than revocation) of adminship as a remedy several times in its earlier years. So doing that here wouldn't be something brand-new, although it's true that the last time it was done was a few years ago. Newyorkbrad (talk) 13:58, 23 May 2016 (UTC)
 * @NYB, I'm not sure the 2008 committee is really a group anyone should be taking as role models. (Although you presumably recall that I, of all people, am aware that sitting arbs can be suspended, desuspended, and ejected in rapid succession.) I never got the whole "time limited sanction" concept even with regards to straightforward matters like blocking let alone desysops—does anyone really think a vandal is going to stop vandalizing in two weeks? If one does consider Gamaliel to have done something worthy of blocking or desysopping (which I don't), surely these circumstances are a textbook case of "indefinite not infinite" until he promises not to do it again? @GoldenRing, certainly. If this is desysop-worthy desysop him, if it isn't then don't; if his judgement is really that compromised why do you think it would change in six months? Arbcom creating a novel remedy specifically to avoid doing lasting damage to one of their own, particularly so soon after Yngvadottir and Kevin Gorman were thrown under the bus permanently on grounds which could be summarized as "enough of the arbs disliked them to squeeze a majority through even though they hadn't done anything particularly out of the ordinary", would be a virtually guaranteed way to trigger a no confidence petition. &#8209; Iridescent 14:58, 23 May 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm trying to find something in the middle here. I'm not sure that, given his record, the committee should be saying, "That's it, you're desysopped, we're better off without you."  On the other hand, there was a clear loss of perspective here and the committee seems to broadly agree on that.  I, for one, am not really comfortable with someone having the bit when, it seems, his reaction to unrelated criticism is, broadly, "Go away, you pack of gamergate trolls."  Now, we're told that that reaction is because of a situation where there's a lot of harassment going on and it seems reasonable, then, to think that Gamaliel will return to his usual, more-even-keeled self once that situation is resolved.  So the point of a temporary desysop is to say, "We value most of your past work, but we don't think we can trust you with the bit just now because of all this stuff going on.  For your own good, and for ours, take an enforced step back for a bit.  Come back when things are resolved."  As Brad has pointed out, it wouldn't be a new sanction, though one that's fallen into disuse.  And, at any rate, the committee should be trying to find remedies that fit the case, not remedies that should get them out of difficult political situations.  GoldenRing (talk) 15:12, 24 May 2016 (UTC)
 * I wouldn't support such a remedy. But I think the Yngvadottir and Gorman cases were quite different. Kevin's case was passed 13 to 3 (as usual, we had some outgoing Arbs involved in this January case). But Yngvadottir's was 6 to 0 with 4 inactive and 1 recused, out of 14 (Yunshui having resigned). I wasn't happy to wake up in the morning to find this had been done. Doug Weller  talk 15:12, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

Count's off
Guerillero is obviously active now, so there are 11 active, not 10. NE Ent 10:27, 23 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Fixed, thanks. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 11:07, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

Dennis Brown's section
Section Arkon (reminder) makes no sense in light of the fact that there is some question about 3RR applying as he was reverting out a personal attack and BLP violation. Were there other options? Sure, there are to any situation, so that is a moot point. His actions were consistent with policy, even if other options existed. To have a remedy that in any way scolds him would be inappropriate, given only two Arbs support the FoF that state his actions were problematic.

These aren't the only things that bug me about the Proposed Decision, which are on the whole fairly accurate, but I don't see a point in laboring the details. Gamaliel doing the right thing saved you a lot of gnashing of teeth, and I applaud him doing that, even if the timing of his presenting his evidence and resigning are a bit odd. Dennis Brown - 2&cent; 11:45, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

Jbhunley's section
Arbs: I am concerned because you all have voted for serious findings of fact against Gamaliel, including instences of personal attacks, two instances edit warring and a BLP process violation yet you see a desysop as "disproportionate". I could almost see this since the whole case was stupid to start with but how can you say he did all of these things that others would get the boot for and yet think a simple, and pretty much meaningless, admonishment is the right way to go? Maybe there is some private evidence which mitigates these findings but none of you have given any indication of such - or maybe you just do not want to kick a guy when he is down. I firmly believe that you as a committee owe the community a much better explanation of why, when the FoFs make clear the magnitude of his policy violations, you feel a desysop is "disproportionate". I probably would not have brought this up, tilting at windmills is not my thing, but so far two of you have stated that 's actions aproached the level where you would consider a desysop. Although he hardly covered himself in roses in this matter there was only one instance of questionable conduct presented as evidence within scope and you explicitly disallowed out of scope evidence. This crosses from an appearance of a double standard to an actual double standard. J bh Talk  14:24, 23 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Well, I agree with Arb's on this. Just goes to show, 'how bad' is in the eyes of someone.  If anyone else did this series of related things, I would also support a reproval and that's about it. (As for JzG, as I read what has been said, he has been held up for repeated circumstances).


 * This is not directed at you, personally, but it is actually a shame that there seems to be resistance among some segment of Users/Admins (at AN/I, in particular), that the only two choices they seem to recognize are - 1. nothing (nothing to see here), or alternatively, 2. take away a user right (temporarily or otherwise), as if just settling it as, 3. 'you did wrong, please try to do better' does not exist, when it could really solve/end much. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 15:40, 23 May 2016 (UTC)
 * I would be all for the 'you did wrong do better' in this and many other cases (I am a big believer in "ooppss I screwed up, sorry" and say it more than a little bit myself :) ) but for the refusal by Gamaliel to recognize that wrong had been done. I would prefer to be in the 'no big deal' camp as far as admin privileges go but so long as they are treated as a big deal the minimum standard I expect to see in admin behavior is the ability to recognize when they messed up or at the very least to recognize that others can in good faith think they messed up. I'm not pushing for a desysop now. I have said my peace on that matter, most disagree and I'm fine with that. What motivated me to comment was the manifest double standard of bringing up by arbs, even as a comments, of dysysop for an admin based on out of scope behavior when so much effort was expended to narrow the scope during the evidence phase. The very least those arbs commenting on out of scope behavior should do is strike those comments for decorum's sake. Perception is a big deal in all cases, even more so in this one even little things mean a lot and judging all participants based on the same scope is not a little thing.  J bh  Talk  16:55, 23 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Sticking my oar in here, I apologize. It seems to me that ArbCom has put itself between a rock and a hard place. Gamaliel's resigned as an arbitrator, which I had come to see as the best possible resolution here, and I respect him for making that decision. However, he's done so entirely on grounds of inability to continue doing the job, without any statement that he now realizes his conduct in this series of events was beneath the standard admitted expected of an arbitrator. He hasn't done what we require as minimum for any editor seeking to be unblocked: shown that he understands what he did wrong. So the committee (and I, personally; I was really hoping) can't laud his honorable action and assign that plus an admonishment to him as resolution of this case; instead they have to consider desysopping, which I, like those who have voted, also consider would be draconian (also at odds with the support he received all through the case). Just an admonishment for the many policy breaches and aspersions (which I regard as extremely serious) seems inadequate, but he didn't use any suitable words for his resignation as an arb to be used instead. Meanwhile, for the one serious offence (not merely a policy breach, but a gross personal attack; however, just one), the committee is considering desysopping JzG. But they explicitly limited the scope of the case. That means that both Gamaliel's record as an admin, other than this one series of events, and JzG's record as an admin, other than this one event, are out of scope. I suppose this is the Revenge of Super Mario ... but it will seem very wrong, to me at least, if JzG gets a worse punishment than Gamaliel, especially since the case was explicitly mostly about Gamaliel's series of actions. And very wrong also if all Gamaliel appears to get is an admonishment. Yngvadottir (talk) 18:57, 23 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Let me just say, I empathize (empathy for reasons that we don't really need to go into) with you being wrongly smeared by Gamaliel, even if he did not mean to do just that, he did. Still, and all.Alanscottwalker (talk) 19:38, 23 May 2016 (UTC) (Just think I should make clear, that Gamaliel never smeared me. To my knowledge, he has not. It was an entirely different and long ago Pedia situation, I was referring to. Alanscottwalker (talk) 21:57, 23 May 2016 (UTC))
 * Thanks for this, but it's not just me; I also feel for all the others tarred by this extremely broad brush - including by some seeking to defend Gamaliel. Yngvadottir (talk) 15:29, 24 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Indeed, and I empathize with them too, except you have been more eloquent on the matter, at least from what I think I have read. Alanscottwalker (talk) 22:45, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

@Arbs - Maybe I am over thinking this but you all are supporting an edit warring remedy against when most of you seem to agree that his reverts were at least "arguably exempt". Considering that this is something which will follow him around and likely be used to brand him an "edit warrior" (Because Arbcom said so dontcha know) in any disputes down the road. Also, as we see in the case of Guy's old remedies, if for some reason Arkon ever ends up at Arbcom it will likely be used to enhance possible sanctions. There is little practical difference between an "admonishment" and a "reminder" no matter what the ideal is. Both are Arbcom remedies 'against' an editor. Please reconsider even having a remedy re Akron or the very least strike and reword the current one because the FoF does not support edit warring if his actions were "arguably exempt". J bh Talk  15:04, 24 May 2016 (UTC) Amended/striking, noting DQ changed the wording while I was writing this. Thank you DQ for catching that. J bh Talk  15:13, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

Staberinde's section
While Gamaliel's resignation made this issue moot for this case, I hope that in any future cases involving arbitrators the Arbcom will take extra steps to achieve completely even ground for parties with regard to arbitrator private discussion list .--Staberinde (talk) 15:46, 23 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Any suggestions as to how we could do this? Doug Weller  talk 15:59, 23 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Establish a procedure that if an ArbCom member is party to an accepted case, their status on ArbCom is suspended pending conclusion of the case. Any privileged access granted by being on ArbCom is temporarily suspended as well. It should be made clear, as part of the procedure, that action under such a procedure states nothing regarding the involved party, merely that this is procedure. --Hammersoft (talk) 16:05, 23 May 2016 (UTC)
 * I don't think I'd object to that. In this case he didn't have access to any discussions concerning the case. But you are also referring to CU and OS tools?  Doug Weller  talk 16:38, 23 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Not being on ArbCom, I do not know the full list of what resources ArbCom uses. I am not referring to CU/OS though. I am thinking more along the lines of resources like your internal mailing list, the arbwiki, and whatever else you use in the processing and deliberation of a case. --Hammersoft (talk) 16:49, 23 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Whenever an Arb is recused, we use a separate mailing list that excludes recused Arbs, which would always include any Arb party to a case. We also removed his access to the arbwiki. He had no access to any of the deliberations. If he hadn't resigned and returned to activity he would have had access - I don't see anyway around that. And although the issue didn't come up so far as I can recall, if he hadn't resigned I don't think we would have automatically restored his access. Doug Weller  talk 16:54, 23 May 2016 (UTC)
 * See also Arbitration_Committee . --kelapstick(bainuu) 16:56, 23 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Perhaps this should outlined as standard procedure at Arbitration Committee/Procedures? --Hammersoft (talk) 18:56, 23 May 2016 (UTC)
 * It probably should. --kelapstick(bainuu) 00:44, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

My point was that not only access during the case matters, access immediately after the case matters too. If Gamaliel had no resigned, then he would have received access to the list after closing of the case. If arbitrator is a party, then that arbitrator should have equal lack of access to private discussions and evidence not only during the case, but also after the case, as it is with regular editors. Obvious solution for that is to simply set up a temporary list that would be used only for that case and nothing else.--Staberinde (talk) 18:02, 23 May 2016 (UTC)
 * It would still have to be archived. And future Arbs would have access to it. Doug Weller  talk 20:32, 23 May 2016 (UTC)
 * "Set up a temporary list" sounds a lot easier than it is. Indefinitely maintaining per-case archive access on a per-user basis is not practical. I still think everyone is overestimating how interesting other people's old email is, even if it's about you. Opabinia regalis (talk) 01:02, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

Capeo's section
There's quite a few strange precedents being set here. ArbCom severely restricts the scope then proposes FoFs clearly outside that scope and treats them as mitigating factors when considering sanctions. Evidence of Gamaliel's past editing history was off limits yet some ArbCom members seem to have no issue bringing up other party's history. It's particularly funny that an admonishment from 2008 is brought up in JzG's case yet the FoF's pertaining to Gamaliel is one of the longest lists of egregious policy violations I've seen brought against an admin at ArbCom. Now if this ArbCom was going to be a more lenient ArbCom than past ones (Gamaliel would most certainly be desysopped by past ArbComs with this evidence) then that's all well and good but that leniency would have to be applied equally. There's still some voting to be so I guess we'll see but Salvio is correct when he says the way this has been going gives the impression of favoritism to one of your own. Capeo (talk) 16:13, 23 May 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm not at all interested in what happened in 2008. I also don't think this is one of the longest lists of egregious policy violations that I've seen. Doug Weller  talk 16:40, 23 May 2016 (UTC)
 * For an admin and sitting Arb? I can't think of any list of eight separate policy violations, that continued for a week, with no accountability shown, in recent memory.  Hell, Yngvadottir got desysopped for way less mainly because she was defending someone most of the arbs had long standing issues with. Capeo (talk) 20:52, 23 May 2016 (UTC)
 * This has come up a few times on this page, but I'm responding to your section,, because it's the shortest and newest :)
 * This "eight separate policies!" meme is unhelpful. It's not like we go around counting up demerits until you get detention for a week. The number of rules broken doesn't define the number of times you have to write "I will not violate BLP" on the chalkboard. A case is inherently a holistic evaluation, not a policy compliance report card.
 * Likewise, comparisons to untested hypotheticals about what would have happened to someone else, what another committee might have done, etc. are unhelpful in considering how to approach the actual situation in the case. I don't understand the underlying hypothesis: because some previous, differently composed committee treated someone else too harshly under a different set of circumstances, we should treat the people in the current case equally harshly in order to keep things "fair"? That doesn't make sense. Opabinia regalis (talk) 23:44, 23 May 2016 (UTC)
 * There is no scorecard, you're right. Of course, that isn't the point. An administrator went completely off the rails, conducting a greater than week long spree of attacks, serious breaches of policy, and abuse of administrator tools. And what happens? Nothing. An admonishment isn't anything more than recognition that he did something he shouldn't have. Please don't try to claim that it can be basis for future actions against him. While "true", it most emphatically isn't a requirement and sanctions are very frequently leveled without there being prior admonishments. If a new user had done the things that Gamaliel had done (with of course the exception of his abuse of admin tools), they likely would have been banned from the site. What has happened here is that a sitting administrator, who very clearly should have known better, a sitting arbitrator who is arguably one of the top 15 most trusted editors on the entire project goes off the rails and violates a very large number of policies and ArbCom does...nothing. The community has entrusted ArbCom with the responsibility to remove admins that so severely breach community trust. ArbCom has failed. To do so when it is one of their own, and combined with limiting the scope of the case against Gamaliel while tacitly extending it for other parties to the case? --Hammersoft (talk) 01:22, 24 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Completely off the rails, for over a week! He didn't delete any articles he didn't like, or full-protect the ones he did like. He didn't damage any reader-facing content. He didn't harass or abuse anyone, or make any unjustified blocks. He lost his temper and got in a stupid ANI shitfight. We have plenty of active, productive, and valued current editors who've gotten into stupid ANI shitfights before and lived to tell about it.
 * Now all this stuff about "new users" who supposedly would've been banned - I think you know as well as I do that it works better as rhetoric than as a serious argument. We wouldn't keep track of anyone's contributions history if we were really so presentist as to refuse to read contributions in context. A long-term productive editor who does something dumb should be treated differently than someone who starts shit-stirring as soon as they're autoconfirmed. Opabinia regalis (talk) 04:23, 24 May 2016 (UTC)
 * I routinely patrol the work of new users and know full well how rapidly they are blocked, often without getting to a level 4 warning. Just on the edit warring that Gamaliel had done alone, he would have been blocked and likely banned. This is a serious argument. Obviously we do not see eye to eye. A long term editor who is bound by WP:ADMINCOND and WP:ARBCOND knows damn well not to do those things. All the MORE reason he should not have done them and all the MORE reason our trust in him is seriously breached. His experience and positions do not grant him a special waiver. Indeed, they incur MORE responsibility. Again, we fail to see eye to eye. C'est la vie. --Hammersoft (talk) 12:45, 24 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Let me make sure I understand your position. You believe that a long-term user with 10,000 useful contributions who slips up and makes 3 disruptive edits should be treated identically to a brand-new account whose only 3 edits are disruptive? That sounds ridiculous to me, so I want to make sure I'm not mischaracterizing your viewpoint. MastCell Talk 18:34, 24 May 2016 (UTC)
 * If you believe that the only errors Gamaliel made were contained in 3 actions, we have nothing to talk about. --Hammersoft (talk) 18:38, 24 May 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm not talking about Gamaliel here. I'm asking a hypothetical question to clarify your position. You can choose to answer it or to continue evading it, as you see fit. MastCell Talk 23:20, 24 May 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm evading nothing. Your question is a red herring, and has nothing to do with the current case. The Gamaliel case is not about 3 edits that went awry. If evading your question means not answering a question that has nothing to do with this case, then so be it; I'm evading your question. If you have a question about the Gamaliel case, then ask it. --Hammersoft (talk) 02:00, 25 May 2016 (UTC)
 * To add to comments above, given that the desysopping of Gamaliel is under consideration by the committee, I strongly believe that limiting the case to only the Signpost and not considering the pattern of behavior Gamaliel had in the few months leading to it was a mistake, because, at least to myself, there is a larger situation to evaluate. I fully appreciate the committee did not want to make this GamerGate 2, but there was no need to as Gamaliel was rarely involved in any content or discussions on the talk page; this case could easily have been resolved without ever talking about the content or behavior of editors directly related to the GG article, limited to only Gamaliel's administration of that page. The external harassment of Gamaliel seems connected to how they opted to admin that page, not simply for the act of admining that page, based on reading what these external forums say. On-wiki, several editors have pointed out perceived problems with that administration approach that continued up through March 2016 ("recent"), and understanding all those facets that led into the following actions on the Signpost are somewhat connected, showing a larger issue with Gamaliel than just what this narrow scope implies. However, between Gamaliel's voluntary administration ban, and the choice to limit the case to only the Signpost issues, makes it impossible to consider this vector of behavior and its weight towards this case. If I were just considering the Signpost issues alone in isolation, I agree that the desysop seems excessive (though obviously admonishment is needed), but with culmination of Gamaliel's behavior just before the Signpost issue, there's a lot more strength to considering this option which due to scope limit, has been left off the table. --M ASEM (t) 16:49, 25 May 2016 (UTC)
 * I concur. To add to that, I've found a fair bit of evidence pointing to policy violations and misuse of administrator tools in past. That evidence is not permissible in this case, since the scope was limited and any "evidence which does not meet these requirements will be removed by the clerks". --Hammersoft (talk) 17:59, 25 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Yeah, if the same series of reverts and pointy edits had been made by J. Random Users arguing over closing an RfC about Pokemon, it would've ended with some edit-warring blocks a few days long, now long since served out and forgotten. Nobody came out of this better off by virtue of their positions and experience than they would have been otherwise. Opabinia regalis (talk) 22:18, 24 May 2016 (UTC)
 * , you're correct it's not a scorecard but it is indicative of the depth of the transgression. Seeing as the scope was so limited there was also no way to present evidence that the current episode represents a pattern which was, frankly, a horrible call by ArbCom.  Even excluding the past I don't see the series of events as minor as you seem to.  J. Random User would have been instantly blocked and it wouldn't have gotten near this far but because of Gamaliel's status nobody dared block him.  You're right that nobody covered themselves in glory here but there's one major glaring issue that has invariably been a desysop level transgression and that's the utter lack of WP:ADMINACCT.  An admin who screws up this much over a stretch of days and can't even see where they erred, and worse deflects blame on other editors, can't retain the trust of the community.  A simple acceptance of their own part in the conflict and I'd agree a desysop may not be necessary.  This though?  Gamaliel acted throughout, and still does, like they did nothing wrong and basically ArbCom looks to be backing them up on that.  And that's leaving aside the removal of evidence, the strangely restricted scope that was then violated by the first FoF.  We wouldn't unblock J. Random User without an acknowledgement of where they erred.  Every other involved party here has acknowledged where they erred.  Yet the focus of the case, and the person who should have the highest expected accountability, hasn't. Capeo (talk) 15:51, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

He didn't harass or abuse anyone, -- he merely cast aspersions - wikt:aspersions "An attack on somebody's reputation or good name." That seems like a mighty fine distinction to make. NE Ent 09:06, 25 May 2016 (UTC)
 * It's mind blowing to me that some Arbs have said this behavior was not part of a pattern. You do realize you, the Arbs that voted to limit the scope, made it impossible to actually find out if that was true or not? Capeo (talk) 20:53, 26 May 2016 (UTC)
 * I don't know why the arbs (or was it just one arb?) placed the restrictive scope notice on the case. A cursory examination of the case pages in this case finds no explanation from ArbCom regarding its presence (I certainly welcome anyone pointing me to where such explanation exists). Looking at the five most recent prior user conduct cases accepted by ArbCom, there's no scope notice precedent. --Hammersoft (talk) 21:01, 26 May 2016 (UTC)
 * I highly disagree with limiting the scope and it is pretty unprecedented in behavioral cases that I remember. That said if you're going to do that than friggin' do it. Gamaliel's evidence was out of scope, the first FoF is out of scope and you certainly shouldn't be using lack of a pattern as a rationale when voting on a proposal when the scope restricted any evidence of a pattern. Evidence that suggested this incident may be part of a larger pattern was removed even.  That's no to say if the scope was broadened a definitive pattern would have emerged but can we have some consistency here? Capeo (talk) 22:15, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

Milowent's section

 * Let's get the votes all in and close this sucker. Admonishments are fine.--Milowent • hasspoken  17:51, 23 May 2016 (UTC)
 * As we creep toward seeing the critical decision being made by the members holding back on the desysop vote, I must note that desysopping Gamaliel over a fight over an April Fool's Joke would be insane. Yes, its not the end of the world to not be admin, but  it all reminds me of when President Clinton was impeached in a political battle over insipid stuff, but when it came to the decision of actually removing him from office, common sense won out.  Just because this became an arbcom case does not make it worthy of being an arbcom case.  Don't roll over Gamaliel over this Trump mess, of all things.  The admonishment will be fuel enough should future behavior require punishment over a serious dispute.--Milowent • hasspoken  16:03, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

Ryk72's section

 * P 1 - Applicability of the BLP policy & R 7 - Community encouraged (BLP)

I thank the committee for revisiting this principle and the associated remedy; particularly the contributions of and, in addition to those of the initial drafting Arbs. The suggestion by Opabinia is "about right", and is greatly appreciated. I would encourage your support. - Ryk72 'c.s.n.s.' 11:05, 26 May 2016 (UTC)


 * FOF 1 - Gamaliel and Gamergate

I am uncomfortable with the use of the term "opponents" in the first sentence of this finding of fact. The editors included within the set "he has painted with the same brush" include many who disagreed with Gamaliel's actions in The Signpost incident and at ANI, but who have had no interaction in the Gamergate topic space. The use of the term here does those editors a disservice and also perpetuates a WP:BATTLEGROUND attitude with respect to that topic space. While I personally find significant fault with Gamaliel's administrative actions in the Gamergate topic space (particularly with respect to administrative actions concerning DHeyward), I do not consider that we are "opponents". Respectfully request that this be changed to "editors". - Ryk72 'c.s.n.s.' 11:43, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

NOTE: I am the editor responsible for posting the links to Reddit threads referred to in this section.
 * FOF 5 - Gamaliel's use of admin tools

While remaining aware that on Wiki actions are widely discussed in a number of forums, including some which involve members of the broader committee and admin corps, I, nonetheless, broadly condemn the contents of the threads to which I linked, and, in hindsight, would not choose to do so again. I should, however, like it noted that they were included in the context of a wider discussion on restrictions around use of the "500/30" protection, and only after Gamaliel had represented that "Reddit threads" including off-site coordination targeting the article of a BLP in a topic area where there has been frequent off-site coordination from the very same forums were the reason for a contentious application of that protection. I maintain that that statement by Gamaliel contained a misrepresentation of truth; and was a failure to act in accordance with WP:ADMINACCT. I should also like it noted that no material from those threads was repeated here on Wikipedia. In the interest of having something positive from all of this, if possible, would the committee detail how questionable admin actions which are justified by "offsite things which cannot be mentioned or discussed on Wikipedia" might be reasonably questioned without falling foul of policy? - Ryk72 'c.s.n.s.' 23:13, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

WP:BLP has been suggested as the policy basis for the redactions & revdels; given that WP:BLPTALK explicitly permits the inclusion of links containing contentious material, are you able to elaborate on the policies (BLP or other) that you see as permitting the redaction & revdel, and how they do so. If this is WP:BLP, I respectfully suggest that it indicates that the written policy does not align with practiced policy, and that a (likely modified) version of R7 - Community encouraged (BLP), focusing on application, rather than applicability, should be supported. - Ryk72 'c.s.n.s.' 23:13, 23 May 2016 (UTC) while it may seem like splitting hairs, I would like it noted that there was no "revdeleted thread", the contents of the linked Reddit thread were not repeated on Wikipedia. Respectfully request that you amend to "revdeleted links". - Ryk72 'c.s.n.s.' 23:13, 23 May 2016 (UTC) Should the links have been included in the comment at WP:A/R/M (or anywhere else on Wikipedia)? Clearly consensus is that they should not (and, as before, I now understand this; deeply regret the inclusion; and would not do the same again). Should editors be free to question admin actions, and their stated reasons for those actions? Absolutely, they should, especially where those stated reasons do not pass muster. - Ryk72 'c.s.n.s.' 13:01, 24 May 2016 (UTC)
 * You keep citing WP:BLPTALK, but you appear to have no idea what it says or means. WP:BLPTALK allows the posting of questionable links for the express purpose of determining whether their content is suitable for articlespace. It does not permit you to post links to random reddit threads abusing other editors in order to win a wiki-legal argument. MastCell Talk 23:54, 23 May 2016 (UTC)
 * , Respectfully, I have read the whole of WP:BLPTALK, and would request that other editors do likewise. It includes: Although this policy applies to posts about Wikipedians in project space, some leeway is permitted to allow the handling of administrative issues by the community, but administrators may delete such material if it rises to the level of defamation, or if it constitutes a violation of no personal attacks. While I agree that the contents of the Reddit thread to which the link directed were not within the reasonable boundaries of "some leeway", I respectfully suggest that we may have reasonably disagreed (past tense) as to whether the links themselves (as distinct from the contents of the linked thread; and I do make that distinction, because BLPTALK appears to make that distinction) are within those boundaries; though community consensus is now clear that the links themselves are not within that leeway; and I gladly accept that consensus. I cannot, however, concur that WP:BLPTALK does not also apply to project space, and cannot concur that it does not apply to matters in project space other than content decisions. - Ryk72 'c.s.n.s.' 03:44, 24 May 2016 (UTC)- amended - Ryk72 'c.s.n.s.' 04:29, 24 May 2016 (UTC)
 * I also respectfully, but firmly, reject the categorisation post links to random reddit threads abusing other editors in order to win a wiki-legal argument. The consensus that posting of the links is inappropriate (which I again gladly acknowledge and accept) aside; the comment which contained the links to those threads clearly addressed Gamaliel's stated rationale for a contentious application of "500/30" protection - "Reddit threads" including off-site coordination targeting the article of a BLP in a topic area where there has been frequent off-site coordination from the very same forums - and, I contend, as the only Reddit threads which discussed the protected page, they clearly demonstrated that that rationale was a misrepresentation of fact. I reject, therefore, that the posting was "random", and reject that discussion of administrative misconduct is "to win a wiki-legal argument".
 * You know perfectly well what was inappropriate in that link, and I suspect you know just as well that BLPTALK is about discussing potential article content. "Please explain in WP:ALLCAPS why I shouldn't link to off-wiki harassment of Wikipedians" is lame. This is like asking the inspector who caught you spitting in the soup to please explain which exact part of the health code says the waiter isn't allowed to do that, even if the customer is a jerk. Started responding in an old tab. "What MastCell said" would have done just as well, as it turns out. Opabinia regalis (talk) 00:02, 24 May 2016 (UTC)
 * , as above & below, I am not seeking to justify the inclusion of the links, which it is now clear are not aligned with consensus. I do contend that WP:BLPTALK is not limited to "article content" discussions; but gladly accept that community consensus is that these links are outside the "leeway" referred to there. I am however, concerned that if the policy underpinning is solely "WP:BLP" that it implies that we do not have a mechanism to discuss "revolting" things where we might find need (without suggesting or implying anything about this particular occasion). In this regard, this is part of a wider, and long-standing, concern around the in-practice application of WP:BLP outside of mainspace, and is not focused on this particular instance or on these particular links. As below, for this particular instance, I am happier with a rationale which is based on WP:NPA et al, as described by . - Ryk72 'c.s.n.s.' 03:44, 24 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Not sure why particularly the opposers are pinged...but anyway. I view the justification coming from WP:NPA, CFD #2 a, and several sections of EL Harassment. I also have to echo Opabinia here. --  Amanda  (aka DQ) 00:03, 24 May 2016 (UTC)
 * , It was not my intention to ping only the opposers, but to ping the Arbs that had suggested that the redactions & revdels were supported by policy (including those with "per" votes); in haste I may have gotten the usernames wrong. I am happier with a rationale based on WP:NPA et al; though note that again that language of those policies, guidelines & essays could use some polish to remove ambiguity - Linking to off-site harassment, attacks, or privacy violations against persons who edit Wikipedia for the purpose of attacking another person who edits Wikipedia is never acceptable. emphasis mine . Again I am not seeking to justify the inclusion of the links, but to take the chance to improve the clarity of policy; to have it better align with community consensus. - Ryk72 'c.s.n.s.' 03:44, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

TL;DR - Yes, I got it wrong; I accept that I got it wrong; I would not do it again; our policies leave wiggle room for literal minds; can we work on improving that? - Ryk72 'c.s.n.s.' 03:44, 24 May 2016 (UTC) - amended - Ryk72 'c.s.n.s.' 04:43, 24 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Hey, I just saw the first sentence of this section. Ryk72, that thread was revolting. How you think it was somehow OK to link to vile shit like that is beyond me. Does one need rules and explanations and ArbCom-approved directives for a bit of common sense? Whether it was repeated or not on Wikipedia is immaterial, at least from a moral point of view. But I appreciate the ping, so I could get that detail right, sure--because that's what really matters. Drmies (talk) 00:18, 24 May 2016 (UTC)
 * , I appreciate your amendment in advance. And to be clear, I'm not trying to justify the posting of the links, which it is now clear is not aligned with community consensus; nor am I suggesting that that consensus is somehow wrong; I am however suggesting that our policies are unclear, and perhaps ought to be aligned with that consensus. For the record, I did read both WP:BLP and WP:NPA et al (all of the policies & essays kindly linked by ), and reached a conclusion, based on the wording of those policies that links, in this circumstance, were permitted. That is obviously indicative of a failing on my part (moral, intellectual or otherwise), and I am happy to own that failing, and the corresponding excoriation ; but it is also an indication that there is room for improvement in the clarity of our policies. There is also the wider question of how we discuss "revolting" things where we need to for content or for administrative reasons - which is why I requested on the Evidence talk page that the committee request the community review policies on the application (not applicability) of the policy outside Mainspace.
 * you might want to look up "approbation." :) Newyorkbrad (talk) 04:40, 24 May 2016 (UTC)
 * I thank you kindly. Amended. - Ryk72 'c.s.n.s.' 04:43, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

I would say, you now have a good understanding of the policy. How did you arrive at that understanding? You did something those who saw it say is vile (and think you should have too) and were educated on policy That's certainly one way policy education works, but if you think that policy/guideline could be better, go work to change the policy, Arbcom cannot do that for you. Sure, they can make a call for an RfC, which is not passing, but with at least one arbitrator saying being so specific may not be possible, you see the WP:CREEP problem. ('We need more policy' 'We do!?!') This is not the place to change policy or guidelines, all of which, always are applied in the instance, and never in the abstract. Alanscottwalker (talk) 13:49, 24 May 2016 (UTC) I note that I also requested in that same comment that Gamaliel indicate if there was other supporting evidence for the admin action or for the statement off-site coordination targeting the article of a BLP in a topic area where there has been frequent off-site coordination from the very same forums. To date, he has not. I make the (perhaps unwise) assumption that editors commenting here have actually read the Reddit threads which were linked, and ask if they find anything within those threads which provides sound justification for the application of "500/30" protection to any Wikipedia article. I cannot. - Ryk72 'c.s.n.s.' 21:20, 25 May 2016 (UTC) To be clear, I reject outright the assertion that BLP, as written, is clearly supportive of redaction & revdel of the links in question; I do, however, gladly acknowledge & accept the community consensus that the links should not have been posted, and the community consensus that redaction was appropriate (without specification of policy basis); I also gladly acknowledge & accept that WP:NPA & WP:Linking to external harassment, in concert, and in so far as the threads to which the links directed contain discussion of Wikipedia editors, urge caution in such matters, and provide sufficiently sound policy basis for such consensus. I am happy to arrive at a point where the inclusion of these links is considered inappropriate, perhaps even grossly so; I am not supportive of reaching that point through a journey which implies that all contentious links outside of mainspace are verboten. To be further clear, I also reject outright any aspects of this discussion which might be considered by reasonable observers to be a re-argument of the previous discussion at WT:BLP; a discussion which overwhelmingly opposed drastic expansion of BLP's impact on links in Talk page discussions. How educated or not that might seem is left as an exercise for the reader. - Ryk72 'c.s.n.s.' 00:34, 25 May 2016 (UTC)
 * In fairness to Ryk72, the situation with these links is not well established by policy, as there is a balance between not linking to vile comments towards WP editors in off-site forums, and properly documenting off-site activity in pursuit of administrative actions for proper justification. In trying to manage that balance, I don't see that Ryk72 was acting maliciously towards Gamaliel or other editors named in those threads, but instead more concerned that Gamaliel's 500/30 protection was properly justified. How to handle this case is not clear by policy.
 * Let's take a hypothetical based on this case: say there was an off-site thread that clearly showed a pending attempt to use socks/meatpuppets to change a WP article, but in that same off-site thread was doxxing of one or more WP editors. As an admin to justify preemptive protection of the article, I'd be in a conundrum : yes, I could protect and state without linking there was an offsite threat but can't point to it because of the BLP/NPA issue. We don't have a mechanism on WP to handle a case like this, something akin to OTRS where we could document the link in a private setting, knowing that if someone wanted evidence they could request it (as a registered WP user), but avoid the public acknowledge of said link.  And maybe that's one thing the community needs to figure out. I would note that if the article was in a topic area that ArbCom has already placed sanctions on, this may be where keeping such matters to the private email lists would then be best, but this doesn't cover all of WP. --M ASEM  (t) 18:27, 24 May 2016 (UTC)
 * In fairness to Ryk72, it clearly matters not whether the LP links were something he intended to act maliciously toward Gamaliel with, nor, for that matter, if he was trying to exonerate Gamaliel with them -- by policy, they were with respect to an LP 'removable, rev deletable, or suppressible', as needed - so if anyone needs to do anything with them in an Arbcom proceeding, they need to be e-mailed to Arbcom and should not be posted. Alanscottwalker (talk) 19:02, 24 May 2016 (UTC)
 * If the links were necessary as part of an Arbcom proceeding or sanction, obviously yes, emailing them in private is the only appropriate action, no question. But in the context Ryk72 initially posted them, there was no ArbCom action, it was in response to Gamaliel acting on their own (at least, to me, not taking the action as a Arbitrator enforcing a sanction but as an admin). 20/20 hindsight, its clear they shouldn't have been posted but there needed to be some way to clarify Gamaliel's questioned admin action and providing such links as refuting evidence (regardless of what else those links contained) should be documented somewhere. We don't have such a place when the situation is outside ArbCom's current remit and sanctioned areas, hence why we may need to consider this in the community at large. --M ASEM (t) 19:16, 24 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Uh, read the FOF 5 link, it was in an arbitration proceeding. Let's also assume it was somewhere else, the practice would still be to e-mail them to an admin or arb for whatever conduct proceeding is going on per policy (if you really think that needs to be more prominately placed somewhere, by all means suggest it in the appropriate place). Alanscottwalker (talk) 19:54, 24 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Okay, my bad, for some reason I had it that it was over on the article's talk page. Still, my point is, when we are discussion issues of behavior of editors and some issues require pointing to offsite sources that may include BLP issues about editors, we don't have a practice at WP for how to handle that. This case has shown that if such involves an ArbCom action, privately mailing ArbCom is clearly now the right step, though that wasn't clear before this case. But when we are talking, say, a general matter being brought up at ANI, where there is no "authority" like ArbCom (nor we'd expect ArbCom to act as that authority), there's no one that is an appropriate target for sending these types of links as a private matter, and we need to figure out as a community how to work that out. Discretion is clearly the proper avenue, we just need to document how to use that discretion appropriately so that this situation doesn't come about again. --M ASEM (t) 23:55, 24 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Unknown? What?  I have always known, for as long as I cared, I guess because I have read the policies that sensitive evidence concerning people for use in conduct matters is submitted to Arbcom, sometimes in an e-mail chain from User, to Admin/ORTS, to Arbcom - hearing that type of evidence is one of the very key purposes of Arbcom.  The world of evidence is only two types: that which can be stated on the pedia, and that which cannot. That which cannot goes privately to Arbcom.Alanscottwalker (talk) 00:48, 25 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Again, I'm talking about the hypothetical case: there is an external link that shows an intent to sock/meatpuppet changes to an WP article but that also includes doxxing of WP editors (eg we would not want to post that link on WP directly); but the WP article in question is not the subject of any current ArbCom case. Normally, one would go to ANI to figure out the proper protection to prevent disruption on the article, but one can't link the evidence of that pending intent due to the doxxing of editors. You would not send that link to ArbCom, as they have no involvement or oversight on the matter at that point. There's no ruling committee or similar for ANI situations. There is effectively no "authority" to privately provide that link as to justify the use of protection. (The issue that Ryk72 took with Gamaliel is that there was no provided evidence for a 500/30 protection on an article, and this really should be documented so that future admins should understand why it was placed and when it can be removed. While this was an arbcom thing and thus can be documented privately there - though no evidence seems to suggest it was - not all cases will be arbcom-involved). This is a situation that the community should figure out how it should be handled. --M ASEM  (t) 16:35, 25 May 2016 (UTC)
 * To be clear, the issue that I took up with Gamaliel was that the stated rationale for a contentious administrative action appears, on even a cursory examination, to have been a blatant untruth.
 * Discussion of a Motion. - Ryk72 'c.s.n.s.' 00:34, 25 May 2016 (UTC)
 * In fairness to WP:NPA, it clearly makes such a distinction - Linking to off-site harassment, attacks, or privacy violations against persons who edit Wikipedia for the purpose of attacking another person who edits Wikipedia is never acceptable emphasis added - whether this distinction aligns with community consensus is, of course, a separate matter for a different forum.


 * I would say that I now have a clearer (comparative, not absolute) understanding of consensus (as distinct from policy). From previous conversations, I am aware that we fundamentally, though I would hope respectfully & amicably, disagree on the interpretation of some aspects of policy; on those aspects my opinion is unchanged. I have not suggested that we need more policy, but that we need clearer policy; particularly at WP:BLPTALK, about which there appears to be considerable continued disconnect. I agree that this is not the place to change policy, and do not attempt to do so; my "pinged requests" above were for a clarification of the interpretations by respected Arbitrators, not a request that they institute policy change. Other parts of your comment are unclear to me, and I would seek clarification on those before replying further. - Ryk72 'c.s.n.s.' 19:05, 24 May 2016 (UTC)
 * You asked on my talk page to clarify, "you did something those who saw it say is vile (and think you should have too) and were educated on policy." Sorry, I will try:
 * "you did something [you posted a revdeletable blp link]


 * those who saw it say it was vile (and think you should have too) [you should have known it was vile]


 * and were educated on policy [you learned what was blp revdeletable].


 * Perhaps what would help you is, your opinion will only go so far, because in a fundamental way what matters, here, in all we do, is how others see it. Alanscottwalker (talk) 19:49, 24 May 2016 (UTC)
 * No. - Ryk72 'c.s.n.s.' 20:12, 24 May 2016 (UTC)


 * FOF 9 - DHeyward and Gamaliel

While I do not seek to justify on 's behalf any of the actions listed in this finding of fact, I do feel compelled to note that the bonsai-ification of the case scope and evidence have ensured that potentially mitigating evidence of biased administrative conduct towards DHeyward has not been permitted to be considered by the committee. My own observation, particularly with regard to the (now vacated) three-party mutual topic bans (DHeyward, MarkBernstein, Thargor Orlando), and the partial policing of them is that DHeyward has been subject to one of the most egregious campaigns of administrative bullying that I have witnessed on the internet. In rejecting this evidence and allowing mitigating evidence for other parties, we have done him a grave disservice. - Ryk72 'c.s.n.s.' 12:52, 26 May 2016 (UTC)


 * On the Practice of BLP outside Mainspace

Fellow editors,

Some of the concerns that I have about our current practice & policy around BLP include the following:

We have well respected, long standing editors who believe that WP:BLPREMOVE enables removal of any contentious information, not only that which is unsourced or poorly sourced.

We have well respected, long standing editors who believe that links in Talk page discussions about content choices can be unilaterally redacted. Even though this is the method prescribed by WP:BLPTALK.

We have admins who indef block editors for including links in Talk page discussions about content choices, and revision delete those links. Even though this is the method prescribed by WP:BLPTALK.

We have new editors who include links to sources which were redacted and revdeleted from previous Talk page discussions about content, and are then blocked; even though they could not be reasonably aware that the source had been previously discussed.

We have well respected, long standing editors who suggest that some links in Talk page discussions about content choices should always be forbidden, based on the political or ideological affiliations of the publisher, or the source site; even though WP:BADSITES is a failed policy.

We have well respected, long standing editors who believe that information on Talk pages can be redacted & revdeleted if it is sufficiently contentious, no matter how well sourced, and no matter the reliability of the source. We have a "no consensus" discussions on that at AN/ANI. We have open discussions on what should happen to "no consensus" revdels.

We have well respected, long standing editors who support a change in policy to forbid inclusion of links in Talk page discussions about content if the linked source is deemed a priori "not sufficiently reliable". How that determination is made without identification of the source is ... a mystery.

We have WP:BLPRESTORE which works wonderfully for article content, but poorly elsewhere. How do we establish a consensus for re-inclusion of material in Talk space or Project space, epecially if it is revdeleted; we have nowhere to identify the material to be able to discuss it.

And, if WP:BLPTALK's clause about links only applies to content discussions (and this is a reasonable reading of that policy), short of emailing ArbCom, we have no means of identifying off Wiki information for administrative discussions (where the source contains contentious information) no matter how well sourced. In this regard we hold ourselves more protected than our article subjects.

All of these may be reasonable viewpoints. Those editors may be simply reflecting the consensus of the wider community. If so, it is good that they do so; but it would also be good to have the written policies aligned with that consensus.

Hope this helps. - Ryk72 'c.s.n.s.' 15:29, 29 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Regardless, of your characterization of other editor's arguments, it is important to realize the that the very design of BLP is to heighten the application of other polices and guidelines and to shift burdens, in one singular circumstance, where a living person is involved. It is simply incorrect, therefore, that BLP must repeat, for example, WP:V and WP:RS restrictions and values on examination of sources and what they are properly used for (fact, opinion, etc. etc.) nor on NOR, and it's guidelines, and NPOV and it's guidelines, those other policies and guidelines are generally enforced as best practice, just with more vigor in the singular circumstance of the living person, and the BLP has some few added protections (generally in the nature of burden on editors) editing in the area of living persons.  Alanscottwalker (talk) 17:03, 29 May 2016 (UTC)
 * I do not see that this is in any way relevant to the statement that I have provided above, which is that well respected, long standing editors, including admins, do not apply BLP in practice as it is currently written in policy; and that alignment of practice and policy is preferable to the current disconnect (regardless of which, or if both, move). Nor is the sentence which begins "It is simply incorrect, therefore..." in any way related to anything in the statement provided above; if this is intended as a counter-argument, then it is a clear, and fairly crude, straw man. I am also uninterested in an attempted demonstration of relevance in this forum; I am certain that there will be ample opportunity for discussion should the community decide that it is interested in clarifying the currently unclear aspects & applications of BLP. - Ryk72 'c.s.n.s.' 17:26, 29 May 2016 (UTC)

JzG's admonishment
I strongly welcome this proposed remedy but I do not think it is enough. Consider the following facts:


 * On 13 December 2013, JzG received a discretionary sanction for abusing his status as an administrator and poor conduct. According to the sanctioning administrator:


 * "From the standpoint of an uninvolved observer, your actions...did not meet what I think are the community's expectations in the conduct of administrators, as described in the policy WP:Administrators. Seen from the outside, your statements...can be read as an attempt to use your administrator status (which, being involved in content disputes, you should not have mentioned) to gain an advantage in a content dispute." (emphasis mine)


 * On 11 January 2015, JzG received a discretionary sanction for misusing his admin status again and poor conduct. According to the sanctioning administrator, he was cautioned and warned to:


 * "Adhere to the standards of decorum expected of editors, especially those working in controversial topic areas; this includes abiding by the maxim of commenting on content, not on contributors... Bringing up yo [sic.] administrator status can cause confusion as to which capacity your are acting in, and could potentially have a chilling effect on the willingness of non-administrators to engage with you in content discussions. Should you fail to adhere to this warning, there is a high probability that you will face substantive sanctions in the future. " (emphasis mine)


 * On 22 October 2015, JzG was reminded by an arbitrator not to make "chilling effect-type remarks"


 * On 22 October 2015, JzG was given an interaction ban

In addition to the Arbcom admonishments, there is also the impressive block log. If this was any rank-and-file editor, he would long since have been site-banned. Per WP:ARBEC, the committee stated that:



Given the consistent deterioration of JzG's conduct, why have the committee not taken into account this editor's overall record of participation, behavioral history, and other relevant circumstances? How can the committee be sure that a strongly worded admonishment will suffice when previous warnings, reminders, and cautions have all but failed to keep this administrator from going further astray? RoseL2P (talk) 00:50, 24 May 2016 (UTC)
 * I can't say I know anything about this. But as just an observer of this case, my thinking is this is too late, here.  If this is to be pursued a new case request should be started. (probably after this case is closed). Alanscottwalker (talk) 00:58, 24 May 2016 (UTC)
 * JzG hasn't been blocked in six years, and it includes four unblockings and one self-requested block. That part of your points is entirely moot. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 01:46, 24 May 2016 (UTC)
 * True. And in any case 2 3 of us have said this is out of scope. It would be clearly wrong to limit evidence against the main party to this case to material only from April 1st but allow earlier evidence for others. Doug Weller  talk 04:49, 24 May 2016 (UTC)
 * So we have: a three-year-old warning, noting in passing that this is an area prone to vigorous POV-pushing and in need of admins with spine. Then a warning which was rescinded after discussion, but you neglected to note that. Then two items which are actually one, relating to interaction with a single user to whom I subsequently apologised, which was accepted. You want to build a case on that? You also neglected to mention that you are one of the editors whose attempts to promote fringe content I have been called on to prevent. I get things wrong sometimes. I also work in areas where there is aggressive POV-pushing, and these are areas that lead to burnout. I have ways of coping, that work to a better or worse degree, have no problem with people making complaints against me and will listen to all good-faith comments, but your complaint as stated here is, bluntly, dishonest. And that doesn't make you look good. Guy (Help!) 11:08, 24 May 2016 (UTC)
 * So we have: a three-year-old warning, noting in passing that this is an area prone to vigorous POV-pushing and in need of admins with spine.


 * Your most recent warning was not three years old but in fact several weeks ago by an experienced (non-admin) editor. If any admin had spine they would have given you a very lengthy block for multiple counts of poor conduct before your actions resulted in this case being brought against you.


 * Then a warning which was rescinded after discussion, but you neglected to note that


 * I don't know why Callanecc rescinded his warning against you but it was not a sound decision. Much of the controversy surrounding the G. Edward Griffin biography has to do with the characterization of the subject as a conspiracy theorist. There was in fact an RFC regarding the use of this derogatory term and you were obviously aware of it because you closed the RFC in your capacity as an administrator. So why persist in restoring the BLP violation?


 * Then two items which are actually one, relating to interaction with a single user to whom I subsequently apologised, which was accepted.


 * SageRad accepted your apology not because your behavior improved but because he is a good-natured person. You seem to think that every time someone turns a blind eye to your transgressions (or an arbitrator declines to sanction you because of some technicality) it is an explicit exoneration of your conduct. No, it isn't.


 * You want to build a case on that?


 * Is this an invitation to start a case specifically against you? Rest assured I have enough diffs.


 * You also neglected to mention that you are one of the editors whose attempts to promote fringe content I have been called on to prevent.


 * By who? Your purpose as an administrator is to keep the encyclopedia safe from clear and demonstrable threats such as organized advocacy or blatant vandalism. Your mission here isn't to fight virtual battles against everyone whose contributions you don't like. You are fighting a war against invisible opponents.


 * I get things wrong sometimes.


 * The issue I have with you isn't that you're sometimes wrong, or even often wrong. The main problem is that you're technically incompetent in most or all of the areas you edit in. In addition, your primary source of information stems not from scholarly literature but from a wide range of dubious sources including blogs and self-published websites. This, together with your excessive use of hyperbolic language and poor interpersonal skills, makes it virtually impossible for anyone to work with you all the time, unless they're of course on the same side as you.


 * I also work in areas where there is aggressive POV-pushing, and these are areas that lead to burnout. I have ways of coping, that work to a better or worse degree, have no problem with people making complaints against me and will listen to all good-faith comments, but your complaint as stated here is, bluntly, dishonest. And that doesn't make you look good.
 * If you don't want people to complain against you, the best thing you can do is maintain a stellar conduct. Nobody expect perfections, but an honest attempt to improve your interpersonal skills will certainly go a long way towards making this place a better venue for all. Best, RoseL2P (talk) 16:06, 24 May 2016 (UTC)
 * As has been discussed elsewhere, "RoseL2P" = User:A1candidate per this dif. MastCell placed a disclosure of that on RoseL2P's userpage which RoseL2P reverted here.  Per its contribs that account has a long history advocating for alt med; a topic that Guy has of course been active in maintaining as NPOV.  Interactions between Guy and A1 are here.  Jytdog (talk) 20:35, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

Regarding this remedy, I think there is undue weight being given to previous incidents in the in-line comments to. There is a great body of context and improvement since each of those incidents, with very special improvement from the initial case some 8 years ago. While an arb has (perhaps erroneously) characterised a more recent perceived issue as a "free pass due to technical reasons", I'd note if not warn that each and every arb ought to understand (if they do not already) that it was more than just a 'technical reason' why such proposal was inappropriate in that particular case.

As to the conduct which prompted the Fof in this particular case, I do not see how one can downplay Arkon's role (even if it is minor in the grand scheme). I'd be very much surprised if any arb can deny that Arkon's commentary and actions at the ANI were needlessly abrasive and inflammatory. With the exception of the opening post, each and every post which the user made at that ANI prior to the problematic closure needlessly increased the heat of the situation. The closure and edit-warring is what is being focused on in the Fof and remedy against Arkon, but I think things would have been different if Arkon conducted himself differently to begin with. If not JzG, it would have been someone else who reacted to Arkon's conduct, and whilst it's always better not to, I see more of a willingness and openness in JzG to do his best to avoid certain "reactionary behaviors" and learn from mistakes than I do in Arkon's response to the initial proposed Fof/remedy. In fact, I'm concerned that the omission in the Fof against Arkon will not help anyone.

Seeing I felt a need to comment on the above, I might as well round off with appreciation of the work done by arbs in this case; the direction of the rest of the PD appears to be sound (even if I think these community encouragements are often redundant by the time they are issued on the few occasions they are effective). The community's expectation that an arb is always held to a high standard, and that it is necessarily higher than that of any admin or editor, is so obvious that it goes without saying; however it is dressed up, the ultimate avoidable result from this case should come as no surprise to anyone. Ncmvocalist (talk) 16:57, 25 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Just a buttinsky note, that that's not how I recall the AN/I discussion and Arkon's role in it. What I saw was Arkon bravely holding out for serious issues to be discussed while others shared the concern at first but backed down in the face of a lot of belittlement. I was glad of his tenaciousness in speaking truth to power, as it were. I think ArbCom is showing wisdom in proposing just a reminder in his case. So it's possible to see that long and messy discussion differently, is all. Yngvadottir (talk) 17:32, 25 May 2016 (UTC)


 * If I understand you correctly, you appear to be suggesting this was mere assertiveness by Arkon; if it were, I would not have felt to make the note, and it would be fair to assume my comment about the reaction would have been very different. The unprotection apparently being sought by Arkon was done straight after an editor other than Arkon calmly pointed to the relevant policy guideline properly. To be clear, I don't think his remedy should be upgraded or downgraded from a reminder - that is quite appropriate and the whole thing was a bit of a spectacle right from the word go. But the Fof/reminder seems to omit the inflammatory way he chose to respond in the face of disagreement - which prompted the reaction of "belittlement" cited in the PD - which prompted the edit war. Ncmvocalist (talk) 18:03, 25 May 2016 (UTC)


 * I agree. I wasn't watching the AN/I thread as it happened and didn't participate, but read over it from start to end later.  Yes, Arkon did hold out for serious issues to be discussed and was tenacious, but he was also extremely abrasive and his actions were never going to result in a calm, collegial resolution of the problems.  I also think that a reminder is the appropriate remedy and, as I said above, think the FoF needs reworking to better reflect his actions.  GoldenRing (talk) 09:25, 26 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Perhaps FoF 8D should be replaced with something like this:
 * Arkon's contributions to the AN/I discussion were needlessly uncivil and inflammatory, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , contained personal attacks , , cast aspersions and showed a WP:BATTLEGROUND attitude ,.
 * I'll hasten to say that Arkon is far from the only one who behaved badly in that thread and if the committee wants to go down this rabbit hole then there are others who probably merit attention for being grossly unhelpful. However, that's 23 out of 57 comments that he made over two days in that thread that, to my mind, fall below the standards we expect.  Of the remaining 34, nine were minor fixes to his other comments and another six were reversions (four reverting closures, one reverting (what he saw as) a personal attack and one reverting his own previous comment).  The light to heat ratio here is pretty small.  Many, many of those 'uncivil and inflammatory' diffs also stray perilously close to personal attacks, but I think the point is made.  GoldenRing (talk) 10:15, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

@,  & : For those opposing a stronger remedy beyond verbal admonishment (e.g. desysop), would you be willing to reconsider your decision in a new case to specifically review JzG's overall conduct? RoseL2P (talk) 17:09, 26 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Anyone can request a case if they think it's warranted, but obviously we can't pre-judge it. I'd suggest getting this issue settled first, though. Opabinia regalis (talk) 05:54, 27 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the reply. I think a case is warranted but will wait until this is over before requesting. RoseL2P (talk) 09:21, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

NativeForeigner's Section
Just a couple quick comments. I very much agree with Salvio giuliano that in light of the quantity and relative strength of evidence as proposed by the FoF I'm surprised that there is not much support for desysop. It does come off as helping ones own, even if that wasn't at all the motivation. In one sense I understand why arbs scoped things but I'm not sure that it was the right move given the situation. While it might have opened things up to a lot of frivolous complaints due to prior admin actions, generally such cases on admin conduct are broadly omnibus, if I recall correctly. I wasn't around when this was going on but from what I can tell Gamaliel went off the rails pretty bad. I always would have assumed that contesting a closing a noticeboard discussion you are subject of would lead to a desysop... that being said a large part of case outcomes has always been how willing the party has been to admit wrongdoing. For me this is offset by the apparent length of time over which the disruption occurred.

Then again, I'm not sure there should be a desysop, it may not have been helpful. I kept my head down throughout this whole mess. But compared to other such cases and the evidence provided, I'm surprised there was no desysop. Arbcom Legal Realism may be a thing here, in that the outcome may be for the best, but the 'laws' were applied to reach a desired outcome, as opposed to some outcome being reached purely by a reading of the laws. So all in all I'm not here with a torch, but with a question mark. I suppose in a lot of arbcom cases it's concluded that the sum is greater than its parts in terms of misconduct. Here the conclusion seems to be that the sum is less than the total of its parts. I'm not convinced this is a bad thing, but it is atypical. NativeForeigner Talk 18:07, 24 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Oh, and separately I have no idea what the hell Arkon was supposed to do with regards to the close. Probably what he did didn't help the situation, but to me it's the very definition of "well this is a damn bad situation and I ought to do something about it." To me even a reminder seems a big much. I think he applied policy and common sense very reasonably (in my mind, with the reverts), even if it wasn't ultimately helpful. It's been quite a long time since we've had anything similar. His comments were grossly unhelpful, but to me that's an entirely separate issue. NativeForeigner Talk 18:17, 24 May 2016 (UTC)
 * I said similar above (completely ignored), and I wonder how they passed a remedy for Arkon when they couldn't pass a FoF regarding him. Oddly, the only successful remedies here seem to have been self-imposed, each time at the 11th hour. Dennis Brown - 2&cent; 21:27, 24 May 2016 (UTC)
 * What Arkon should have done is asked Guy to self-revert the close and failing that go to AN. This is Wikipedia 101 stuff.  The ugliness of everything that happened was driven in part by a sense of urgency, which for 99% of things is unjustified in WP.   Jytdog (talk) 21:39, 24 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Yeah. You're right but I think given how quickly and awfully it was already moving, and the fact that Arkon doesn't seem to be a regular at noticeboards means that although I understand what he did was unhelpful, I don't think there is much to say except "slow down." (To be fair, I very much agree a lot would be better on wp if people just slowed down...) NativeForeigner Talk 05:17, 25 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Nothing to do now, I agree. Jytdog (talk) 05:23, 25 May 2016 (UTC)
 * I suspect the problem with Arkon is that the drafters focused on the wrong things when drafting findings of fact. The revert was probably reasonable taken on its own; but Arkon's conduct in the rest of that discussion was ferocious BATTLEGROUND IMO.  'Grossly unhelpful' is putting it mildly.  So I think there's a feeling that Arkon should come out of this with an admonishment, but the FoF as drafted focuses on the wrong thing to support it.  Is there then a need here to go back over the evidence and draft a new FoF?  GoldenRing (talk) 10:50, 25 May 2016 (UTC)
 * I think that Arkon's behavior was suboptimal but in good faith for the most part. ANI could have handled it if it really was a problem, and no attempt to deal his "problem" was tried first, making an Arb remedy out of process. I think simply talking about it during the case was enough.  The reason for issuing FoFs is to base remedies on, and issuing a remedy without a FoF undermines the process and opens it up for abuse.  They chose to keep the scope extremely narrow, deleting a lot of evidence (which is odd since they are using GG as part of the FoF but wouldn't allow it in the evidence, FoF1).  Not the worse management of a case, but not the best either.  Dennis Brown - 2&cent; 11:36, 25 May 2016 (UTC)


 * This "not them" statement submitted as evidence, long after Gamaliel had plenty of time to put down the keyboard and go outside, indicates Gamaliel does not currently possess the self-awareness and appropriate perspective to effectively execute the responsibilities of the administrator bit. NE Ent 11:28, 25 May 2016 (UTC)
 * I was against desysopping at the onset and just wanted him to step away from GG and Arb (two things that he did on his own and might not have passed here). But now I'm more neutral on the admin bit, it is borderline due to all the 11th hour efforts and inability to accept responsibility.  Dennis Brown - 2&cent; 11:36, 25 May 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm confused. After his statement was posted, Gamaliel resigned from ArbCom and voluntarily undertook not to admin the GamerGate topic area (both of which, as Dennis notes, might not have otherwise passed). Don't those voluntary undertakings show some degree of self-awareness, perspective, and accountability? (I also find this line of reasoning ironic, since no one else responsible for turning this harmless minor incident into a 40-car pileup, from the case filer to the peanut gallery, seems to have the first inkling of self-awareness or insight, so why single out Gamaliel?) MastCell Talk 19:05, 25 May 2016 (UTC)
 * No, they're not taking responsibility. They didn't include any apology or acknowledgement that he did anything wrong. Lots of us have been around long enough to see countless admins resign under a cloud to avoid scrutiny while still convinced they're right, so we know better. We've also seen editors go inactive when an Arbitration case is accepted to avoid the hammer. If you still believe he accepts responsibility for his actions, take a look at his 11th-hour Statement and Evidence proxied in. He basically uses the "Gamergate made me do it" tactic, which has worked in the past. At no point does he acknowledge that he acted poorly or used bad judgment. If he had done that even when the RFAr was filed, the community would have accepted it and none of this would have happened. That's the real issue here. The Wordsmith Talk to me 19:18, 25 May 2016 (UTC)
 * His statement was posted minutes before the deadline, his resignation was right at the time the proposed decision was due, and leaving GG was just as the workshop started, taking it off the table. If you were cynical (and I'm not quite this cynical) you might say the timing was too perfect and it was to offset the inevitable.  I don't really know, but I can't help but to think his timing wasn't completely accidental anyway.  Still, I have and do give credit where it is due for his having done so.  He might have thought those sanctions were inevitable, he might have just been fed up with GG and being an Arb.  We don't know.  "Self-awareness" is certainly one possibility, but it isn't the only one.  His actions may or may not have indicated that self-awareness, but his words have not.  Dennis Brown - 2&cent; 19:20, 25 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Again: Yes, Gamaliel's evidence arrived on the last day of the evidence phase, but the fact that it was "minutes before the deadline" is due entirely to Real Life (unless you think Gamaliel was somehow colluding with my coworkers to produce problems that only reveal themselves on Friday nights.... ;) Opabinia regalis (talk) 20:40, 25 May 2016 (UTC)
 * You're also ignoring the timing of his RFAr "coda", which was also published just before the deadline. Your own colleague, confirms below that Dennis' timeline here is accurate and goes as far as saying the resignation happened when an Arbitrator had already told him that they were discussing his removal. Continuing to force this narrative that the timing is purely an accident is disingenuous at best. The Wordsmith Talk to me 20:54, 25 May 2016 (UTC)
 * He submitted his evidence several hours before the deadline, the fact that we posted it only minutes before had nothing to do with him. Why his evidence was sent to us on the last day no one knows but him. He resigned the day before the PD was due. Doug Weller  talk 21:06, 25 May 2016 (UTC)
 * , I take you at your word that it was received several hours before and that the delay was accidental, but the distinction is hardly worth noting as a few hours is indistinguishable from a few minutes. No one would still have had time to reply since we don't all live on the same slice of the planet. Compounding the issue is the fact that it was his only contribution.  Had he personally posted it 4 hours before the deadline, I would have said the same thing, as it denied any rebuttal by those he made claims against.  My words aren't judgemental, they are factual.  Dennis Brown - 2&cent; 21:22, 25 May 2016 (UTC)
 * While I'm here "Arkon is reminded that edit warring, even if exempt," makes no sense. If it is exempt, then it isn't edit warring.  You Arbs have to decide: if it is warring, admonish him.  If it wasn't, he shouldn't even be "reminded".  Per my note above.  His actions might not have been perfect, but they weren't worthy of a sanction here, even if it is just a "reminder".  Dennis Brown - 2&cent; 21:29, 25 May 2016 (UTC)
 * What "forced narrative"? I'm talking about when I posted the evidence, since Dennis specifically highlighted that. I said nothing about the timing of any other events, because they didn't directly involve my own actions.
 * This is a general comment, not just for this case, but: someone has to submit their evidence last. It makes good sense for someone who is the primary involved party to wait and see what others offer. I appreciate that everyone wants to be sure to get their two cents in, but the evidence phase has deadlines for a reason; we aren't going to then invent pseudo-rules about exactly when during that time any specific person should be posting. There's an "analysis" section in the workshop that can be used for responses if they're really needed. Opabinia regalis (talk) 22:25, 25 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Also: without going into detail, I should also say that the progress of events was a lot more complicated than you'd think just from looking at on-wiki posts and seeing "a 'coda' at the end of the case request, evidence at the end of the evidence phase, didn't resign until the last minute before the PD". Obviously, we can't stop people from making judgments with the facts they have, and if this had been a year ago I might've been posting here griping about the timing too, but - as it turns out is true of most things arbcom - it's more complicated than it looks. Opabinia regalis (talk) 22:45, 25 May 2016 (UTC)
 * I've got 10 years behind me, give me a little credit for understanding how convoluted things are behind the scenes ;) I fully understand that you have access to what goes in between the dots I have punctuated, but much of that is irrelevant to the acts that took place.  As a human, I'm sorry about the harassment, I truly feel for him, but that isn't related to edit warring, (arguable but minor) BLP violation, and old fashioned WP:ADMINACCT.  He did resign Arb and won't be on GG cases, the two things I thought were needed, so I'm not looking for any other remedy.  That said, acceptance of responsibility would be nice, as that is expected of all admin. ADDED: I don't have the diff (at AE), but I said he needed to walk away from GG because he was involved before all this started.  He is the reason I wouldn't work AE cases concerning GG, as he appeared to always be running interference for a particular point of view. Dennis Brown - 2&cent; 23:21, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

Just noting this page theoretically shouldn't have threaded conversation. I have no issue with it, but it should be clarified. NativeForeigner Talk 18:50, 25 May 2016 (UTC)
 * My mistake, and apologies, although it does seem useful here. Dennis Brown - 2&cent; 19:20, 25 May 2016 (UTC)
 * I agree that it does seem useful here. I mentioned that this talk page was threaded on our mailing list, saying that it should be allowed, and no one objected. Dennis has the timeline right, and before this speculation goes any further, I think I should say that at the time he resigned he was aware that we were considering removing him from the Committee due to inactivity. I don't know if such a motion would have passed since we didn't get that far, but it was certainly communicated to him as a possibility. Doug Weller  talk 19:39, 25 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Checking in this morning after a night at work, I see in this edit by that Gamaliel has e-mailed the Committee and taken responsibility for his actions. For me, that ties it up—I'm glad he won't lose his bit and hope he'll be able to return soon. Yngvadottir (talk) 15:34, 26 May 2016 (UTC)
 * I was never asking for the bit anyway, but was glad to see that post earlier. Perhaps in time he will share that expression with the larger community.  I've never thought Gamaliel was a bad guy, I just strongly disagreed with some of his actions at GG, which is why I said something to him about them pre-Arb case. Dennis Brown - 2&cent; 15:40, 26 May 2016 (UTC)


 * He apparently accepted responsibility privately to Arbcom, which is good. Still, he hasn't apologized to the community or told us that he knows he acted poorly and accepts responsibility for it. That's all any of us wanted in the first place, and his continued refusal stoked the fires even more. If he had just said in the beginning "Sorry, I acted rashly and won't do that again. I'm going to go get some fresh air now" everybody would have been satisfied and this case would never have happened. I feel that if the community is to heal and move on, Gamaliel should tell them (even by proxy) that he accepts responsibility for his actions. Not necessarily a huge essay, just a simple acknowledgement that he understands he made a mistake. The Wordsmith Talk to me 16:30, 26 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Just to reiterate that at the moment he is retired and cannot post to Wikipedia for reasons that the Committee knows and sympathises with. He's also resigned from the WMDC. Doug Weller  talk 16:04, 26 May 2016 (UTC)


 * I think you misunderstand me. I understand that Gamaliel is apparantly unable to edit en.wikipedia for reasons that are private (and should stay so). I'm not suggesting that he needs to come out of retirement to apologize. However, at least twice during this debacle (his coda and his "evidence") others have posted comments on his behalf. Am I being unreasonable in thinking that he could post a brief statement by proxy again? The Wordsmith Talk to me 20:51, 26 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Just going offline, but that's not unreasonable and I suggested it to him earlier today. Doug Weller  talk 21:20, 26 May 2016 (UTC)


 * That didn't stop him from, after his retirement, mocking me on Twitter even as his buddies were trying to get my page deleted. You Arbs are so far gone it's laughable. I feel sorry for Amanda and Salvio trying to make you see reason; they're like Alice in the Queen of Hearts' court. I realize that such behavior is out of scope. You arbs made sure that it would be. No "pattern of behavior" was possible. Auerbachkeller (talk) 17:20, 26 May 2016 (UTC)
 * And let me add that when the roof falls in on Arbcom and Wikipedia, as it surely will, I hope you arbs will look back at this moment as an inflection point. You rigged the case to minimize Gamaliel's exposure, brazenly ignored precedent and consistency, and when Gamaliel came off looking awful anyway, you scrambled and privately colluded with him to let him off the hook. I am not a "Burn the village in order to save it" sort, but I also tire of telling villagers to stop setting their houses on fire. It's a pity; it was a unique village. Auerbachkeller (talk) 17:39, 26 May 2016 (UTC)
 * @Doug; Please do not misconstrue me; I'm assuming good faith that there is a good faith reason for Gamaliel's absence. Let's just assume, since its really not the salient point anyway, that there's a perfectly good, sound, and respectful-of-en.wikipedia reason why Gamaliel is absent. Perhaps ArbCom isn't capable of stepping into the perspective of the community. I'll attempt to lay out why this looks suspect, and one of the many reasons why the community is up in arms over this case:
 * 21:40, 14 April 2016: Gamaliel's last edit to en.wikipedia as of now.
 * 03:23, 15 April 2016: Casliber switches from decline to accept, shifting the case into acceptance territory
 * 03:44, 15 April 2016: ~20 minutes later, Drmies posts an email from Gamaliel at his request on the RFAR page.
 * 08:48, 18 April 2016: ~Four hours before the case is accepted, a scope notice for the case is created, limiting evidence to only those things surrounding the current event. . Note that in the five prior user conduct cases accepted by ArbCom, none contained scope limitations.
 * 13:02, 18 April 2016: Gamaliel's case is accepted
 * 15:45, 3 May 2016: Gamaliel continues editing on Commons, apparently without issue.
 * 17:29, 15 May 2016: Gamaliel's last edit to Commons as of now
 * 18 April 2016 - 23 May 2016: Gamaliel retweets on his twitter feed 24 times over the time span (data from Google cache)
 * Sometime between 23 May 2016 and 26 May 2016: Gamaliel uses his twitter feed to mock (exact timing is requested, Auerbachkeller, if you have it, along with what it said)
 * Sometime between 23 May 2016 and 26 May 2016: Gamaliel deletes his twitter feed
 * It is clear from these events that Gamaliel has access to and has been using the Internet to conduct a number of activities on the Internet, even activities related to and on Wikimedia servers. Yet, we are to believe he is not capable of editing en.wikipedia.
 * You, ArbCom, try to separate yourself from whatever information you have regarding Gamaliel's absence, and just read the above as the sole context in which to understand his absence. Now do you see why the community is incredulous? Combine this with the fact that the last time Gamaliel was brought before ArbCom, he failed to make a statement and decided to go on a wikibreak . This isn't about assuming bad faith. It does show there's very reasonable grounds for the community to doubt. --Hammersoft (talk) 18:55, 26 May 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm not going to go into details as private correspondance is exactly what it is. I do not fully echo Doug's statement above, and i'm not sure the rest of the committee stands in hand with it. That's not saying I'm not sympathetic, nor that a reason hasn't been given, but purely stating that it's not as strong, in my opinion, as Doug puts forward.
 * I do see how it looks to you and the rest of the community. Right now though, I don't see anyway of me being able to comment to explain. I'd be happy to if there was. -- Amanda  (aka DQ) 19:19, 26 May 2016 (UTC)
 * I should probably clarify that I'm not asking the committee to reveal anything (most especially private correspondence), or even comment on why Gamaliel is absent. I just want the committee to understand why the community feels so wronged by this, and why the community is so angry about it. --Hammersoft (talk) 19:31, 26 May 2016 (UTC)
 * While I'm very suspicious of the timing and aghast at how this case has been managed from start to finish, that DeltaQuad is saying it's difficult to explain makes me more inclined to buy that particular part, simply because she and Salvio are two of the few who have served their role with distinction in this case. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 19:33, 26 May 2016 (UTC)
 * since NativeForeigner has graciously allowed us to post here, I will do. What I want to say, is that when Hammersoft says " the community feels so wronged" they are in my view speaking on behalf of a sliver of the community, and that, again in my view. by continuing to press for the complete destruction of Gamaliel this sliver is going too far.  In addition, the evidence phase is long over.  In my view it is about time to simply stop giving consideration to this sliver and if there are grounds for sanctions for this behavior, I hope Arbcom will consider them. Jytdog (talk) 20:19, 26 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Grounds for sanction? Are you serious?  So do Amanda and Salvio deserve sanctions for seeing things similarly to this "sliver"?  Ridiculous. Capeo (talk) 20:41, 26 May 2016 (UTC)
 * (ec) I guess I need to clarify further (not your fault Jytdog, just limitations of text communication). I'm in no way suggesting the above should be submitted as new evidence in this case. I'm well aware that the evidence phase closed quite some time ago. I'm also not continuing to press for Gamaliel's complete destruction. For one, I think he's done that on his own quite well enough, even without giving up his admin bit. Two, I'm well aware that nothing is going to change in the outcome of this case, a fact I acknowledged elsewhere several days ago. As to it being a 'sliver' or not; I have my opinions and biases. So do you. You see a 'sliver', I see a lot of voices. Neither you nor me is correct. It's an opinion based on perception. You are of course welcome to your perception as I am to mine. I posted that timeline not out of any effort to further condemn Gamaliel, but in response to Auerbachkeller's post. I do not support all of his post, but the elements regarding Gamaliel's retirement and later activity were worth expanding on to place them in context of the overall picture. --Hammersoft (talk) 20:50, 26 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Jytdog says that removing admin powers from a repeated abuser of those powers is tantamount to "complete destruction" of that abuser. I can't improve on that as a statement of the delusional self-importance of admins and how drunk they get on their tiny amount of power. Anyone to whom admin powers are that important should not be an admin. Period. Auerbachkeller (talk) 23:47, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

,, , - I think the threading here is starting to degrade the quality of this discussion, and is not as productive as it was. It would be nice if people would start their own sections and discuss their grievances there. PeterTheFourth (talk) 23:56, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

Huldra's section
Ok, my 2 cents: I speak as one, like Gamaliel, who edits in a rather difficult area (my case: Israel/Palestine issues), and as such has received tons of death & rape threats, and threats against my family (just for the last year: see deleted edits in User:Huldra/Telstra-socks and Telstra, Australia IP vandalism, Adequately protecting articles from the kind of Israel supporters who threaten to rape and kill )

Unless you also have been the victim of this: I'm just telling you: You don't know what it is like.

Unlike Gamaliel, I don't have any responsibilities (like the Signpost): I have the luxury of "just walking away". Which I have done. Many, many times. For weeks, or months at a time. That is how I (try to!) keep my sanity.

From Gamaliel's responses, I recognise one who was "at his wit's end". I've been there. Yes, he should have walked away earlier, definitely. But I think it would be absolutely brutal to desysop him permanently. Not the least because he has made that many enemies among certain GG-people, which will, in effect, make it impossible for him ever to become an admin again. You know this. (Just as I will never become an admin...but then I'm perfectly fine with that, as I'm basically a content-writer.)

I'm suggesting that Gamaliel should be desyssopped for 6 months. It has been done before. Then automatically re-instated as an admin again. Huldra (talk) 22:23, 25 May 2016 (UTC)


 * It is absolutely true that in several areas of WP dealing with two-sided conflicts that WP editors are targetted for unwarranted off-site harassment simply for trying to uphold WP's ideals - there are conflicts that our policies will not give either or both sides a fair shake, and editors simply following those policies will get called out on that from external situations. GG and I/P are definitely two such areas where the attitude "you're either with us or against us" prevails in external debate that extends onto WP. (I know too well that my own editing and thoughts on GG have gotten off-site ridicule towards me).
 * What is important here with respect to the Gamaliel situation, and why the hand-waving away of their actions due to harassment is an issue, is that if one has been acting (as best as they could believe) in a neutral manner and has become the subject for harassment, one shouldn't double down and alter that neutral behavior as a result of that harassment, particularly if one is evoking aspects of the admin bit; not only is this contrary to policy, but it only serves to fuel the off-site harassment further. This is unfortunately what Gamaliel did, they started clearly speaking out against GG and their admin actions lacked the prior neutrality, to the point they clearly were involved and did not opt to recognize that until just before the Signpost case. In contrast, as best as I can tell for Huldra above, their actions have remained consistent in the face of harassment, which is what I would expect from anyone with the admin bit. There is certainly emotional frustration with being harassed, no question, and I can expect reactions may be uncivil as we're all human. But when one engages with the admin bit, we expect editors to drop those emotions and use it responsibly even if being harassed off-site.
 * So while we can partially wave away some of the issues surrounding Gamaliel because of unwarranted harassment, their actions on en.wiki in response to that harassment is a problem that is part of this case. --M ASEM (t) 14:35, 26 May 2016 (UTC)
 * User:Masem: I´m not an admin, so I could´t have behaved like Gamaliel. (To admins here: please act on this)  I  understand that Gamaliel needs a pause from his admin-bits, that is exactly why I suggested 6 months desysop. Before these, what was it, 4 days of melt-down? ...he had served for years (with admin-bits) very well, from what I understand. To me that counts. Huldra (talk) 14:48, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

Train wreck math
Counting between the fussing over the CSD on 3 April, and statement submitted as evidence on 6 May -- in which Gamaliel fails to accept responsibility for his actions, I would say the train wreck duration was at least 33 days. . Unfortunate disclaimer:  Unfortunate that I have to waste ya'lls time saying this, but I've learned wiki DR is the land of false inferences. This is an observation, not an argument for or against any particular action, okay? NE Ent 21:44, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

Arkon edit warring remedy
How can receive a reminder not to edit war in Remedy 6 when nearly all Arbitrators opposed a finding of fact that Arkon edit warred? Remedy 6 should not pass. If Arkon successfully used an exemption to 3RR, then there is no need to remind him of anything. He acted appropriately.--v/r - TP 23:04, 26 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes, he should be named Wikipedia Jesus. Isn't the arbitration over?--Milowent • hasspoken  03:46, 27 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Actually, I'm asking for the opposite. According to Christian beliefs, Jesus was persecuted for something he didn't do.  That is currently happening to Arkon.  So, at the moment, he is Wikipedia Jesus.  We should rectify that.--v/r - TP 05:06, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

WP:BLPTALK
I'm troubled by DGG's comment that "There is not a sufficient history of interpretation...respecting the Signpost". I don't think Wikipedia policies need to identify each possible case. The burden is on the Signpost to obtain consensus for an exemption to policy. The burden is not on the community to reaffirm the Signpost's obligation to policy.--v/r - TP 23:09, 26 May 2016 (UTC)


 * I'm concerned that the proposal for an RfC has been revived just as the case was about to close. This has the potential to undermine the policy. Can you say why it was revived?


 * WP:BLPTALK says: "Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced and not related to making content choices should be removed, deleted, or oversighted, as appropriate." It adds that some leeway is given for administrative discussions about Wikipedians.


 * This covers everything, not only, as Opabinia wrote, discussions about article content and material about Wikipedians. It covers "[c]ontentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced and not related to making content choices ..."


 * The policy "applies to any living person mentioned in a BLP, whether or not that person is the subject of the article, and to material about living persons in other articles and on other pages, including talk pages."


 * If the committee is asking the community to discuss the Signpost explicitly, please limit the proposal to that. Or just wait for the community to do it in the usual way, by someone proposing words on talk. I'm not clear about the point of recommending an RfC, which is a very poor way to write policy. SarahSV (talk) 05:21, 27 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Arbitration/Policy says:


 * "The arbitration process is not a vehicle for creating new policy by fiat. The Committee's decisions may interpret existing policy and guidelines, recognise and call attention to standards of user conduct, or create procedures through which policy and guidelines may be enforced."


 * Calling for an RfC to "supplement the existing WP:BLPTALK policy" is not "creating new policy by fiat," but it does imply that you're calling for a change to a policy that is extremely well-supported. SarahSV (talk) 07:05, 27 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Noting for Sarah (and others) that when I say "why would we want to..." I mean we as in the Wikipedia community, not the committee. I really can't see myself supporting this anyway. --kelapstick(bainuu) 12:16, 27 May 2016 (UTC)
 * I see it that ArbCom views a good portion of this situation as a brouhaha over how BLP should be or not be applied to Signpost. Since the community is obviously in disagreement over the application of the BLP policy in such cases, we therefore need an RfC to see how it applies. This is a false approach. As has been laid out in this section, we do have a policy that is strongly supported, and that policy extends to all corners of the project. There is no "gap", to quote one arbitrator. That some people have found its application questionable does not undermine that. There is no point to starting an RfC. ArbCom should retract the remedy. But, alas... --Hammersoft (talk) 13:10, 27 May 2016 (UTC)


 * I am slightly indifferent to the new 'call', as kind of, 'so what', but I would vote against it anyway, because I seriously doubt in such a large and broad matter "an RfC" is anything useful -- it will likely promote extensive interpersonal conflict and no consensus (not on the policy, on the proposal, although perhaps the policy will be damaged), and is certainly not how policy is usually improved, which is generally incremental and extensively sensitive to each word, each matter of text organization, extensive theorizing on unknown application, and even grand matters of punctuation. Alanscottwalker (talk) 14:31, 27 May 2016 (UTC)


 * The proposal seems to be based on a misunderstanding, namely 's point that "There's a gap in coverage for other types of discussion." But there is no gap in coverage: "BLP applies to all material about living persons anywhere on Wikipedia ..." The ArbCom cannot change this, and it's extremely unlikely that an RfC would change it, because it is strongly supported. The dispute here was about whether the small-hands joke was a violation. If someone wants to suggest we add something to the policy about the Signpost, that will require careful writing and discussion, not an RfC. SarahSV (talk) 15:06, 27 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Sure, to the extent the question is 'does BLP matter to this particular instance' it's a fools errand, almost as much as a fools errand as suggesting an RfC that BLP does not matter, across the project - because it's silly to expect the kind of CREEP that a few on Arbcom seem to want, and it's really silly (actually, rather perverse reasoning) to suggest BLP does not matter to living people and assertions (especially false assertions). Alanscottwalker (talk) 15:28, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

This is all just unbelievably goofy. The BLP / BLPTALK policy is crystal clear. The policing may be uneven, but the community has already spoken loud and clear as to where the policy applies. Townlake (talk) 16:18, 27 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Agreed. But, ArbCom is seeing dispute over application of BLP as proof that BLP might not fully apply, and therefore we need to have an RfC to assert that BLP does fully apply in all corners of Wikipedia. Sorta the Department of Redundancy Department. ArbCom can pass the BLP "remedy" (it doesn't fix anything as it's not broken), but as Guerillero noted they can't force the community to do it. I think ArbCom sees a duck; it walks like a duck, smells like a duck...and now they are stepping on it in order to make it quack like a duck. --Hammersoft (talk) 17:51, 27 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Many members of the community saw no BLP violation in the April Fool's joke on the Signpost. Those saying otherwise are not correctly representing the community.  The PDs take that lack of consensus into account and I think Arbcom's call for an RfC to try to get a more clear consensus on this is an insightful and self-aware response to the actual lack of consensus on whether there was a BLP violation in the first place.  Jytdog (talk) 18:23, 27 May 2016 (UTC)
 * I think you're seeing it backwards. A handful on this page have said that it's not a violation.  The majority say that it was.  A small group have said "so what?"  Either way, WP:BLP says that we must talk it out before restoring the material and that didn't happen.--v/r - TP 18:31, 27 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Am looking at the whole history of this from ANI to the original filing and the history of April Fools jokes in WP especially at the signpost. Not just this page which is quite a self-selected group. Really - this decision would look entirely different if this had happened in article space where there is very clear consensus on how BLP applies.  Everything relevant to BLP in the PDs is a bit loose because of the underlying lack of clarity.  Jytdog (talk) 18:33, 27 May 2016 (UTC)
 * It would have likely ended in site banning but that's not because of lack of clarity in BLP policy -- people not liking policy when it's inconvenient for them is not lack of clarity, rather the opposite -- it would have ended in site ban because the appropriateness of the site banning policy would have been clearer. Alanscottwalker (talk) 18:55, 27 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Agreed with Alan. There is no lack of clarity.  There is a general upset by a few with someone they generally like getting blocked/sanctioned/admonished for a political satire piece that people generally agree with.  That is where the clarity issue stems from: foggy goggles.  And you didn't address my comment that WP:BLP is very clear that we must discuss before it is restored.--v/r - TP 19:36, 27 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes both of you have made it very clear that in your view there is no ambiguity.  Plenty of others have said differently and Arbcom is recognizing that in the RfC notion and in everything related to BLP in the PD.  You both should as well.  TP yes that is a general principle for everything in WP and part of the FoF about Gamaliel (and should be about others) is the lack of discussion.  Yes.  I want to add here that part of what made all this happen was an unfortunate sense of urgency; BLP concerns on the part of those taking things down and the timeliness of April Fools day and the Signpost article functioning for Gamaliel.  Mistaken presumptions of urgency cause a lot of train wrecks in WP.  Jytdog (talk) 20:45, 27 May 2016 (UTC)
 * No, you're still getting it wrong. You keep saying that the two of us have stated our point, but then you say there is an overwhelming majority that agree with you.  You're wrong.  The majority, as per the consensus at WP:BLP agree with us.  It's on you and others to obtain a new consensus for your view.  You hold the minority viewpoint and it is disingenuous of you to say it in any other way.  There is no recent discussion on this because we don't need to renew consensus for WP:BLP every year.  The policy is clear.  As far as urgency, you cannot hold signpost publication urgency to the same level as BLP urgency.  BLP takes priority and the fault was on the Signpost editors believing that the urgency of publishing their material outweighed it.  There is no balance here.  The signpost's needs were outweighed by the requirement for discussion.--v/r - TP 21:18, 27 May 2016 (UTC)
 * I have to object to the bit about "timeliness" and "functioning". The joke page and its supporting BLP-violating link (and once more, the major violation was the untruth about a lawsuit) were not posted until very late on April Fool's Day, and the BLP-violating page was not nominated for speedy deletion until April 3 UTC, by which time any April Fool's Day joke should have been packed away - and in this case apologized for with a statement of "error". By the time Gamaliel even had any occasion to object, the hoax page was not "functioning" and the April Fool's Day "timeliness" was very much gone. Removal of BLP violations is urgent, especially when they are April Fool's Day codswallop still up after midnight on April 2. Yngvadottir (talk) 21:41, 27 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Tparis at no point did I say anything like "overwhelming majority". come on, why would you misrepresent me like that? Jytdog (talk) 04:51, 28 May 2016 (UTC)

Break 1
The split votes on most of the BLP-related proposals, the large volume of community comments during the case, and the original formulation of the case request (remember, originally called "BLP and the American politician"), collectively provide evidence in great abundance that there are divergent views on the details within the context of strong consensus for BLP in general. Consensus that this particular case was a BLP violation - and we have an MfD that said so - doesn't resolve the underlying issue. For example, the Signpost contributors' comments clearly indicate that they believe they have community support for original reporting, which necessarily comes with sourcing patterns that wouldn't pass muster in a mainspace article; meanwhile, some community members are clearly surprised at those claims. The Signpost provides the current context, but I disagree with SV above that any future discussion would be best focused on the Signpost specifically; that would do exactly what many people have objected to throughout this case - that is, give the Signpost implied special status not paralleled by any other on-wiki project. Also pinging who posted related comments in his own section above, but the whole sectioned/threaded thing kind of fell apart on this page. Opabinia regalis (talk) 05:06, 29 May 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm taking the ping as my cue that I can respond briefly here, outside my own section. I don't think that's the case. I think we have local consensus at the Signpost coming up against global consensus, not a conflicting global consensus. I don't recall many (any?) users outside of regular Signpost contributors disputing the usual interpretation of BLP, which is that it applies to all pages with exceptions for content discussions or other discussions on how to run the encyclopedia. But setting that aside for a second, let's say you're 100% right. The remedy would need to be worded in a much more neutral and mild manner. Currently, it states "The community is encouraged to hold an RfC to supplement the existing WP:BLPTALK policy by developing further guidance on managing disputes about material involving living persons when that material appears outside of article space and is not directly related to article-content decisions." (emphasis mine) By telling the community to "develop further guidance", you're suggesting a new standard/process/exemption/something, not the possibility of doing nothing and affirming the current literal wording of BLP. There's no way that won't influence how that RfC would go. What is the benefit of the above wording over something like "The community is encouraged to hold an RfC to examine current consensus on how WP:BLP applies outside of the article space."? My wording makes no judgement over whether there is an existing consensus (as the "current consensus" wording alludes to WP:CCC) and it makes no judgement about whether we really need further guidance rather than an affirmation of what's already in BLP. ~ RobTalk 05:20, 29 May 2016 (UTC)
 * ArbCom is not dictating the wording of any RfC just recommending there be one. If you are worried about wording, why not pay attention to developing a neutral wording for opening the RfC itself rather than discussing the wording of ArbCom's request?  EdChem (talk) 06:55, 29 May 2016 (UTC)


 * , I apologize for the length of this, but there is a history here.


 * I believe your post confuses two issues. The first issue is that there was disagreement as to whether the "small hands" joke was a BLP violation. Had it been a clear violation – had someone posted to the Signpost that living person X was a convicted rapist when no reliable sources supported it – no one would have argued that the Signpost had a BLP exemption. The issue in this dispute was not how extensive the policy is, but whether the "small hands" joke violated it. There is no point in holding an RfC on that aspect, because no RfC could produce an algorithm as to what constitutes a BLP violation.


 * The second issue is whether any pages on Wikipedia are not covered by the policy. The policy is clear on this point: "BLP applies to all material about living persons anywhere on Wikipedia." This is a long-standing, important and strongly supported principle. I was one of the policy's first authors in December 2005. By September 2006 we had developed the sense that the policy must apply outside article space too, because people making attacks on BLPs routinely moved their policy violations elsewhere, including to user pages. By March 2007 we had clarified that it applied to project space:


 * "Unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material &mdash; whether negative, positive, or just highly questionable &mdash; about living persons should be removed immediately, and without discussion from Wikipedia articles, talk pages, user pages, and project space."


 * That BLP applies everywhere was developed further and has been strongly supported all along the way. The policy currently says: "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."


 * This keeps article subjects, and other living people being discussed elsewhere, a lot safer than they would otherwise be. It means editors can act quickly to remove violations from any page, and that admins can quickly delete and protect. The committee should not do anything that risks undermining this.


 * If people want to add words to the policy about the Signpost, I suggest we follow the vocabulary of the second paragraph of WP:LEADCITE, which confirms that article leads are not exempt from Verifiability but explains why some leeway is carefully permitted. It could be something along the lines of: "While there is no exemption for material appearing in the Signpost, editors may wish to consider whether ...," followed by words about balancing goods and harms. That will require careful writing and discussion, preferably after a break so that the emotion of this dispute has died down. An RfC is not the right format for that. SarahSV (talk) 07:25, 29 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Also pinging SarahSV (talk) 07:37, 29 May 2016 (UTC)
 * That policy does not address how one discusses such material on a talk page. At all. So A removes material, and by this policy B isn't even allowed to discuss it on a talk page. It relies on the good faith of A. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 08:24, 29 May 2016 (UTC)


 * , it can be discussed carefully and with common sense. As WP:BLPTALK says:


 * "When seeking advice about whether to publish something about a living person, be careful not to post so much information on the talk page that the inquiry becomes moot. For example, it would be appropriate to begin a discussion by stating This link has serious allegations about subject; should we summarize this someplace in the article?"


 * So you can post a link to an RS, and say "Should we include recent allegations? Here is a Guardian report about it." Then discuss the quality of the sources. But try not to say: "Should we include that headmaster X is a serial abuser of children?" SarahSV (talk) 08:43, 29 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Indeed, the policy is quite explicit on the theory of discussion, emphasizing restraint, it's true, Casliber, but that's because, as the policy stresses, you're dealing with a person's life: 1) keep it sourced somehow (emphasis, source, source, source); 2) Discuss the quality of the sourcing. Those two steps, take care of V (if V fails there is no good in going further) and gets you well into NOR. NOR considerations bring you to the top of the BLP policy, where, 3) Still being cognizant of NOR, you ensure you are not going beyond the source in the discussion; 4) Examine NPOV by surveying other sources, the state of the article, keeping in mind tone, balance, and undue. 5) Bringing in other sources brings you back to 1.
 * I've laid it out in numbered steps but while policy cannot capture the vagaries of every discussion, the outline is strongly there (begin with the source, make sure it is high quality), and nowhere in there is room for, 'please share your personal opinion about this living person' (it's irrelevant, and if extensive or vile, could get you booted), and definitely not 'it's right and good to make up stuff about this person.' Alanscottwalker (talk) 12:46, 29 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Ok I'm convinced and have changed my votes. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:18, 29 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks, . SarahSV (talk) 17:17, 29 May 2016 (UTC)
 * I maintain my original view. I am considerably influenced in doing so by the circumstances: I consider the use of BLP policy requirements in this particular circumstance an absurd interpretation for multiple reasons (including especially that it has no possible effect on the individual's life), so absurd that a reasonable person could and should have concluded it was so absurd that it could be reversed.  DGG ( talk ) 17:14, 29 May 2016 (UTC)
 * I disagree with these BLP RfC proposals, and concur that the policy needs to be applied strictly to non-article space, including Signpost. I don't believe that the lack of personal impact on Trump is pertinent. It's not for us to determine the impact of BLP violations. One impact, in this case, is that it gives the Signpost a partisan tinge. Coretheapple (talk) 17:18, 29 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Whether any particular instance is a BLP violation is a separate issue from whether the policy applies to all pages on Wikipedia. It does. In calling for an RfC, the committee is mixing up those two issues. SarahSV (talk) 17:21, 29 May 2016 (UTC)
 * It's all water under the bridge at this point. The community isn't going to be holding an RfC about the applicability of BLP outside of article space, even if ArbCom demanded it (which they can't). Even if the community DID hold an RfC, nobody would be able to craft a reasonable case to discuss. Even if they were somehow able to do that, there's a snowball's chance in hell any change to BLP and/or its applicability outside of article space would happen. ArbCom's really gone on a bender on this one. At this point, I don't really care whether ArbCom passes this remedy or not. It's irrelevant, devoid of purpose. --Hammersoft (talk) 17:43, 29 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Recommending such an RfC would signal that there is some daylight between BLP in articles and elsewhere in the project other than what is spelled out in the policy. It would be counterproductive to take that position. Coretheapple (talk) 19:54, 29 May 2016 (UTC)
 * DGG, it is your position that is absurd. If we wanted to limit BLP to damages, then BLP would be 'don't do anything illegal or tortuous.' Some how, you imagine editors omniscient concerning what's in your head about 'harm' (and that editors should be asking, 'how much can we harm them?'); indeed, you have a non-policy-based restrictive definition of harm in your head, when what policy means by harm is unsourced, poorly sourced, NOR, Non-NPOV (it is in these circumstances that we can write about the person, regardless of harm to them, let me repeat that regardless of harm).  It is as if BLP is in your argument an undefined phantom one is scared of, and your argument is just clueless about it. BLP is quite practical, where your ipsa dixit standard, would make it utterly useless, impenetrable, and subject to wikilawyering until the cows come home.  No, we do not need endless discussions about 'how much can we harm them' or even, 'how much can we harm them according to DGG's ipsa dixit'. Your argument is silly in practice and lacking in common sense, considering the environment, we work in and the purpose of BLP.  Alanscottwalker (talk) 18:16, 29 May 2016 (UTC)
 * You're confusing what the policy says with what we all assume the policy's purpose is. It's purpose is to prevent damage to a person.  But what it says is:
 * "Unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material &mdash; whether negative, positive, or just highly questionable &mdash; about living persons should be removed immediately, and without discussion from Wikipedia articles, talk pages, user pages, and project space."
 * That's clear as crystal. It doesn't say "Remove material that is damaging..." or "Remove material that could be damaging..."--v/r - TP 19:32, 29 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Harm is still the key. Positive material can be damaging. If someone adds to a bio purported information that the individual has won awards that they didn't win, this makes the individual look ridiculous. People object even to neutral information if it isn't real. As for neutral, people take strong issue with  bio of themselves that give for example the wrong  that give the wrong birthplace--they consider this  detracts from the truth about themselves and consider that harmful. The reason harm or even perceived harm is the key is that there is otherwise no real justification for treating the bios of living peopler different from any other information, because in an encyclopedia the virtue of WP:V applies to everything. I have yet to hear any other fundamental justification for doing so.  DGG ( talk ) 22:35, 29 May 2016 (UTC)

Break 2

 * The thing is, "does BLP apply everywhere" isn't actually the primary point of contention. (Almost?) everyone would sign on to that as settled policy, so such a general question would, I suspect, produce a lot of nodding along without engagement with the underlying issue, which is subtle enough that it took this unusual set of circumstances to expose the disagreement. A more relevant question is whether BLP applies everywhere in the same way. There is evidence in abundance that common practice treats the behind-the-scenes areas of the project differently, in ways not addressed by BLPTALK. The case request saw evidence offered of near-identical Trump jokes elsewhere on the project that went unchallenged, and examples of Signpost content about WMF staff and board members that is arguably unflattering, sourced in part to primary documents, and based on "original research". While the Signpost provides most of the current context, and obviously people can propose changes however they like, I cannot overstate how bad an idea I think it would be to try to carve out a specific provision for the Signpost alone. However, the ongoing discussion here suggests that there's community interest regardless of whether there's an 'encouragement' for an RfC, so I hope that carries on once the dust settles after the case. Opabinia regalis (talk) 20:35, 29 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes, but that's all covered by my proposed wording, correct? I proposed wording encouraging an RfC on how it applies outside of the article space, not whether it applies. My biggest disagreement with the current remedy is that is suggests new provisions should be added (i.e. we should add something new to the policy), rather than allowing for a potential result such as "It should apply the same everywhere (with exceptions to content decisions), and it was a mistake not to take issue with those other examples of Trump jokes and/or the unsourced/unflattering interpretations of WMF staff." Another editor stated earlier that I should focus on the wording of the RfC, not the ArbCom remedy, but the remedy will undoubtedly become linked at the RfC and shape the course of discussion. It, too, should be neutral. (As a side note, I think the representations of WMF staff should be protected from BLP within reason. A slight expanding of the BLPTALK exceptions from "content decisions on talk pages" to "discussions relevant to the development of the project" would receive my support. You've convinced me that an RfC encouragement could be a good thing if it were neutrally worded. As it stands, it is not.) ~ RobTalk 20:43, 29 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Opibinia: Primary document does not mean original research, and it is true of every policy, every policy, every policy, that they are unevenly applied across the project - that's just the nature of being multiple humans with thousands of eyes, but we don't throw each policy into the no-consensus bin every time there is a disagreement.  Alanscottwalker (talk) 21:40, 29 May 2016 (UTC)
 * The problem here is the contention that Signpost is a "behind-the-scenes" part of Wikipedia. It is not. It is a public facing publication. It is read and quoted by journalists and is seen as a publication of Wikipedia by the general public. The general public does not understand not care that it is, like everything on Wikipedia, just the work of a few editors. This simple mislabeling is what is leading to the dispute of how to apply BLP rules. The question is not how do we apply BLP in project space? it is "is Signpost subject to main space or project space BLP rules?. If you must have an RfC that is what it should be on. J bh  Talk  22:12, 29 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Again, we can't tell the community what questions to ask, but in my personal opinion it would be a very bad idea to try to institutionalize "special rules for the Signpost". (And in any event, the original joke saw far fewer pageviews than the resulting case pages...)
 * Yeah, but there's an enormous practical difference between "unevenly applied because nobody noticed or cared" and "unevenly applied because people disagree on the correct application".
 * Maybe. I don't think your proposed result is excluded by the current wording, and I'm not sure the benefit outweighs the cost of keeping the case open longer, but I'll think about it after my current real-life obligations in the beer-and-barbecue field ;) Opabinia regalis (talk) 22:23, 29 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Enjoy! ~ RobTalk 22:40, 29 May 2016 (UTC)
 * @Opabinia regalis: I think you are missing the point. The locus of the debate here is how to apply BLP to the Signpost. No one has brought up the issue of BLP anywhere else in project space - BLPTALK is what it is. The problem is that Signpost is neither fish-nor-fowl, it is not an encyclopedia article and it serves absolutly no purpose for creating/discussing content or anything else related to building the encyclopedia. Yeah there is the community building argument but that has nothing with the BLP (reader facing)/BLPTALK (project facing) split we have in out environment. There is no question that BLP applies to mainspace and BLPTALK is how we handle those issues in project space - calling an RfC on this based upon the evience is silly. The discussion the community needs to have is whether Signpost is public facing and fully subject to BLP or whether it is something unique which requires unique rules re BLP content. No wider question need be asked. If a wider question is asked the locus of dispute - Signpost and its rules re living persons - will be lost and you all will have solved nothing and generated needless drama rather than allow the problem exposed in this case to be solved. (PS I am very happy to see the committee members engaging with editors here. Thank you and Well done for that!)  J bh  Talk  22:51, 29 May 2016 (UTC)
 * It's a good thing that WP:BLP doesn't use "t is not an encyclopedia article and it serves absolutly no purpose for creating/discussing content" as it's criteria. Instead it says "everywhere".  Glad we got the misunderstanding sorted out now.  I was wondering how people could continue to believe that there were special circumstances for Signpost.--v/r - TP 00:45, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

The RfC proposal has received six votes, which means (I think) that it passes. Whether it passes or not, it just means that the community is "encouraged" to do something that it might do whether or not the RfC passes. The shame is that all this drama and wasted time was caused by an "April Fool's Day joke" that has turned out to be anything but funny. I hope that someone drafts the April Fool's Day RfC as soon as reasonably possible, as it is time to curb "jokes" like that. Coretheapple (talk) 14:41, 30 May 2016 (UTC)
 * 's comment that "It will not pass" suggests he didn't realize that he had cast the deciding vote. Drmies, I'm pinging you only to make sure you're aware of that. SarahSV (talk) 15:44, 30 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Just want to add here that policy arises from practice, and there is a long history of tolerating April Fool's and other jokes/parodies in non-article space, that in article and article-talk would be clear BLP violations. I remain surprised that people with long experience in policy are not acknowledging this nor the shrugs from many over the BLP claims about the Signpost piece in this case.  There really is a lack of clarity on this issue in the community. Jytdog (talk) 23:01, 30 May 2016 (UTC)
 * To close the loop on this - since the only open question is Drmies' vote, and 'encouraging' is a weak-sauce remedy anyway, I think it's better to close the case than to fuss over the details of the wording. I hope those who have commented here continue to discuss after things have settled. Opabinia regalis (talk) 03:00, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

Stop and rethink
Ya'll are close to voting a remedy that says "...edit warring, even if exempt, is rarely an alternative to discussing the dispute with involved editors, as suggested at WP:CLOSECHALLENGE." Cherry picking the most attention getting example of the linked exempt, and applying Substitution (logic), it could be claimed you're saying "edit warring, even if removing child pornography, is rarely an alternative to discussing the dispute ... " Obviously, not what you really what to be saying. NE Ent 13:30, 27 May 2016 (UTC)
 * I've stressed similar several times, can't even get 1 Arb to reply. Doug mentioned something about it on PD page itself, but they seem determined to pass something that calls out Arkon, even if there is no FOF to support it, and it doesn't make any sense. If it's exempt, it isn't warring. Dennis Brown - 2&cent; 13:52, 27 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Yeah the lack of response when I asked above is disappointing, being that I am a party, I would expect some sort of response when asked. DGG's vote/comment being especially divorced from reality.  Arkon (talk) 14:57, 27 May 2016 (UTC)
 * (e-c) I think that the proposal might be less about Arkon himself, but a form of non-precedent (because ArbCom doesn't officially use precedents) that if editors find themselves apparently forced into an edit war to defend policies and guidelines, that they would be best advised to seek outside help from some appropriate noticeboard notification regarding the issue. I remember another recent event at a noticeboard where someone, in all good faith, engaged in what could be seen as an edit war to exclude material which had some basic problems regarding appropriateness of the content. In the noticeboard discussion of the incident, that individual was advised to go to a noticeboard before engaging in what might be seen as edit warring. It is also worth noting that Arkon is only being "reminded," which as I remember is maybe one of the lesser forms of admonishment ArbCom gives out. All that leads me to think that the proposals are maybe a bit more about anyone engaging in conduct of that type rather than about one editor in particular. John Carter (talk) 15:00, 27 May 2016 (UTC)
 * I think the important thing that's missed in the current wording is who an editor would be edit warring with (the common sense part). Of course you'd "edit war" with a vandal et. al. -- getting admin help if necessary -- but if not with an established editor. (This not a comment about the Akron, but just the wording the committee is currently using.) NE Ent 15:24, 27 May 2016 (UTC)


 * ArbCom's gone off the rails in several portions of this PD. I wouldn't be too worried about it. Policy strongly supports certain edit warring exemptions. If ArbCom ever tried to sanction someone for edit warring to remove something as offensive as that, they would certainly be in for a world of hurt. --Hammersoft (talk) 16:25, 27 May 2016 (UTC)
 * The lesson is rather simple, if you find yourself there, don't make the comments Arkon did because they actually don't make it likely the matter will settle. Alanscottwalker (talk) 16:30, 27 May 2016 (UTC)
 * I mean, yeah, and I don't mind the reminder really, just wish the rationales actually made sense. I guess it does seem strange that Arbcom would even bother, hardly something the community didn't already do, no one has really tried to excuse the fact that I was heated during the whole thing (with my comments, I actually stand by the reverts).  Arkon (talk) 16:41, 27 May 2016 (UTC)
 * And the fact that you understand that some of your wording was a bit over the top is why a "reminder" isn't needed. You don't need to remind someone that already understands the problem and accepts responsibility for their mistakes. Dennis Brown - 2&cent; 20:07, 27 May 2016 (UTC)
 * I wouldn't say off the rails so much as so focused on the brush strokes they're losing the big picture; in other words, in trying to craft a sentence they can all agree on not seeing how this is going to look when no longer in the context of the case. NE Ent 21:31, 27 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Thank god this case wasn't about child pornography. And if it was, instead of edit wars inspired by a Donald Trump reference, it would be a wholly different case, perhaps one worthy of our time.  Does anyone involved in this case still write articles?  Where do you find the time?  I look at the contrib histories of some folks and just see a slew of "Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Gamaliel and others/Proposed decision".  The 89th Scripps National Spelling Bee concluded yesterday, it could use some filling out.  One person who doesn't watch the spelling bee, I am sure, is Donald Trump.  He keep tweeting "judgement", it drives me crazy.  It is time to accept Arbcom's "judgement" and move on.--Milowent • hasspoken  16:47, 27 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Well, before you go insane, just know the judgement is perfectly fine., even in America, but perhaps your point is that spelling does not matter to Wikipedians because some are too busy watching someone's twitter feed. Alanscottwalker (talk) 17:26, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

Scope of Case
I do not expect an answer to this, but... If behavior from prior to April is out of scope for this case, then how are Gamaliel's extensive time working in the Gamergate topic area (FoF 1) or "his long service to the community" (FoF 7) within scope? FTR I would ask the same about JzG's admonishments, but others are already asking that question. Evangeliman (talk) 01:52, 28 May 2016 (UTC)
 * "Longterm" only applied to me. --DHeyward (talk) 08:30, 28 May 2016 (UTC)
 * I agree FoF 1 is worded horribly, there's inconsistently applied examination of certain editors past actions, nonsensical comments about patterns when potential evidence of a pattern wasn't allowed, etc. I can't find fault in thanking a long time editor for their service though. I don't really see that as having anything to do with scope. Capeo (talk) 14:32, 28 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Anyone who thought that arbcom was going to do anything about Gamaliel should have known better. Adding DHeyward to the case was just the first step that proved they had no intention of acting impartially. Applying a remedy that was equal further demonstrates the inherent bias and hypocrisy of this committee.--MONGO 14:56, 28 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Come on, much has been done "about Gamaliel" already. It's also no wonder many are skeptical of the utility and fairness of this 'Gamaliel is a major problem' narrative. In December last, the Wikipedia community emphatically did not see Gamaliel as this major problem some do -- quite the opposite -- and it's just not cromulent that in the first quarter of this year that all changed, because if it had, it should have been raised to be dealt with before at Arbcom/AE or AN - so yeah, April 1 is the start. Alanscottwalker (talk) 15:53, 28 May 2016 (UTC)
 * No, April 1 wasn't the start. There's plenty of evidence to earlier problems, but this was not allowed in this case. --Hammersoft (talk) 16:40, 28 May 2016 (UTC)
 * The administrative/conduct evidence you claim was not a problem that caused anyone to bring proceedings to be dealt with, examined and ruled upon in the appropriate forums between December, when the Wikipedia community examined Gamaliel's record in depth and placed its trust, and before April 1. So, not a problem. Alanscottwalker (talk) 17:31, 28 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Sorry, but trying to limit it to December isn't much better than limiting it to April 1st. Regardless, Gamaliel's quit Wikipedia. I see no point in continuing this, as SarahSV has noted. --Hammersoft (talk) 17:45, 28 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Arguably yes, there were problems before April - it just was difficult to pin as a pattern then, but when topped off with the events from the Signpost, make it clear there were a pattern of problems, and I believe that some of these problems need to be identified more beyond the FOF 1 about Gamaliel being involved in GG. But the forced limited scope makes it impossible to state that there were problems, and I'm confident that given general trends of what has been happened off-wiki (well beyond the bounds of GG) that is slowly influencing on-wiki events, we'll be at that again in the near future. --M ASEM (t) 17:57, 28 May 2016 (UTC)


 * It isn't fair to keep talking about him like this. The case is about to close, and I wish it would close. He has gone from the committee, and perhaps gone entirely. There's no point in trying to make things worse for him. SarahSV (talk) 16:43, 28 May 2016 (UTC)
 * No idea what is going on with Gamaliel behind the scenes and on a personal level I sincerely hope that he enjoys good health all around. However, a pity party while DHeyward gets shafted equally for far less poor behavior isn't going to fly with me. I stand by my earlier comments.--MONGO 17:00, 28 May 2016 (UTC)
 * I respectfully disagree. DHeyward got off light. Baiting is never acceptable and his behavior was abysmal.    Montanabw (talk) 22:22, 30 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Bullshit. Gamaliel is an admin and was an arbitrator. His behavior was inexcusable yet his remedies are the same. This website and this committee is overrun by left wing partisans who defend each other no matter what. The only reason DHeyward was listed is because he finally got sick of Gamaliels partisan actions which acted against DHeyward one too many times. Ah...but this partisan excuse for a committee never had any intention of doing one damn thing about one of their own without shoving it up a conservatives ass. Not that it surprises me...I've been around a dozen years watching it go from bad to worse.--MONGO 03:43, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

Coretheapple's section
I thought that the case has been handled well, including a recommendation of an RfC regarding April Fool's Day that was my particular sore point. There could have been a stronger reaffirmation that administrators as well as arbcoms are just ordinary humans who don't deserve special treatment. It wouldn't have any practical impact but at least it would be worth stating. Coretheapple (talk) 18:41, 28 May 2016 (UTC)

BLP and WT:RfA
Right now at Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship, there is a discussion of removal at an RfA of a comment comparing the candidate to a dictator who is accused of crimes against humanity, starving his people, and imprisonment of 200 000 dissidents (from memory). The comment also referred to a notorious Australian case in which a baby died and which some people still believe was deliberate murder by the mother. Newyorkbrad struck the comments and there appears consensus that they should have been left alone. RfA is in project-space and so the more "expansive" version of BLP applies (as I understand it), but I fail to see how there isn't an issue when many editors don't see a BLP issue (let alone a human decency issue) in comparing an RfA candidate to an alleged war criminal. As others have noted above, the issue which arose in this case is merely an example of a broader issue and it will need to be addressed eventually. EdChem (talk) 03:54, 30 May 2016 (UTC)
 * BLP wasn't invoked at all by anyone. How does it apply?  --DHeyward (talk) 08:20, 30 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Perhaps my understanding of BLP is poor or just different, but as I read it, WP:BLPTALK is relevant: "Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced and not related to making content choices should be removed, deleted, or oversighted, as appropriate." The RfA candidate is presumably a living person and a comparison to a dictator and alleged war criminal strikes me as contentious.  The evidence offered might be charitably described as an opinion, so I see it as inadequately sourced to remain.  The only conclusion I see is that arguing it should not even have been struck is inconsistent with BLP requirements, even under the expansive interpretation of project-space BLP.  Now, maybe I am wrong and I am willing to be corrected, but I see a connection of underlying issue between the RfA and Signpost examples, which seems relevant to the discussion here.  EdChem (talk) 13:56, 30 May 2016 (UTC)
 * I agree with EdChem that a comparison of an RfA candidate, or any editor, as you describe would be a BLP issue. (It would also be gross trolling.) In this instance, I don't think the editor who posted that comment was actually comparing the candidate to those things, but was mentioning them in connection with some more abstract philosophical point he was trying to make&mdash;although I can understand your confusion, as that point was obscure at best. I strongly agree with you that he should not have said what he said&mdash;in fact, that is definitely an understatement, and I appreciate your support in the discussion elsewhere&mdash;but I don't know that BLP is the best way to address those particular problematic comments ... and this page probably is enough of a mess already Newyorkbrad (talk) 20:56, 30 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Arguably, if an editor A compared another editor B to some historical or even fictional group with negative connotations in project space (like RFA), that's not really a BLP issue - that's not a claim being made, its clearly an opinion from A about said editor B, and not any type of statement of fact. It very much likely is a personal attack, which should not be allowed at all and by NPA should also be removed or similar action. Alternatively if editor A claimed editor B was in a group with negative connotations without presenting any evidence, that is a both BLP and a NPA and definitely strong action should be taken to remove the comment and at least warn editor A. --M ASEM (t) 04:14, 31 May 2016 (UTC)


 * This has nothing to do with this case and should be hatted. Dennis Brown - 2&cent; 15:08, 30 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Per I think it is relevant, as one of the issues here is the nuances of BLP inside and outside of article space, such as talk pages and such.  I also think that BLP applies to wikipedia editors (and not just the ones with their own articles).  But yes, it probably is getting off track.    Montanabw (talk) 22:20, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

Did I miss the memo which says that personal attacks against editors are now BLP issues? (not saying that the vote at RfA was a personal attack). Are we now extending BLP to cover talk page insults against anonymous editors? Kingsindian &#9821; &#9818; 16:56, 1 June 2016 (UTC)
 * A very fair question and I may have been imprecise in my wording above. But hopefully this is a mostly theoretical distinction. If someone makes a reasonable, or at least defensible, criticism of an editor's editing, then for better or worse, that is life on the wiki. If someone starts making gratuitously false negative comments about another editor, then they should be told to cut it out regardless of whether the problem is viewed through the lens of BLP or NPA or some other TLA. I understand the reasons why in principle the distinction could matter (e.g. if an issue arose as to whether the comment should be removed or not) but in practice it has not mattered much. It may also depend, to an extent, on the capacity in which the individual is being discussed. We might well distinguish in how we treat someone's posting "Newyorkbrad, on Wikipedia, is a lousy editor" as opposed to "Newyorkbrad, off Wikipedia, is a lousy lawyer." But in the interests of wrapping up this case, if this is an issue that needs to be discussed sometime, let's not do it here. Newyorkbrad (talk) 17:16, 1 June 2016 (UTC)
 * I agree that this isn't an appropriate venue for this kind of discussion. It's rather distracting, besides. Kingsindian &#9821; &#9818; 07:42, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

Involved administrators (2)
Proposed principle 8.1 does not mention that involved admins may act on BLP violations. Given the focus of the case on BLP, you may want to add something about that:

"Administrator tools are not to be used in connection with disputes in which the administrator is involved. ... In limited circumstances, such as blatant vandalism or bad-faith harassment, an involved administrator may act, but such exceptions are likely to be rare."

WP:BLPADMINS says:

"Administrators may enforce the removal of clear BLP violations with page protection or by blocking the violator(s), even if they have been editing the article themselves or are in some other way involved."

SarahSV (talk) 15:55, 30 May 2016 (UTC)


 * I think it depends on the extent of involvement, and whether the BLP violation is clear enough--the quote says "clear BLP violations" not "BLP violations" . It's never good practice to do things at the boundaries of what might be permitted.  DGG ( talk ) 04:57, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

Towards another April Fools' Day RfC
I've started a thread at Village pump (idea lab)/Archive 20 so we can plan how the new April Fools' RfC (as called for by remedy 8) should be structured. Mz7 (talk) 18:22, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

Close me
,, 11 - 8 = 3, 8 -3 = 5 implies > 4 net close > 24 hours. We're done here, right? NE Ent 22:57, 3 June 2016 (UTC)
 * The case is over; it'll be closed as soon as we can get a non-recused clerk with an hour and a half to close the thing. (I fit the "non-recused clerk" part, not the "has an hour and a half to close it" part. Well, I could probably close it in 45m, but still. no time.) Kevin ( aka L235 ·&#32; t ·&#32; c) 00:17, 4 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Much as I'd love to get closing, I got to spend my weekend sweeping floodwater out of the bottom floor of my house. I have to admit that attending to the formalities hasn't been my priority the past few days.  Lankiveil (speak to me) 23:49, 5 June 2016 (UTC).
 * It's been closified. Newyorkbrad (talk) 23:55, 5 June 2016 (UTC)