Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case: Difference between revisions
→Statement by {Non-party}: statement |
|||
Line 156: | Line 156: | ||
===Statement by Yngvadottir=== |
===Statement by Yngvadottir=== |
||
This needs examination and action under [[WP:BLP|BLP]] and under the discretionary sanctions authorized in [[Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/American politics 2|American politics 2]], and also because the AN/I case kicked the can down the street to ArbCom, presumably at least in part because of a feeling that only ArbCom can judge the behavior of one of its own. I'm unable to select and provide diffs because the fake page and the userbox that Gamaliel later created and protected have both been deleted. But there is no "just a joke" or "just the ''Signpost''" or even "I don't like this person" or even "April Fool's Day" exemption from BLP, let alone an "admins and Arbs behaving badly" exemption from BLP. Even if there were an April Fool's Day exemption, April Fool's Day is ''one day''. The fake page [[Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2010-03-17/News and notes|was not even MfD'd until April 6]]. It had previously been CSD'd multiple times, with Gamaliel adding the policy breach of removing the CSD tag himself to the fundamental policy breach of the BLP violation. (I'm relying on the assembly of diffs and reconstruction of events at AN/I by {{U|Ryk72}} [[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&diff=prev&oldid=714058432 here] and by {{U|Fram}} for example [[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&diff=prev&oldid=714124751 here] and the following exchange.) Even if there were a ''Signpost'' or an admin and arb exemption from our policies, the succession of actions by Gamaliel was demonstrably beyond the pale. He was called on it, his actions were reverted, the page was deleted, and he didn't stop, rather he quibbled about it. I join others in suggesting that this demonstrates he cannot act responsibly as editor of the ''Signpost''; in fact his actions fall well below what we expect of an admin, let alone an arb. And we know the idea of "vested contributor" exemptions is unpopular. In any case, BLP is damned important, it applies to every page here, and the whole point is that it doesn't matter who the living person is. Numerous blocks are handed out every day for failure to accept this policy. Anyone who cannot remain neutral on a topic—particularly when that topic is a person—has no business doing any but the most obvious housekeeping edits on that topic. If Gamaliel can't control himself without a topic ban, the committee should impose one as a minimum sanction; I would like a recall vote. At a minimum the committee should take the case to show that we mean it with BLP, and that the committee meant it with American politics 2, and that adminship carries with it an expectation of a higher standard of behavior, not a license to cock a snook at the community while mocking living people within an encyclopedia that has to seek to be neutral or it's just another group blog. |
This needs examination and action under [[WP:BLP|BLP]] and under the discretionary sanctions authorized in [[Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/American politics 2|American politics 2]], and also because the AN/I case kicked the can down the street to ArbCom, presumably at least in part because of a feeling that only ArbCom can judge the behavior of one of its own. I'm unable to select and provide diffs because the fake page and the userbox that Gamaliel later created and protected have both been deleted. But there is no "just a joke" or "just the ''Signpost''" or even "I don't like this person" or even "April Fool's Day" exemption from BLP, let alone an "admins and Arbs behaving badly" exemption from BLP. Even if there were an April Fool's Day exemption, April Fool's Day is ''one day''. The fake page [[Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2010-03-17/News and notes|was not even MfD'd until April 6]]. It had previously been CSD'd multiple times, with Gamaliel adding the policy breach of removing the CSD tag himself to the fundamental policy breach of the BLP violation. (I'm relying on the assembly of diffs and reconstruction of events at AN/I by {{U|Ryk72}} [[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&diff=prev&oldid=714058432 here] and by {{U|Fram}} for example [[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&diff=prev&oldid=714124751 here] and the following exchange.) Even if there were a ''Signpost'' or an admin and arb exemption from our policies, the succession of actions by Gamaliel was demonstrably beyond the pale. He was called on it, his actions were reverted, the page was deleted, and he didn't stop, rather he quibbled about it. I join others in suggesting that this demonstrates he cannot act responsibly as editor of the ''Signpost''; in fact his actions fall well below what we expect of an admin, let alone an arb. And we know the idea of "vested contributor" exemptions is unpopular. In any case, BLP is damned important, it applies to every page here, and the whole point is that it doesn't matter who the living person is. Numerous blocks are handed out every day for failure to accept this policy. Anyone who cannot remain neutral on a topic—particularly when that topic is a person—has no business doing any but the most obvious housekeeping edits on that topic. If Gamaliel can't control himself without a topic ban, the committee should impose one as a minimum sanction; I would like a recall vote. At a minimum the committee should take the case to show that we mean it with BLP, and that the committee meant it with American politics 2, and that adminship carries with it an expectation of a higher standard of behavior, not a license to cock a snook at the community while mocking living people within an encyclopedia that has to seek to be neutral or it's just another group blog. |
||
=== Statement by MastCell === |
|||
While this particular joke wasn't funny, making a federal BLP case out of it is exceedingly dumb. (Most of the people advocating a case here are ''not'' dumb, of course, but seem to have taken temporary leave of their common sense or sense of perspective). It makes no sense to apply Wikipedia policy to April Fool's Day jokes, since they are, by definition, not intended to be verifiable or true. I think our whole approach to April Fool's Day is silly, juvenile, and (worst of all) unfunny, but to single this particular joke out for condemnation as if were somehow beyond the Pale makes all of you look very silly. |
|||
This is hardly the most hurtful or offensive April Fool's joke of the year, so the amount of wikidrama and sanctimony seems excessive. By way of illlustration, let's look at a few other untruths about living people that appeared on Wikipedia, in projectspace, on April Fool's Day. To highlight the idiocy of this case request, let's further confine ourselves only to untruths ''about Donald Trump'': |
|||
* [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/John Kasich|An editor described Trump]] as "a pumpkin topped with a dead badger", and for good measure stated that Ted Cruz was "a serial killer". |
|||
* [[Donald Trump presidential campaign, 2016]] was [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Donald Trump presidential campaign, 2016|nominated for deletion]]: "Obvious hoax. Is clear subject of article has no intention to be president, and is merely running to troll the entire country." |
|||
* [[Donald Trump]] was [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Donald Trump|nominated for deletion]]. Commenters stated that Trump had a "poor command of the English language", was a "complete idiot [who] doesn't deserve the Presidency much less a Wikipedia article", and repeatedly mocked his hair. |
|||
Most, if not all, of those items are more offensive than repeating a well-worn innuendo about the size of Trump's hands. But yet no torches and pitchforks. Why is that? I can think of a few predictable justifications: |
|||
* ''It was in The Signpost!'' Yebbut no one, outside the usual Wikipedia bubble of about 30-40 hardcore editors, reads the Signpost. |
|||
* ''Gamaliel is an Arb!!'' OK, fair enough, he should know better... maybe. But the community clearly endorses and tolerates this sort of thing on April Fool's Day, so he could be forgiven for not seeing his joke as outside of Wikipedian cultural norms. |
|||
* ''But he edit-warred/wheel-warred/etc!'' True (I think; the evidence in this case is a complete mess), but that's sort of like impeaching Bill Clinton for perjury. What Gamaliel did wasn't admirable, but I'm inclined to cut him some slack because the people out for his blood seem misguided, myopic, and/or hypocritical. |
|||
* ''But this is body-shaming!'' I'm reminded that any process that requires one to take DHeyward seriously is inherently a flawed process. |
|||
Unless and until I see people taking a principled, sanctimonious BLP stance against ''all'' April Fool's jokes involving living people (or even all jokes involving Donald Trump, FFS), it's hard for me to see this as motivated by any real concern for BLP. It looks more like a tactical deployment of weaponized policy. '''[[User:MastCell|MastCell]]''' <sup>[[User Talk:MastCell|Talk]]</sup> 21:56, 11 April 2016 (UTC) |
|||
=== Statement by {Non-party} === |
=== Statement by {Non-party} === |
Revision as of 21:56, 11 April 2016
Requests for arbitration
- recent changes
- purge this page
- view or discuss this template
Request name | Motions | Initiated | Votes |
---|---|---|---|
BLP and the American politician | 10 April 2016 | {{{votes}}} |
No cases have recently been closed (view all closed cases).
Request name | Motions | Case | Posted |
---|---|---|---|
Amendment request: Definition of the "area of conflict" Clause 4 (b) | Motion | none | 26 July 2024 |
Amendment request: Palestine-Israel articles (AE referral) | none | none | 17 August 2024 |
Clarification request: Conduct in deletion-related editing | none | (orig. case) | 8 September 2024 |
Amendment request: Pseudoscience | none | (orig. case) | 9 September 2024 |
No arbitrator motions are currently open.
Use this page to request the committee open an arbitration case. To be accepted, an arbitration request needs 4 net votes to "accept" (or a majority). Arbitration is a last resort. WP:DR lists the other, escalating processes that should be used before arbitration. The committee will decline premature requests. Requests may be referred to as "case requests" or "RFARs"; once opened, they become "cases". Before requesting arbitration, read the arbitration guide to case requests. Then click the button below. Complete the instructions quickly; requests incomplete for over an hour may be removed. Consider preparing the request in your userspace. To request enforcement of an existing arbitration ruling, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement. To clarify or change an existing arbitration ruling, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment. This page is for statements, not discussion.
|
BLP and the American politician
Initiated by NE Ent at 23:53, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
Involved parties
- NE Ent (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), filing party
- Gamaliel (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
- Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request
- Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried
Statement by NE Ent
American presidential candidate Marco Rubio recently made a comment about Donald Trump's hands, which is known to be a reference to penis size [1]; per the US constitution, this is acceptable speech in the US. On Wikipedia, however, the arbitration has previously made clear in Manning principles (selected passages, emphasis mine) that:
Removal of material about living persons
3) The policy on biographies of living persons requires that non-compliant material be removed if the non-compliance cannot readily be rectified. The policy does not impose any limitations on the nature of the material to be removed, provided that the material concerns a living person, and provided that the editor removing it is prepared to explain their rationale for doing so.
Once material about a living person has been removed on the basis of a good-faith assertion that such material is non-compliant, the policy requires that consensus be obtained prior to restoring the material.
Equality and respect
5.2) Wikipedia editors and readers come from a diverse range of backgrounds, including with respect to their race, ethnicity, national origin, religion, sex or gender, sexual orientation, and gender identity or expression. Comments that demean fellow editors, an article subject, or any other person, on the basis of any of these characteristics are offensive and damage the editing environment for everyone. Such comments, particularly when extreme or repeated after a warning, are grounds for blocking or other sanctions.
Applicability of the BLP policy
10) All living people who are subjects of Wikipedia content are entitled to the protections of the biographies of living persons policy. An editor's personal dislike of the subject or their actions does not abrogate in any way the usual protections of the policy.
The BLP policy and article titles
11) The biographies of living persons policy applies to all references to living persons throughout Wikipedia, including the titles of articles and pages and all other portions of any page.
end of excerpt
A review of the applicable discussions shows these policies were clearly not followed; the material was not removed expeditiously nor did Gamaliel et. al. ever acknowledge the non-compliance; rather he has posted content on his user page [1] mocking the legitimate concerns of the Wikipedia community.
The committee should accept this case because
- writing in the Wall Street Journal Joseph Epstein asks of the candidates this year How did it come about that we have five such unimpressive contenders for the presidency of the United States? [2] The upcoming campaign will be rife with negative commentary and innuendo; to maintain the integrity of the project, it will be essential that we uphold the primacy of the WP:BLP policy.
- our article Gender bias on Wikipedia notes that it's been suggested "Wikipedia culture is sexual in ways they find off-putting." Comments about a living persons penis that have no encyclopedic value whatsoever clearly falls into this category.NE Ent 23:53, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
References
- @Alanscottwalker: I did not lay out the diffs because a deleted page history is inaccessible to a non-admin. NE Ent 01:23, 11 April 2016 (UTC)
- Drmies: ArbCom should accept a case because the community clearly did not handle this as prescribed by the committee's prior statements of principles listed above. As noted by the closer of one part of the ANI discussion:
When the BLP is concerned, we need to err on the side of caution. It seems clear to a significant number of editors here that this was not done
and, as noted by another,I think it's fair top say that no administrator is going to take action against a sitting member of ArbCom without explicit prior approval from ArbCom. Interested parties should open a case, since this venue will not bring any resolution...
The committee's remit is "conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve" , and this is what has happened here. - The scope of the case should be the community's response as a whole, including but not limited to, or even primarily about, Gamaliel's conduct. I have not elucidated and diff'd every circumstance because the cast request template informs filers You are not trying to exhaustively prove your case at this time; and I can't generate a diff of a deleted page. NE Ent 20:14, 11 April 2016 (UTC)
Statement by Gamaliel
I take BLP very seriously and I enforce it on a daily basis. I do not believe BLP is violated by mild humorous topical references on April Fools' Day, nor do I feel those mild humorous topical references do any damage to living individuals. We have a long history of such references on Wikipedia. I also take seriously real concerns expressed to me in a civil manner regarding BLP. The record will show that when the community in general expressed serious concerns in the MFD discussion, the editorial board of the Signpost discussed and acted on the matter and agreed with the community consensus. The record will also show that much of the drama here was driven by editors with self-admitted grudges against me personally or were directed here from multiple off-site Gamergate forums. I see no reason why I should not treat that drama with the contempt that it deserves, nor do I feel that attitude has anything to do with my ability to adhere to or enforce the BLP policy. I have been enforcing BLP since it was created in 2005, I've spent years on and off working at the BLP noticeboard, I've been an OTRS volunteer, and I've spent a year in the weeds at Gamergate defending the encyclopedia from being used as a weapon for harassment. BLP is one of our most important policies. However, we've had many, many examples in the history of that policy of editors acting in an overly zealous manner, being obnoxious and self-righteous towards other editors, or hijacking the policy to push their own agendas or settle their personal grudges. That's what's happening here, that's what the evidence will show, and that's what some of the drama mongers have openly stated. We can all do better, personally, and as a community. We should do a better job of preventing those individuals from hijacking our processes so the serious editors can discuss their differences respectfully.
In retrospect there are things I could have done better. I understand the community objections to the dummy standalone pages I created to make the template work and I wish I had found a better way to create that template, and the responsibility for that is mine alone and does not lie with anyone else at the Signpost. I wish I had not lost my temper when being harassed and personally attacked. However, I do not regret collaborating with other Signpost editors to create the story, which many people enjoyed. I do not regret mocking the agenda-driven drama stirred up against me, as many other people did. I do not regret thinking Wikipedia-based humor is funny, as many people do and have over our history. Those are all views that I share with many other editors. None of those views are against Wikipedia policies or affect my ability to enforce them.
The dummy pages have been deleted, the offending headline has been removed from the joke story and has not been restored, even though there was no consensus that its presence was a violation, only that the standalone pages were a problem. I realize lots of people don't like me, or April Fools' Day, or humor on Wikipedia, or that my views differ from theirs regarding encyclopedia policies or ethics in gaming journalism. There's lots of people who disagree, and yet we still manage to write an encyclopedia, at least those of us who are here to do so. It's time for us drop the stick and get back to that. Gamaliel (talk) 00:40, 11 April 2016 (UTC)
DHeyward admits that he has held a grudge against me for a decade and referred to me as Joseph Gobbels only a few weeks ago. I mostly avoid editing politics these days and do not remember much of these many, many interactions DHeyward repeatedly claims we've had on political articles. It is true I was once a very active editor of American political articles in the early years of my decade+ on Wikipedia. Yet DHeyward presents no evidence of POV-pushing in that editing; he only names articles, some of which I do not recall editing, some of which I haven't edited in a decade, and some of which where my only crime was disagreeing with DHeyward's edits. His sole link is not a diff, but a link to an external Gawker article which only names me in a quote attacking me by an account impersonating a living individual. And absolutely none of this has anything to do with an April Fools' Day joke, it's just an opportunity for DHeyward to attack me again. Gamaliel (talk) 01:20, 11 April 2016 (UTC)
Statement by Milowent
LOL. This is horseshit. And certainly not worthy of an arbitration. Here is the atrocity committed by Gamaliel - [2]. A minor reference to the "small hands" story about Trump that's been around for 20 years, in a sidebar to an April Fool's Day article about Jimmy Wales being named as Trump's vice-presidential nominee. Arkon started the ANI thread, yet jokingly referred to Trump as "his hairness" at one time in response to me. I fainted at this BLP atrocity, of course. Gamaliel has indicated he wouldn't repeat the joke and didn't intend any harm. NE Ent's talk page say he is on a wikibreak. If he broke his break to request this arbitration, I say he returned too soon.--Milowent • hasspoken 00:52, 11 April 2016 (UTC)
Statement by DHeyward
Gamaliel has a long history of inserting his POV in American Politics. From John Kerry and the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth to Joe Scarborough and his creation of Lori Klausutis to Bill O'Reilly to G. Gordon Liddy to Fox News to Patrick Buchanan; he's never seen a liberal (they are all "moderate" and everyone else is a "conservative" or "neocon" or whatever label he can create to exaggerate extremism. This has occurred through his whole history at WP. It's not neutral. It doesn't support BLP. It's so biased as to be noted by outside reliable sources less than a year ago [3]. His actions along Gamergate lines is legendary. My own experience is that admins went to the extraordinary step of reversing my block, undoing Gamaliel's rev del and chastising him for being overzealous. His latest defense of the 9 day April 1st joke regarding Trump garnered widespread community condemnation for supporting a position that he may hold personally but violates NPOV and BLP policies. He says he's learned but even today he is trying to "Keep" a commons image linking Trump to WP and Wales. Wales himself is concerned about the being implicated with Trump. He doesn't take BLP seriously unless it supports his political view which he prominently displays on his userpage. In short he shouldn't be allowed to comment on any aspect of American Politics. Every area he touches turns into a battleground due to an unrelentingly obtuse approach that he is always right and neutral. Accept his case and end a number of controversies including GamerGate. --DHeyward (talk) 01:08, 11 April 2016 (UTC)
Statement by The Master
There seems some debate regarding whether or not the initial problem/joke/template was a BLP violation, but according to our own policies, it is. From there we come to two questions: 1) was the initial concern a "real big deal" and 2) does the response (and long-term pattern of behavior) warrant attention? My viewpoint is that all of this could have easily been avoided if the (somewhat mild) BLP violation had been allowed to be deleted. Instead, speedies were declined twice and a contentious AfD ensued. Gamaliel's behavior at that AfD, and elsewhere in regards to this debacle, was WP:POINTy, passive-aggressive, and argumentative, and he spent way too much time talking (rudely) when he should have been listening. As a result, the issue escalated to a ridiculous degree. Administrators and ESPECIALLY arbs should conduct themselves in a mature, patient, and responsible manner: the community holds them to a higher standard and they should behave accordingly. The excuse "but he started it" is unacceptable should it be trotted out here. Gamaliel's behavior throughout this episode was irresponsible, un-arb-like and brings into question why the community should trust such a person in a representative role. ArbCom should accept this case to deal with these concerning behavioral issues. The Master ---)Vote Saxon(--- 01:28, 11 April 2016 (UTC)
Question by Alanscottwalker
Reading that AN/I is just, wow. So, @NE Ent: can you just layout the diffs of who did what (particularly with tools, involved actions, problematic attacks or with edit warring over BLP material)?
@NE Ent: Well, it's still hard to follow. Was there any tool use that is being complained of and did Gamaliel edit war over BLP material? What's the page protection issue complained of and how does it relate? What are the close or closes complained of and how does it relate? Alanscottwalker (talk) 01:29, 11 April 2016 (UTC)
Statement by Carrite
What we have here is a case of sophomoric juvenile hijinks, not a BLP violation. The questions to be asked are (a) what a sitting Arb approaching middle age is doing engaging in puerile hijinks; (b) whether it is advisable for an Arb to be playing a leading role in the Signpost, which is at least in some measure a check and balance upon Arbitrator action; (c) what a second Arb is doing closing an AN/I complaint against a first Arb. Deeper existential questions about whether the institution of ArbCom has outlived its usefulness might also be appropriate. A case here is not. Decline this. Resign from one or the other, Gamaliel. Carrite (talk) 01:34, 11 April 2016 (UTC)
Statement by Iridescent
For probably the first time in my life, I agree with every word Carrite says. This is not a decision Arbcom can make, since it's a question of ethics rather than policy, but it's extremely bad practice for a serving arb to have a position of authority at the Signpost, particularly when they're using that position to make at-best-feeble attempts at comedy in Wikipedia's most public internal forum. Please, consider resigning from one or the other. ‑ Iridescent 01:50, 11 April 2016 (UTC)
Clerks, if this case is accepted my posting here does not mean I want you listing me as a party or participant in it, nor does it mean I want you spamming my talkpage for the next three months. I've no idea where this recent "everyone who posts gets dragged into the case" mindset has come from, but can it please go back there; I'm sure everyone posting here is already aware of what the large "watchlist this page" button does.
- @Drmies, per my previous comments I think Gamaliel should either resign as E-in-C of the Signpost, or resign from Arbcom, as the two positions are fundamentally incompatible; my preference would be for the latter, as it's fairly clear from the ANI discussion and this page that he's lost the confidence of a substantial swathe of the editor base, and despite the attempts by his supporters to paint those not 100% supportive of him as members of a vast right-wing conspiracy it's very evident that the loss of confidence is among people across the political spectrum (unless you're willing to believe that the owner of www.marxisthistory.org is a closet Trump fan, or that people from the other side of the planet have strong opinions about the internal politics of the US Republican Party). The sole reason I don't think Arbcom should take the case is that I see this as a question of ethics rather than of the determination of the formal interpretation of policy, and as such I consider it out of the scope of WP:ARBPOL; if the majority of the committee feel that either the initial joke or the subsequent wheel-warring falls under
serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve
, I'd urge you to accept the case if he fails to step down of his own accord. (28bytes was kicked out, or at least jumped-before-pushed, for considerably less than this.) ‑ Iridescent 20:01, 11 April 2016 (UTC)
Statement by SB_Johnny
Kirill Lokshin: Please explain why you are recusing. --SB_Johnny | talk✌ 02:57, 11 April 2016 (UTC)
Statement by Kingsindian
I have given my own viewpoint in the ANI thread, but I'll repeat it here. This was not a BLP violation: the page was marked as humour and was part of an April Fools joke which nobody took seriously. So there is no question of misleading people or making false accusations about Trump. In either case, the article about Trump/Wales 2016 is still up, is that a BLP violation as well? The argument collapses under a minimal scrutiny.
The joke can be thought of as in poor taste: I found it in poor taste myself. However, taste is subjective, and the editorial processes of The Signpost are not a matter for ArbCom.
As I said in my comment earlier, Gamaliel did not do himself any favours by pretending that he did nothing wrong. He did technically abuse his admin tools (see Fram's evidence in the ANI thread), and engaged in pointy (same section, especially the creation of User:Gamaliel/Small_hands) and belligerent behaviour (edit-warring, stating that 90% of the people involved are because of Gamergate with no evidence at all, among other things). He has made some contrite statements here, referring to his losing his temper, though they mostly fall into a "non-apology apology" pattern.
I trust that the kerfuffle over this incident will be a strong enough deterrent, or if nothing else, will provide diffs in case of future misbehaviour. In either case, I see no point in making people grovel.
ArbCom should decline this case. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 06:01, 11 April 2016 (UTC)
Statement by JzG
The tone of hysteria over this is somewhat worrying to me. The joke about the size of Trump's hands is well known all the way over the other side of the pond - I'm English and I am well aware that an editorial by the Washington Post prominently notes Trump's bizarre obsession with the accusation that he has short fingers. The genie has long since left the bottle and there's no way we're going to put it back in simply by not alluding to it in an obviously humorous context. I simply cannot see this as a BLP violation. This looks very much like a case of WP:CRYBLP. Guy (Help!) 10:22, 11 April 2016 (UTC)
Statement by Fram
While there probably isn't enough here for ArbCom to make a case from, the replies from Gamaliel, both here and earlier at ANI, are still very worrying and not what I expect from someone with his positions (I also think some of those defending him are partly to blame, e.g. the close by JzG or actions by MontanaBW, but these are certainly not aproaching ArbCom--investigation-level). Gamaliel's dismissal of everyone who criticized his actions, together with completely ignoring his own disputed actions (like thrice reclosing an ANI discussion about his own actions, using protection to win a dispute, removing a CSD tag from a page he created) and only "apologizing" for using the wrong technical solution, shows a serious lack of awareness of the problems with his actions and posts though. There may have been Gaermgate driven people among those who opposed him, I don't know (it was only clear that there was Gamergate-driven support for him, something he doesn't seem to have a problem with); I can only speak for myself, and my review of his actions was not driven by Gamergate, external fora, or any other dark force. I criticized his actions because they were wrong on many accounts. That he still doesn't see or accepts this and sees fit to dismiss all criticism ("We should do a better job of preventing those individuals from hijacking our processes so the serious editors can discuss their differences respectfully.") instead of truly acknowledging what he did wrong strongly suggests that he will do the exact same again would similar circumstances arise. Making mistakes, even in tool use, isn't a problem, we have all done this occasionally (well, at least I have); but one should be able to acknowledge and learn from these mistakes, not attack everyone who expressed concerns about them. Fram (talk) 12:32, 11 April 2016 (UTC)
- @MarkBernstein. In Belgium, there are also quite a few journalists who became politicians (e.g. multiple European Parliament members like Ivo Belet and Dirk Sterckx). All stopped working as a journalist during their political career. By the way, have you looked carefully at your Beaverbrook example: later life, "a [political] headline [...] was a huge mistake and completely misjudged the public mood. Beaverbrook renounced his British citizenship and left the Conservative Party in 1951 but remained an Empire loyalist throughout his life." Fram (talk) 15:33, 11 April 2016 (UTC)
- @Drmies: the most I can see happening here (assuming nothing new happens or comes to light) is an admonishment for Gamaliel (and perhaps others involved, I have mostly focused on his actions as there seemed to be plenty of people already looking at the incivility issue). The scope of this case seems to me the BLP issue (the deleted page and the links to it / replacements of it), and the actions of Gamaliel during this and in the aftermath (things like his comments here). Fram (talk) 18:32, 11 April 2016 (UTC)
Statement by MONGO
I see arguments but no links to specific details as to what the infractions are. If BLP has been repeatly violated as claimed then links should be easily produced. If evidence in the way of links are provided, and they demonstrate violations, then at least an admonishment under American Politics 2 is in order.--MONGO 13:32, 11 April 2016 (UTC)
Hammersoft has pointed out (here) that Gamaliel has been aware of the American Politics 2 discretionary sanctions available since at least last fall. Looking over the diffs provided by Hammersoft, and in the unlikelihood that the community can resolve this, a case or admonishment in lieu of a case is in order.--MONGO 21:48, 11 April 2016 (UTC)
Statement by Arkon
I didn't want to even comment here, as I have to think I've made my positions clear in this situation (Linked in the MFD and AN/I) above. But I do find the continued casting of aspersions in Gamaliel's statement troubling. Who exactly are these gamergate boogeymen? If it's in response to why they reverted a blanking of a BLP violation multiple times (sorry can't diff this as the page is deleted now), reverted to a close that was not a summation of the discussion and contained a BLP vio itself multiple times here, here, and here. Then he must be referring to me, and I'd like him to substantiate such charges or strike. Arkon (talk) 14:21, 11 April 2016 (UTC)
Also it does appear the principles quoted in the opening of this request were obviously violated. Arkon (talk) 15:05, 11 April 2016 (UTC)
Statement by MarkBernstein
A number of editors have expressed the opinion that Gamaliel’s editorial role in incompatible with holding a position of authority.
Though the question has intrigued philosophers since Plato, publishers and editors have often assumed important roles in government. Britons were fortunate, for instance, in Churchill’s choice of Beaverbrook to head the critical Ministry of Aircraft Production. Consider also Ben Franklin, Horace Greeley, Theodore Roosevelt, Thomas Babbington MacCauley, William Randolph Hearst, and Frank Knox; I expect many other precedents of writers, editors, and publishers who gained political or governmental authority will readily come to mind. MarkBernstein (talk) 14:45, 11 April 2016 (UTC)
- @Fram: There are many things to regret about Beaverbrook, but his service in the war cabinet is not among them. It’s nice that some Belgian editors or publishers retired on entering politics, but this has hardly been universal. Frank Knox, for example, was publisher of the Chicago Daily News during his run of the the vice-presidency in 1936 and also as Secretary of the Navy, 1940-1944.MarkBernstein (talk) 20:05, 11 April 2016 (UTC)
Statement by Staberinde
Gamaliel's actions, as documented by Fram in the ANI thread, were definitely subpar for an admin. But while some kind of admonishment could be fitting, this incident alone is not really worthy of a full Arbcom case.--Staberinde (talk) 15:59, 11 April 2016 (UTC)
- @Drmies, likelihood of more serious sanctions/rulings beyond a simple admonishment seems quite low, so it just does not seem worthy of time and effort for full case. If Arbcom could take a stance on this recent affair through smoother means, like motion or something, then I guess that could be worth considering. That said, previous statement applies only to the most recent BLP/ANI event, as I cannot comment on possible older problems, or lack thereof.--Staberinde (talk) 21:14, 11 April 2016 (UTC)
Statement by Dennis Brown
I agree with most everything Iridescent said (excepting I agree with Carrite at least half the time). I have noticed a political bias on more than one occasion myself, and while we all have them, they are best kept under our hat as we are expected to be able to be neutral in spite of them, something Gamaliel is not particularly adept at. I would agree that serving on both Arb and the Signpost is a bad idea.
Make no mistake about it, this is a clear cut BLP violation, albeit not the worst we see here each day. That a number of people found it humorous is irrelevant, as "humor" is not an exception to our BLP policy. The community should be able to handle it, so a full case seems unnecessary. I also think ignoring it is a bad idea, so if no one else will, I will say it: Gamaliel, you need to put your own politics to the side when editing Wikipedia. This isn't the first instance I've seen, it is just the most public. Had someone done something similar to Hillary or Bernie (or whatever Democrat you are supporting this go around), I am betting your reaction would have been different. That is both bias and hypocrisy. If you can't grasp this and understand and suppress your own bias, you do not need to be serving as Arb. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 17:39, 11 April 2016 (UTC)
Statement by The ed17
What JzG/Guy said above, in full, with the exception of being English. I am not lucky enough to have that accent. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 20:06, 11 April 2016 (UTC)
Statement by uninvolved Hammersoft
I make no comment regarding any other person involved in this dispute. I do make the following observations with regards to Gamaliel, who as an administrator and ArbCom member is expected to hold to higher standards of conduct than others (WP:ADMIN#Administrator_conduct,WP:ARBPOL##Conduct_of_arbitrators). @Drmies:, so far the only non-recusing arbitrator, has asked why ArbCom should be accepting this case and what they are to accept. My response, as below, focuses on the conduct of Gamaliel. ArbCom has jurisdiction to handle behavioral conduct disputes, and as noted below the associated WP:AN/I thread has been closed noting the community can't do anything to sanction Gamaliel, being a member of ArbCom. Since apparently ArbCom is the only body that CAN do something, I submit the following:
- On a WP:AN/I thread involving Gamaliel, he reverted to close three times in 11 minutes [4][5][6]. He did not inform and/or warn Arkon, with whom he was edit warring, about 3RR. He just kept edit warring instead. He stopped at 3. WP:3RR is not a bright line. Gamaliel, as an administrator and ArbCom member knew better, and continued the edit war anyway. Worse, Gamaliel is directly involved in the dispute called out in the thread. This is not the first time Gamaliel has been involved in an edit war [7]. There's simply no excuse for this behavior.
- Gamaliel apparently is more concerned about Signpost working than he is with WP:BLP policy [8]. He posted that in response to User:Ryk72's post a few minutes earlier [9] which cited that policy.
- Gamaliel violated Wikipedia:No_legal_threats#Perceived_legal_threats policy with this diff. After being taken to task for it [10], he struck the comment [11].
- Gamaliel appears to have violated WP:RPA in this diff. The three responses from Arkon that he removed as personal attacks were directed at Gamaliel, which raises the bar for removal to "clear cut cases". While some of the content here is objectionable and violates civility, calling all three of these section removals together as a "clear cut case" is an extreme stretch. Again as an administrator and ArbCom member Gamaliel should have known better than to act in this manner, and could have asked for someone else to step in. He did not.
- According to reports (non-admins can not confirm), Gamaliel removed a speedy deletion tag from Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2010-03-17/News and notes, a page created by Gamaliel (of course now deleted via an mfd). This violated Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion policy. Gamaliel was duly informed of the speedy tagging by User:Ryk72 with this diff. This notification was seen and deleted by Gamaliel [12]. Gamaliel knows the policy on this, and breached it anyway.
Gamaliel appears to stand in violation of WP:3RR, WP:BLP, WP:NLT, WP:RPA and WP:CSD policies. His conduct in several of these instances would likely have resulted in blocks for "lesser" editors. But, as the closing administrator at the AN/I thread said "no administrator is going to take action against a sitting member of ArbCom", Gamaliel is being treated differently than non-ArbCom members simply because of his position. The community is paralyzed from doing anything to restrain Gamaliel's behavior.
I am reminded of a sitting ArbCom member violating _one_ policy, for which said member was "reminded". Given the then serious breach of WP:INVOLVED, this was the tiniest slap on the wrist possible, and was done only after ArbCom was taken to task over the issue by multiple people. Gamaliel violated no less than five policies here.
ArbCom would be seriously out of line should they fail to significantly sanction one of their own in this case, where there are multiple policy violations for which "lesser" editors would quite possibly have been blocked or even banned. Gamaliel has not been blocked by anyone because he's an ArbCom member. The community has turned it to ArbCom to do something about this. Failure by ArbCom here would effectively elevate ArbCom members to untouchables, and make a mockery of the efforts of the community. This is not a simple single lapse in judgment. This is a pattern of events showing a severe inability on the part of this ArbCom member to handle himself in accordance with our expectations.
In my opinion, Gamaliel should step down as an Arbitrator for showing extreme lack of good judgment and demonstrating an inability to sit in judgment of others. His actions to defend his Signpost article by removing the speedy tag, edit warring with someone he was in dispute with, refusing to acknowledge BLP issues and worse restoring BLP violations against policy, making legal accusations against another member of the community, and intentionally removing comments directed at him show a shocking inability to recognize the serious deleterious and central role he has played in this dispute. His displayed lack of good judgment would prohibit him from passing RfA, or indeed most permission requests, much less sit on ArbCom. The community expects and demands better. --Hammersoft (talk) 20:34, 11 April 2016 (UTC)
Statement by Yngvadottir
This needs examination and action under BLP and under the discretionary sanctions authorized in American politics 2, and also because the AN/I case kicked the can down the street to ArbCom, presumably at least in part because of a feeling that only ArbCom can judge the behavior of one of its own. I'm unable to select and provide diffs because the fake page and the userbox that Gamaliel later created and protected have both been deleted. But there is no "just a joke" or "just the Signpost" or even "I don't like this person" or even "April Fool's Day" exemption from BLP, let alone an "admins and Arbs behaving badly" exemption from BLP. Even if there were an April Fool's Day exemption, April Fool's Day is one day. The fake page was not even MfD'd until April 6. It had previously been CSD'd multiple times, with Gamaliel adding the policy breach of removing the CSD tag himself to the fundamental policy breach of the BLP violation. (I'm relying on the assembly of diffs and reconstruction of events at AN/I by Ryk72 [here and by Fram for example [here and the following exchange.) Even if there were a Signpost or an admin and arb exemption from our policies, the succession of actions by Gamaliel was demonstrably beyond the pale. He was called on it, his actions were reverted, the page was deleted, and he didn't stop, rather he quibbled about it. I join others in suggesting that this demonstrates he cannot act responsibly as editor of the Signpost; in fact his actions fall well below what we expect of an admin, let alone an arb. And we know the idea of "vested contributor" exemptions is unpopular. In any case, BLP is damned important, it applies to every page here, and the whole point is that it doesn't matter who the living person is. Numerous blocks are handed out every day for failure to accept this policy. Anyone who cannot remain neutral on a topic—particularly when that topic is a person—has no business doing any but the most obvious housekeeping edits on that topic. If Gamaliel can't control himself without a topic ban, the committee should impose one as a minimum sanction; I would like a recall vote. At a minimum the committee should take the case to show that we mean it with BLP, and that the committee meant it with American politics 2, and that adminship carries with it an expectation of a higher standard of behavior, not a license to cock a snook at the community while mocking living people within an encyclopedia that has to seek to be neutral or it's just another group blog.
Statement by MastCell
While this particular joke wasn't funny, making a federal BLP case out of it is exceedingly dumb. (Most of the people advocating a case here are not dumb, of course, but seem to have taken temporary leave of their common sense or sense of perspective). It makes no sense to apply Wikipedia policy to April Fool's Day jokes, since they are, by definition, not intended to be verifiable or true. I think our whole approach to April Fool's Day is silly, juvenile, and (worst of all) unfunny, but to single this particular joke out for condemnation as if were somehow beyond the Pale makes all of you look very silly.
This is hardly the most hurtful or offensive April Fool's joke of the year, so the amount of wikidrama and sanctimony seems excessive. By way of illlustration, let's look at a few other untruths about living people that appeared on Wikipedia, in projectspace, on April Fool's Day. To highlight the idiocy of this case request, let's further confine ourselves only to untruths about Donald Trump:
- An editor described Trump as "a pumpkin topped with a dead badger", and for good measure stated that Ted Cruz was "a serial killer".
- Donald Trump presidential campaign, 2016 was nominated for deletion: "Obvious hoax. Is clear subject of article has no intention to be president, and is merely running to troll the entire country."
- Donald Trump was nominated for deletion. Commenters stated that Trump had a "poor command of the English language", was a "complete idiot [who] doesn't deserve the Presidency much less a Wikipedia article", and repeatedly mocked his hair.
Most, if not all, of those items are more offensive than repeating a well-worn innuendo about the size of Trump's hands. But yet no torches and pitchforks. Why is that? I can think of a few predictable justifications:
- It was in The Signpost! Yebbut no one, outside the usual Wikipedia bubble of about 30-40 hardcore editors, reads the Signpost.
- Gamaliel is an Arb!! OK, fair enough, he should know better... maybe. But the community clearly endorses and tolerates this sort of thing on April Fool's Day, so he could be forgiven for not seeing his joke as outside of Wikipedian cultural norms.
- But he edit-warred/wheel-warred/etc! True (I think; the evidence in this case is a complete mess), but that's sort of like impeaching Bill Clinton for perjury. What Gamaliel did wasn't admirable, but I'm inclined to cut him some slack because the people out for his blood seem misguided, myopic, and/or hypocritical.
- But this is body-shaming! I'm reminded that any process that requires one to take DHeyward seriously is inherently a flawed process.
Unless and until I see people taking a principled, sanctimonious BLP stance against all April Fool's jokes involving living people (or even all jokes involving Donald Trump, FFS), it's hard for me to see this as motivated by any real concern for BLP. It looks more like a tactical deployment of weaponized policy. MastCell Talk 21:56, 11 April 2016 (UTC)
Statement by {Non-party}
Other editors are free to make relevant comments on this request as necessary. Comments here should address why or why not the Committee should accept the case request or provide additional information.
Clerk notes
- This area is used for notes by the clerks (including clerk recusals).
- As a reminder, the arbitration policy states (emphasis mine) "
An arbitrator may recuse from any case, or from any aspect of a case, with or without explanation[...]
". Although asking arbitrators the reason for their recusal is allowed, the arbitrator is by no means required to answer. Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 04:34, 11 April 2016 (UTC)
BLP and the American politician: Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter <0/0/3/1>
Vote key: (Accept/decline/recuse/other)
- Recuse. Gamaliel (talk) 00:41, 11 April 2016 (UTC)
- Recuse. Kirill Lokshin (talk) 00:43, 11 April 2016 (UTC)
- Before I go Accept/decline/recuse/other, can I ask some of the commenters here, those who think (like Fram) that Gamaliel's actions were "subpar" (Staberinde's term) but suggested that this is not a case ArbCom should take, what they think an appropriate course of action might be? Moreover, it seems to me that the charge by Ent addresses only the BLP, whereas some of the comments take a broader view--and if we accept something it would be good to know what we are to accept. Drmies (talk) 18:23, 11 April 2016 (UTC)
- Recuse. Keilana (talk) 18:44, 11 April 2016 (UTC)