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

Guidelines for obvious humor?
Just as an idea here, I have no particular reservations about having overtly humorous material available somewhere in wikipedia, maybe even in what some might call "official" material, like the Signpost. But maybe it would be best if the material were presented in a more overtly over-the-top, absurdist way, maybe something along the lines of a lot of the humor in Warren Ellis's Transmetropolitan and some similar works, possibly including some degree of rather obvious and possibly vile insults against the person writing the piece in the piece itself. If there is virtually no way anyone could ever reasonably see a work as being even remotely likely to be "serious," even if reproduced elsewhere, such material might be considered acceptable here. John Carter (talk) 14:39, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
 * I think the actual question is whether BLP policy has an exemption for humor. Half of the debate was whether or not it was funny but the other half was an argument that it's ok to make a joke on a living person as long as it's in humor. Mostly likely, BLP is exempt from humor given the amount of silliness conducted on April 1st, including the repeated deletion requests for Jimbo's page (which ignoring all the silliness is still a BLP). The secondary issue is whether there are differences in policy for mainspace content and non-mainspace content. To be honest, I can't figure out how it can be considered a BLP violation anymore given the amount of comments here and in all the evidence that freely discusses the Trump allegations. If it's considered a BLP violating thing to say (even in jest), wouldn't it be scrubbed everywhere? -- Ricky81682 (talk) 04:06, 27 April 2016 (UTC)
 * The real truth is that no one really thinks this joke was a serious BLP violation. They can say whatever they want (hello anyone who posts below me to disagree), but their actions (making Trump jokes themselves of equal or greater value) show the truth.  The action of editors attacking the joke and Gamaliel's responses are the meatless sandwich of this arbitration.--Milowent • hasspoken  18:47, 7 May 2016 (UTC)
 * It certainly shouldn't be about what was a trivial BLP issue. It also shouldn't be about the Signpost, or anything to do with arbitrator status. What this case should be about is some minor misuse of admin tools while involved, and a failure to drop the stick in the heat of the moment. Resolvable via a brief apology and a promise not to do it again. But a precondition for that resolution is some acknowledgement that there are legitimate community concerns here. And per the last-minute evidence submission, that is clearly not the case. -- Euryalus (talk) 22:46, 7 May 2016 (UTC)
 * And therein lies the issue. Even at this point I think an acknowledgment of some of the problematic difs and behavior with an apology would have fast tracked this into an admonishment and it would have went away.  Instead we got a variation of the "they made me do it" argument without a hint of contrition.  This is after weeks to reflect on his actions. The lack of accountabilty now has this headed in a bad direction. Capeo (talk) 16:20, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
 * It is nonsense and silly to argue making stuff-up about an LP is not a BLP issue. Yes, it's sad and a waste-of-time that we are here but it should not be finished over BLP's dead letter, whether or not how "serious". I hold out hope that it can still be addressed with 'BLP asks you to take special care, please do so (oh, and making up stuff about people is a problem)'. Alanscottwalker (talk) 17:55, 8 May 2016 (UTC)


 * No. You have other websites for that.  Twitter, facebook, blogspot, google+, youtube, imgur, tumblr - and if all else fails you can pay $5.95/month to own your own website.  There is no need to host it on Wikipedia.  None at all.  If you want to create your own funny material and post it on a blog, I'm completely okay with you posting a link to that material on a user talk page for a 'wiki-friend' to see.  I'm just not okay with the material being hosted on this project where the editors will be accountable to society and where WMF might be accountable to the law.--v/r - TP 17:13, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
 * I have to agree. If you need to read a policy before you are sure that content is fit for publishing, and that content is not about building an encyclopedia, then it doesn't belong here, thus no policy is needed.  At our core, we are and shall forever be "a project", which means we have a specific goal: building an encyclopedia. Everything else is either tolerated or not tolerated, and isn't central to the mission. Dennis Brown - 2&cent; 20:26, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Per and, the scope of this case does need to look at other issues.  But per , while I don't fully agree with the concept that "vile insults" are appropriate toward anyone, he makes a good point that humor, clearly identified as such, has its place, but might need to be more clearly defined.  Essays and the Signpost may be better off to tag with the humor tag at the point of publication, as there are people from a lot of different cultures contributing to WP as well as a lot of people on the autism spectrum, both groups who may miss any "humor" intended.  (This being a separate issue from whether a given piece is funny, which is often in the eye of the beholder) That said, a "humor" tag is also not a get out of jail free card. , I am amongst those who saw no BLP issue in a satirical newsletter piece, nor would there be problems in an op-ed piece (and no one has ever been critical about the snarky humorous asides that are routine in the traffic report) but I also believe -- strongly -- that article mainspace is assuredly no place for satire or humor or BLP problems.  So my question to all is how to clarify the difference, as it is clear that a) there IS a difference but b) Some people (for various reasons) don't think there is a difference.    Montanabw (talk) 18:22, 13 May 2016 (UTC)
 * It looks like, you are asking for the Project to have an ethical wasteland, or be schizophrenic like, both in appearance to the world and in practice. "Oh, yes, lets go over here to this invisible line part of the project and make up things about LP's (maybe add an alleged insult or two) and then go over here and pretend we care about doing the work of a neutral, truthful encyclopedia.'  It just is hard to beleive that some feel there are not enough places in the world beside the pedia to make up things and talk smack about LPs.  Alanscottwalker (talk) 19:13, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

Q on case timeline
Is it permitted to use the workshop page at this time to propose findings of fact etc, or does that need to wait until the evidence phase is formally closed? Gaijin42 (talk) 14:51, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
 * .Nothing in procedures prevents editing of the workshop pages prior to the evidence phase closing. Only concern would be if evidence submitted after the proposal was made contradicts or affects the proposal. A close watch may need to be kept by the proposer to ensure this doesn't occur. Amortias (T)(C) 15:01, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Thank you. I don't think your concern would affect any of my proposals, but I will keep it in mind. Gaijin42 (talk) 15:06, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

Evidence extension
The instructions atop the evidence page states The Arbitration Committee expects you to make rebuttals of other evidence submissions in your own section, and for such rebuttals to explain how or why the evidence in question is incorrect. Given the named party's evidence was posted three minutes before the deadline, will the committee be extending the deadline to allow parties to make the rebuttals the committee expects? NE Ent 01:19, 7 May 2016 (UTC)
 * ,, , , ,: Répondez s'il vous plaît NE Ent 13:52, 7 May 2016 (UTC)
 * In fact editors (6 if I'm counting correctly) did add evidence after the deadline, and we've left it there. The evidence analysis section can be used for almost anything else. We don't want to muzzle anyone who has actual evidence (you know, diffs that are within scope) that is necessary to rebut Gamaliel's evidence. Just as we don't want anymore personal comments. Doug Weller  talk 14:24, 7 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Concise in-scope rebuttals which include relevant evidence are probably best placed on the Workshop evidence analysis section given that they are analysing the evidence presented rather than are present for the purpose of presenting new evidence. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 14:30, 7 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the prompt replies. While it doesn't matter to me where a particular piece of text goes, in the past some individual arbitrators have implied they don't find Workshop pages provide much value (e.g. Guerillero's ACE 2015 question). Can you confirm that all eleven arbitrators on this case have confirmed they will place equal value on submissions independent of whether they are on the Workshop or Evidence pages? NE Ent 16:33, 7 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Did I mention herding cats? Doug Weller  talk 16:58, 7 May 2016 (UTC)
 * I edited after the traveshamockery close, but please don't construe it as "adding evidence." I hatted my evidence as being inadequate given the new scope that was being allowed only minutes before the closure time or that the word limit being enforced 3 minutes before close was no longer in effect.  I wasn't given any notice of these changes.  --DHeyward (talk) 20:22, 7 May 2016 (UTC)
 * While Gamaliel, as a named party, is entitled to wider latitude than others as far as evidence length, his has significant opinion, narrative and diffs that are not part of the scope of this case. Its interesting that his is mostly redirection and fails to provide us with adequate explaination for his own lapses.--MONGO 16:51, 7 May 2016 (UTC)
 * The clerks have been directed by the arbs to review Gamaliel's evidence for compliance with scope. I'm not active on this case, so I would guess that another clerk will do that when they get the chance. Kevin ( aka L235 ·&#32; t ·&#32; c) 17:22, 7 May 2016 (UTC)
 * We did remove some material that we believed to be out of scope. It might help if you were more specific. Doug Weller  talk 18:02, 7 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Since anything even remotely related to GamerGate, very broadly construed, has been considered out-of-scope, the entire section "Gamergate editors participating in the discussion at ANI or this case" would be a great start. ~ RobTalk 19:21, 7 May 2016 (UTC)
 * User:BU Rob13No one has said anything like that. If we had, why would GamerGate be mentioned 40 times on the evidence page? Why would there be, for instance, a section called "Accusations about "Gamergate editors""? You want that left in but Gamaliel's section "Gamergate editors participating in the discussion at ANI or this case" removed, stopping him from responding? Doug Weller  talk 20:43, 7 May 2016 (UTC)
 * There was large amounts of evidence removed that was related to Gamiliel's recent admin activities involving Gamergate. I'd rather have it all in or all removed. (Well, I'd rather the case was never accepted, but since it has been...) The scope is extremely unclear to many people, myself included. I was under the impression Gamergate as a whole was out, based on your own comments. Is it or isn't it? ~ RobTalk 20:53, 7 May 2016 (UTC)


 * It looks like it will not be granted, but I hereby oppose any motion to extend the evidence period. Gamaliel's content is mostly argument, anyway, as is much of the entire "evidence" page.  The diffs which are the evidence have long been posted.   We are still fighting over a dumb April fools' joke and stupid infighting over it which followed, the sooner this Arbitration is over, the better.--Milowent • hasspoken  18:40, 7 May 2016 (UTC)
 * To reiterate some of what has been posted here and on the evidence talk page all in one handy diff: yes, some out-of-scope (pre-April 1) material was removed prior to posting Gamaliel's evidence. That does not preclude new requests for review. Obviously, if someone is unable to post on Wikipedia during a case we'd be happy to facilitate public submission of their evidence; this isn't some special deal for Gamaliel. Equally obviously, we aren't going to pass judgment on the content or quality of the evidence other than reviewing for scope as with any other evidence. So it doesn't get lost now that the evidence talk page is closed, Callanecc responded here on the matter of the final section. Analysis of evidence - Gamaliel's or anyone else's - is encouraged on the workshop page (which, yes, arbs are reading). Opabinia regalis (talk) 19:28, 7 May 2016 (UTC)
 * A lot of pre-April 1st material was removed including material that was duplicated by your post. No, it is not okay to rescope the case three minutes before close.  I had plenty of material that was out of the scope being enforced and communicated by arbs.  I have had a motion on scope pending for 2 weeks.  Apparently, reading the accepted diffs, the new scope even includes off wikipedia conduct.  Please remove me from the case as I cannot respond to Kafkaesque charges of wrongdoing that limit my response due to scope, limit my queries through IBAN and limit my time to 0.  --DHeyward (talk) 20:10, 7 May 2016 (UTC)
 * It wasn't rescoped. Doug Weller  talk 20:43, 7 May 2016 (UTC)
 * The scope hasn't changed. While it's possible we missed something, the only pre-April 1 material I see in Gamaliel's evidence post is very old background material about the Signpost, and I don't see anything related to off-wiki conduct. Can you point to a specific example? If you mean the stats in the last section, see Callanecc's post linked above. Opabinia regalis (talk) 21:32, 7 May 2016 (UTC)
 * It certainly did change and is why so many different editors have complained I am not an an island making an isolated observation. It is a widely held observation. I would need dispensation from the IBAN to go into details as it explicitly forbade it on case talk pages.  --DHeyward (talk) 01:11, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Good point. (No, not a trap ;) I was thinking the answer would be my error in proofreading post-trimming.) You can email to comment if you like. Opabinia regalis (talk) 07:10, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
 * , The case scope as written is Gamaliel's recent actions (both administrative and otherwise), especially related to the Signpost April Fools Joke. The case will also examine the conduct of other editors who are directly involved in disputes with Gamaliel. The case is strictly intended to examine user conduct and alleged policy violations and will not examine broader topic areas., which does not impose explicit date limits. When was it determined that the scope be limited so as to not include "pre-April 1"? Where was this communicated to editors who may be submitting evidence? - Ryk72 'c.s.n.s.' 23:06, 7 May 2016 (UTC)
 * To add to the above, Gamaliel's evidence outlining people that commented on this case (including myself) but not necessary involved in the actions related to the Signpost. I can only speak for myself but from at least Ryk72's comment above and other comments by Dennis Brown, there was strong concern with Gamaliel's administrative behavior related to the GG page which, based on the wording of the case scope, appeared to be covered by the scope; I would have never added evidence if GG was explicitly removed; I don't know if this applies to others in Gamaliel's evidence. Of course, any GG-only evidence has been struck (including mine), so now Gamaliel's last bit of evidence looks really out of place and appears accusation towards people not even involved in this case when the limit is constrained to the Signpost/BLP issues. Granted, I understand that editors had told Gamaliel to put up evidence that "90%" of those participating were GG editors (and I'll take on good faith Gamaliel meant "editors that have worked on the GG page" and not "editors that support GG"), but even then, the way the evidence is presented, noting how few other edits some have done outside GG, is very accusational. Gamaliel seems to want to make this case, in part, about GG, but the ArbCom has appeared to decide that GG is out of scope. This is paradoxical, and either Gamaliel's GG-related evidence should be nixed (though they are fair to comment on the "90%" aspect elsewhere to get rid of that stigma other editors called out), or that Gamaliel's GG admin-related activities should be put into review as part of this case. --M ASEM (t) 00:46, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Recent and related to an April Fool's joke surely suggests after April Fool's is the relevant period of time. This was discussed on the evidence talk page here, by L235, here by Doug, and here by Drmies.
 * As for the last section of Gamaliel's evidence, by my reading it's meant to offer context to his own prior statement that people involved in editing GG topics were also involving themselves in this dispute. It's not "evidence about Gamergate", it's evidence about how he interpreted events and why. IMO there are reasonable arguments for both keeping and removing, but it's a rather moot point because a) the drafters decided to keep it, and b) it's trivially easy for anyone to compile similar statistics if they want, so removing that section of the post would have no real practical effect. Opabinia regalis (talk) 07:10, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
 * But the scope does not state recent and related to an April Fool's joke; it states recent actions (both administrative and otherwise), especially related to the Signpost April Fools Joke. In this context, "especially related to" is focusing, not limiting. If we had wanted limiting then "solely related to" would have been advised. Absent this assumed limitation, how do we determine that "recent" begins April 1? - Ryk72 'c.s.n.s.' 07:39, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Some of us clearly thought it was obvious and explained, and that it didn't need more explanation. As I recall some evidence was removed because it referred to events before April 1st. That includes some evidence from Gamaliel. As for Maseem's comments, read through the evidence, see the sections by others such as "Accusations about "Gamergate editors". That's why we didn't cut them from Gamaliel's evidence.  Doug Weller  talk 08:07, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
 * The documented scope and the scope as explained here now do not seem aligned; and with great respect to the Arbs & Clerks, the reasoning for removal of evidence was not always made clear. I do note that clarification on scope, which should have been definitive, was requested here: I repeat my additional statement from that request: I would respectfully suggest that the community's expectation is that involved administration & misuse of tools should be included regardless of topic space. I have presented evidence which I assert shows a recent, involved misuse of "500/30" to protect another editor from a discussion of potential COI, and misrepresentation of the reasons behind that protection to members of the community. If this is not in scope then I respectfully suggest that it ought to be. - Ryk72 'c.s.n.s.' 08:26, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
 * There are a few problems here. First even if it was implicit that only post April 1st activities were only in scope, there is GG related actions that occurred after that date, namely Gamaliel's actions on the WP:AE case about MarkBerstein opened April 12th. And to understand why that is a problem, it is necessary to review their past admin activities in the GG area prior to April 1st. But second is that the scope statement was not exacting in wording, since it does not limit the case to the Signpost issue, only making it the central focus. If GG was meant to be excluded, and the case specifically the Signpost issue,and stated that from the start, I know I would not have supplied any evidence, and I believe other evidence that was deemed out of scope (such as Dennis Brown's) would never have offered. This, subsequently, would affect Gamaliel's last piece about pointing GG editors. But now we've got a Catch 22 where the case does not appear to be considering Gamaliel's admin actions related to GG to I be in scope, but Gamaliel's concerns aboutother editors involved with the case that are from GG side are in scope. If the scope was worded better from the start, or even modified to be more precise specifically to exclude anything GG related, then I would expect that Gamaliel's evidence to not have been as major a problem. Now if it is still the case that the scope is post April 1st and only relation to the Signpost issue, there I would expect clerks to remove current Workshop items related to the GG article be removed as out of scope, too. --M ASEM (t) 09:32, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

@Iridescent
Carrying on from this section (that page is admin-only now), thanks for explaining. FWIW, I didn't read the comment you highlighted as an insinuation against you and Carrite. YMMV. Andreas JN 466 18:28, 7 May 2016 (UTC)

Out of scope evidence

 * 1) The instructions atop the evidence clearly state You must use the prescribed format in your evidence. Evidence should include a link to the actual page diff in question, or to a short page section; links to the page itself are inadequate. Never link to a page history, an editor's contributions, or a log for all actions of an editor (as those change over time), although a link to a log for a specific article or a specific block log is acceptable. Please make sure any page section links are permanent, and read the simple diff and link guide if you are not sure how to create a page diff. (emphasis mine). Therefore Arbitration/Requests/Case/Gamaliel_and_others/Evidence should be removed.
 * 2) Arbitration/Requests/Case/Gamaliel_and_others/Evidence contains no diffs and should likewise be removed. NE Ent 23:46, 7 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Labeling me a "Gamergate" editor is complete nonsense. I've been here over 10 years.  That such things are left intact, when other actual relevant evidence has been removed says a lot.  Arkon (talk) 23:55, 7 May 2016 (UTC)
 * But the Gamergate section doesn't link to your contributions page? I'm not sure what point you're making in the first part. ~ RobTalk 02:18, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Open the collapsed section under Gamergate editors participating in the discussion at ANI or this case section of the 11th hour evidence posted by Gamaliel. I am the first editor listed. Arkon (talk) 02:23, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
 * You are, but it doesn't link to your Special:Contributions page, which is what the notice you quoted refers to. What do you think he did wrong in that section (ignoring scope, which is an enigma to me)? ~ RobTalk 02:29, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I might be a bit lost here, but is not being listed under the heading Gamergate editors participating in the discussion at ANI or this case, with a count of certain contributions not enough to clarify why I said "Labeling me a "Gamergate" editor is complete nonsense." Arkon (talk) 02:35, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm not talking about that. You say in point #1 that You must use the prescribed format in your evidence. Evidence should include a link to the actual page diff in question, or to a short page section; links to the page itself are inadequate. Never link to a page history, an editor's contributions, or a log for all actions of an editor (as those change over time), although a link to a log for a specific article or a specific block log is acceptable. Please make sure any page section links are permanent, and read the simple diff and link guide if you are not sure how to create a page diff., so the whole section should be removed. What in that quote justifies removing that section? ~ RobTalk 02:45, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
 * That wasn't me saying any of those things, this section wasn't created by me. Arkon (talk) 02:53, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

Oh geez, I'm an idiot. Sorry, I was replying to the original post, and I didn't notice you weren't when you replied. My bad. ~ RobTalk 03:10, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
 * No worries! Arkon (talk) 03:11, 8 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Your question isn't really about scope of the case but about allowable evidence, but that's a minor point. It's an interesting issue. Should we really remove everything that doesn't have page diffs? Should we for instance start with the evidence presented April 18th by User:Jayen466? That does have one diff but most of it has none. So is one enough even though most of the text has diffs? Or various comments about DHeyward being a party - with no diffs, should they be removed? User:Kingsindian]]'s evidence has no diffs at all. Nor does... but you get the point. I'm not sure I get yours - do you really want us to ask clerks to go through the evidence now and remove every section with no diffs? I don't think you do. And how would it make resolution of this case any easier? This isn't the appropriate time to start removing swathes of evidence or change the scope. Doug Weller  talk 06:42, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
 * I mean out of scope of arbcom proceedings more than out of scope of this particular case. My point it is likely that arbcom proceedings would go smoother if arbcom followed the procedures it published. Evidence suggests arbcom -- I understand I'm being loose in meaning here referring to a loose collective as if it was an individual, but it's briefer that way -- isn't even reading what it's writing. For example, a clerk posts

... and then another clerk full protects the talk page ... and then two non-peons blow through the full protection ..., and those comments are left to stay. This is the message you're (the committee as a whole, not you Doug Weller as an individual) sending: Now, within reason, arbcom '16 can mostly do what it wants, but it seems to me establishing the milieu described above maybe isn't what you want as a long term strategy for managing case?
 * Ignore the rules. Go full Grace Hopper -- it's better to beg forgiveness than ask permission
 * Post as much as you can as fast you can.
 * When a clerk asks you to do something, blow it off.
 * Rather than make a good faith effort to understand what the committee is looking for, throw a bunch of stuck at the wall and see what sticks.

In the case at hand, it's my opinion that the Gamergate editors participating... section is drivel. Now, I could lay out the reasons that it's drivel -- in fact, I started, but was struck by the fact it's time consuming, in part because the submitted section is diffless, and I thought evidence was supposed to have diffs, so I read the rules guidelines on top the page and realized that, if arbcom 16 is following that particular rule, I can ask for it be removed, which is way less work than finishing a (hopefully) well thought out, coherent rebuttal. Plus, ya'll don't have to read what I don't write, so it's a win-win solution. NE Ent 09:53, 8 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Um, the Workshop phase hasn't closed and no one has posted that it has. The Evidence phase has closed and there's a big banner on the evidence page saying that it's closed. It's protected but had no lock symbol until I added one just now. . There isn't a banner on the talk page nor a lock so I'm not going to get too excited about people not noticing it, but I will check to see if it should be protected. But it isn't a big deal and maybe you want to take the banner of this page that suggests this phase is over? I don't think this is a good example of the problem that you think exists. I'm not going to comment on how much drivel there may be in the evidence, what some people see as irrelevant or drivel others see as gold. Doug Weller  talk 12:31, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Of course it's not "a problem" in that it's preventing anything important -- since WMF gave us "ping" I can easily post here as well as there. This is not to imply this case, arbcom, or Wikipedia itself is "important" in the global scheme of things... Which is why I didn't bring it up at the time; but when you post in big ol' letters If you need to make further edits to the page please make a request on the talk page. -- and said talk page is full protected, it makes arbcom case page operation like look an absurd Pythonese farce -- I actually laughed out loud when I saw the full protect -- and, as ya'll have not doubt observed, it tends to make those less practiced in the art of AGF suspect "the fix is in." Obviously, I know that's not true; if I believed that, I'd just unwatch the pages and go do something else. NE Ent 13:32, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Looking into it. Doug Weller  talk 14:01, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Miniapolis changed it to semiprotection after I pointed this out on her talk page. Still, it seems like there might be a procedure (should the talk page be full protected?) or wording (to the banner) change that should be considered to avoid this in the future.  kcowolf (talk) 04:50, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
 * There is: closure procedure. NE Ent 09:02, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

MastCell
The discussions here make me want to emphasize MastCell's statement to the arbs, specifically the "tactical deployment of weaponized policy." Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 02:52, 11 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Mastcell is speaking common sense here. But actually, I prefer Anthonyhcole's first principle a bit more because it questions the application of rigorous BLP to talk pages and other non-Signpost forums.  It should be obvious that editors should be free to raise things on a talk page that would never pass muster to include in an article.  And it should be nearly as obvious that as we go deep into the thicket of talk pages that are unrelated to individual BLPs or article improvement, we're going to find places where things are said but not actually represented as true.  There needs to be some leeway for this.


 * A ridiculous case that I saw recently involved an RFA for Amakaru. Someone put up a statement about some African politician being a tyrant.  He quoted them.  And some Wikibureaucrat came along and redacted *his* quotation of the other statement!  Now it's pretty damn absurd when people are redacting statements of potential new admins for BLP violations in the middle of the RFA with everybody watching, then voting that his judgment is OK to be an admin.  It's doublethink on a scale that even Orwell would have a hard time understanding.  Wikipedia just has to realize that there's such a thing as political conversation, and it doesn't all have to be banned just out of some capitalist-fundamentalist argument that Wikipedia is a "private entity".  We don't want it to be the private preserve of some bureaucratic overlord(s); we want it to be a free and public enterprise!  We need rights here for the same reason we need rights in society as a whole --- because they work.  Anything else is just purges and coups and palace revolutions. Wnt (talk) 20:27, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

Mast Cell and TP
Blaming TP for the tit-for-tat is like observing a hydrogen-oxygen explosion and saying "It's all the oxygen's fault!" NE Ent 22:33, 11 May 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure who you think is doing the blaming (I'm not, although I do disagree with TParis about the selectiveness of this prosecution), nor which specific "tit-for-tat" you have in mind, but if you're concerned enough to use my name in a talkpage header, in the future please at least ping me. MastCell Talk 16:50, 12 May 2016 (UTC)
 * I didn't realize we were in a tit-for-tat. I haven't commented since the Ed told me to take a hike.--v/r - TP 16:52, 12 May 2016 (UTC)
 * TP, that was kind of my point -- it didn't seem appropriate for you to be singled out when both parties had made their points and had entered the repetition phase of the engagement. NE Ent 00:43, 13 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Is this about Ed's comment? I don't feel singled out.  I was on a heated rampage and I needed to be brought down.  I have serious concerns with the handling of this case, and with the prejudices, biases, and double-speak happening by some of the participants.  But my message was getting buried.  Thanks for the support, though, I definitely appreciate it.--v/r - TP 01:59, 19 May 2016 (UTC)
 * I didn't mean to single out TP, I just felt that his language was getting awfully hyperbolic. I have nothing but respect for TP. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 04:46, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

What's it all about?
This isn't about Donald Trump. This is about Wikipedia. We are the best general purpose reference for English speaking people in the world, ever. People trust us because we're boring, neutral reference-checkers ( The Wikipedia Revolution:How A Bunch of Nobodies Created The World's Greatest Encyclopedia.) Ideally, we don't meet the standards of normal expectation of discourse in the world, we exceed them. While making such a fuss about a lame non-joke viewed by maybe 90 people upon publication. can logically be viewed an overreaction: make it something the committee should address.
 * the total fail of the community to execute WP:BLPRESTORE,
 * the abuse of admin status/tools to maintain a disputed BLP violation active pending consensus, and
 * the false claims the Signpost is exempt from Wikipedia standards

Arbcom '13, in its "may interpret existing policy and guidelines" role chose to make a very strong set of statements about BLP. Whether Arbcom '16 chooses to reiterate that stance, or take a more limited "not GovCom" view and limit itself to focusing on misconduct regarding the community processes, I filed this cause because I hoped some good will come out of it.

A la proof by contradiction, let's assume we determine it's okay to poke fun at national level public figures on Signpost. First of all, there's no reason Signpost's "press freedom" would be limited to it: any small group of editors could declare themselves a publication and go to town. Next -- if national politician jokes are okay -- what about -- state level? local level? What professions? Political, business, lawyers, doctors, teachers, telemarketers ... where does it end? How about "How many Wikipedians does it take to change a lightbulb?" "How many signpost editors does it take to change a lightbulb?" "How many women editors does it take to change a lightbulb?" Anyone who's spent time in dispute resolution knows Wikipedians will argue about anything; while real world is concerned about Trump's idea to put a wall between "Mexican" and "American," on Wikipedia much drama went into decide to put what -- dash! em-dash!, en-dash! hyphen! between "Mexican" and "American." You may think there's an obvious line, but Wikipedia:: the namespace is all about gray. (According to one commenter here there are 5 administrators who are "reasonable"  and  apparently not).

As real wiki example of what this looks like, consider the article of a minor US county politician who got national press for saying something silly, and the subsequent dispute, including a hasty deletion, disputed salting, creation of a full protected redirect, spread across multiple forums: a deletion review, an AN discussion an"Afd" on AN and an actual Afd, best summed up by the closing summary This is a mess. To the extent this confusing discussion is supposed to be about the redirect now at Local Politician, it belongs at WP:RFD. To the extent it is supposed to be about the page now at Draft:Local Politician, it belongs at WP:MFD if deletion is desired, or at WP:DRV if restoration is desired. (This is "articles for deletion", not "articles for recreation"). In other words, nothing about this belongs in an AfD. And to top it off, even if I would be certain everybody on this page was talking about the same content, and understood "keep" etc. to mean the same thing, I still couldn't find a consensus on the merits here. In other words, there's nothing to do as a result of whatever this discussion was. And this was about something important: a good faith discussion trying to determine whether and individual was sufficiently notable for a standalone article, or WP:BIO1E.

The committee can decide a pointless joke was, or was not, a BLP violation. The committee can decide whether WP:CRYBLP or WP:BLPRESTORE applies to this case. The committee can site ban NE Ent for being an ARCA filing, arbcom case creating, pita. But the committee cannot change the essential nature of Wikipedians in heated discussions -- examples provided on the workshop page. Allowing this camel's nose into the tent is bad, not for presidential candidate (who would just turn it into more free publicity), but for the project. For something that's not funny, not important, and contributes nothing to encyclopedia building.

Please slam the lid shut on this Pandora's box. NE Ent 00:20, 12 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Presumably you realize that you are, in this analogy, Pandora. Escalating this to ArbCom was a mistake. Taking this on as a full case was a mistake; it's provided a forum for the worst in a lot of people, it may result in the loss of a valuable (although not infallible) contributor, and we are no closer to anything constructive in terms of the role of the Signpost, the proper handling of minor BLP issues, or any other issue of significance. The proportionate response to this unfortunate incident would have been to chastise Gamaliel, DHeyward, and Arkon for behaving like obnoxious children, and to insist that they don't do so again. (If any of them have histories or patterns of acting like obnoxious children, then perhaps something more drastic would be called for. I choose not to open that particular Pandora's box at present). By insisting on a case, and by accepting a case, we've successfully turned yet another molehill into a mountain&mdash;a Wikipedian specialty, as you note. MastCell Talk 17:01, 12 May 2016 (UTC)
 * I agree, MastCell, and believe it was a mistake to escalate this incident in to an arbitration case. I don't think this was an intractable dispute and some of the proposed remedies seem akin shutting an open door by hitting it with a hammer. Liz  Read! Talk! 12:39, 13 May 2016 (UTC)
 * I disagree. The community spoke at AN/I - something needed, and needs, to be done to demonstrate that our policies and guidelines do indeed apply to admins and arbitrators too. Yes, it didn't have to come to this: G could have come to his senses. But he was the one dancing about on the Reichstag waving his Spidey suit in the wind. So here we are, and we've discovered something disturbing about the Signpost editorial group, too. It could still end now if G decides to do the right thing. Otherwise: I can only hope that ArbCom affirms that our policies and guidelines do apply to admins and arbitrators too. Because otherwise, the project is severely undermined and the community slapped in the face. And for the record, I am not at all impressed with arguments that I and my fellow Wikipedians are only concerned about fairness because we have been co-opted by Gamergaters. That is a vile aspersion and I am appalled it is not being treated as such, never mind its being repeated. Yngvadottir (talk) 17:38, 13 May 2016 (UTC)
 * This isn't about the Signpost, and it isn't about "our policies and guidelines do apply to admins and arbitrators too" -- it's about whether someone violated specific policies and guidelines in a specific set of actions that involved use of admin tools. Everything else is a red herring.  Montanabw (talk) 18:28, 13 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Exactly - it's about his violations, and what's to be done about them. It's at Arbcom because he's an admin (and some of the violations involved misuse of tools) and it's a big deal in part because the standards of behavior for admins (and arbitrators) are higher. The Signpost issue is that that was used at AN/I as a reason for violating policy, and as I say, at this latest stage it's come up again. But it surely is about whether our policies and guidelines also apply to admins and arbitrators, because otherwise it could have been dealt with at AN/I. So I'm afraid I don't follow your distinction. Yngvadottir (talk) 18:40, 13 May 2016 (UTC)