Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case

Requests for arbitration

Arbitration Committee proceedings

• recent changes
• purge this page
• view or discuss this template

Case requests

Request name	Motions	Initiated	Votes
BLP and the American politician	Motions	10 April 2016	{{{votes}}}

[edit]

Open cases

Currently, no arbitration cases are open.

[edit]

Recently closed cases (Past cases)

No cases have recently been closed (view all closed cases).

Clarification and Amendment requests

Request name	Motions	Case	Posted
Amendment request: World War II and the history of Jews in Poland	Motion	(orig. case)	21 June 2024
Amendment request: Definition of the "area of conflict" Clause 4 (b)	none	none	26 July 2024

Arbitrator motions

Motion name	Date posted
Historical elections	21 July 2024

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

• Gamaliel

Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried

• Miscellany for deletion
• Administrators' noticeboard/Incident discussion

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 ; 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? 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)

@Wbm1058: We have no intention of letting humor or fake news spread beyond April 1. Gamaliel (talk) 17:05, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

@Fram: Why is it appropriate to post links to discussions that disparage living individuals? Is this not contrary to BLP? Gamaliel (talk) 13:16, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

@Fram: Maybe you could explain the BLP policy to me. I don't understand why it's okay to use the encyclopedia to call living individuals dishonest, a Nazi, or "a cancer" or to link to forum discussions which openly disparage both editors and the living subjects of articles in much worse terms, but it's a horrible violation to reference a 30+ year old joke that is widely known and has been repeated on this page without redaction many times. Gamaliel (talk) 13:34, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

@Fram: Seriously? It's a violation of WP:ADMINACCT because I didn't respond to aggressive questioning quickly and sufficiently? Here is what I believe to be a complete accounting of my actions demanded by you:

I re-closed the discussion because at ANI because it had been closed by an uninvolved administrator and an involved, disruptive editor was reopening it. I quite obviously I should have left this matter to another uninvolved party, but I lost my cool. Provocation or not, there's no "excuse" there, I messed up, and everyone knows it. I removed the CSD tag because I thought it was a frivolous, pointy attack by an editor whose wikihounding of my contributions can be well documented. Removing frivolous CSD tags is what we're supposed to do, that's how they work. I did not think of myself as the "creator" of the page. The Signpost is a collaborative effort (any number of editors could have been the one to create that page, I was just the one who did it that particular time) and I was acting on behalf of that collective effort. The removal of the tag did nothing to prevent the person who placed it or anyone from addressing any concerns they had; any editor was free to bring the matter to MFD, and once that happened we abided by the community consensus there. That was my thinking at the time, but I see there is an objection by some members of the community to the removal of the CSD tag, so I will refrain from doing this again.

In regards to Gamergate actions:

• How am I involved with Mark Bernstein? If you are going to make this accusation or implication, it is irresponsible to do so without evidence. If he posts things in support of or against me without input from me, that is his own affair, not mine. I have no personal or professional involvement with him, he is simply one of the editors squabbling on the Gamergate articles. I've sanctioned and cautioned him numerous times, as I have numerous other Gamergate editors, including quite a few participants here. Which, I'm sure, is a complete coincidence.
• Policy demands we revision delete attacks on living people, and I stand by my decision to remove those links. Because I may have (I say 'may" because I've been attacked so often on Reddit I barely pay attention anymore) been one of those numerous living people attacked in those forums I should not act to protect others? Are we really going to let Reddit decide which attacks we can remove and which we can't? Then all they have to do to circumvent BLP is simply include attacks on the admins working in a particular topic area. Do you really not see "a serious BLP violation" there? I really hope you do not seriously take this approach elsewhere on the encyclopedia and I urge you to comply with BLP and remove that material if you find it in the encyclopedia, regardless of who the target is.
• Are you seriously making the bad faith accusation that I deleted this BLP violation to cover up a "conduct accusation"? I have no idea what accusation is being made there about my Wikipedia conduct. I've gone and reread that link just now and it seems to be about the alleged sexual proclivities of myself and several other living individuals, including two subjects of articles here. A responsible editor would have simply restated the conduct accusation in civil terms instead of linking to an off-site attack page.
• In regards to Allison Rapp, recent defamatory material regarding her was redacted from Gamergate articles and she is a current target of Gamergate. I acted preempitvely to protect a living individual, and I stand by that decision. The "fake reason" was because recent BLP violations were deleted. I was acting hurriedly, and I should have realized that the reason I selected required explanatory text because others would have come to the same conclusion as you, without the bad faith accusation . The equivalent of a paperwork snafu.
• I have no idea what any of this has to do with "BLP and the American politician." What case is Arbcom going to open exactly?

I believe this satisfies WP:ADMINACCT, but you've written a lot of text here and I may have missed one of your accusations. If you have follow-up questions I would appreciate a reasonable amount of time to respond before you level further accusations regarding the issues in question. @Kelapstick: If you or any arbitrators feel I have not complied with the requirement that I account for my admin actions regarding any particular issue I would appreciate a notification so I can attempt to fully address whatever concerns you have regarding accountability requirements. There's a lot of text on this page and I may not have yet read whatever accusation you feel needs a response. Gamaliel (talk) 00:45, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

Statement by Milowent

LOL. This is horseshit. And certainly not worthy of an arbitration. Here is the atrocity committed by Gamaliel -. A minor reference to the "small hands" story about Trump that's been around for 20 years, in a sidebar to an April Fool's Day article about Jimmy Wales being named as Trump's vice-presidential nominee. Arkon started the ANI thread, yet jokingly referred to Trump as "his hairness" at one time in response to me. I fainted at this BLP atrocity, of course. Gamaliel has indicated he wouldn't repeat the joke and didn't intend any harm. NE Ent's talk page say he is on a wikibreak. If he broke his break to request this arbitration, I say he returned too soon.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 00:52, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

• Addition: It should be noted that while this has been pending, Gawker has published an article titled What Is Wikipedia Hiding About Donald Trump's Tiny Shrimp Fingers?. This focus is on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Short-Fingered Vulgarian, which is available for the public to view in all its glory, and the Gawker article quotes a particularly vicious paragraph of the now deleted article, which was available for the public for an entire week while we kvetched over Gamaliel's contentless and deleted infraction.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 20:28, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

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 [2]. 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)

@Drmies: I filed the initial CSD that was reverted by Gamaliel. I undid that action, but another editor removed the CSD tag and added the humor tag. I dropped it after that and put an AN notice for opinion. I had no idea whether others shared my view or not and it didn't matter much to me as I wasn't interested in fighting it. A few days later is when the rest of it began and quite separate from me. My evidence would be various WP:OWN issues that are centered around American Politics and it has been an ongoing problem for a very long time. My view is we don't need a "Minister of Propaganda" running both the signpost and serving on ArbCom and have said so. His tenacious refusal to even contemplate that he *might* be wrong is why the ANI lasted so long and is part of the larger problem illustrated over a long history. --DHeyward (talk) 21:57, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

@Callanecc: The CSD warning was earlier on 2 April. Can you check the logs? Did Gamaliel remove the CSD tag twice?!? (once on April 2 and once on April 7)? You only listed the April 7. --DHeyward (talk) 14:16, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

@Hammersoft: The policy violations started on [April 2 and continued for a week. That was the first CSD tag Gamaliel removed. --DHeyward (talk) 23:21, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

Fram In this action, Gamaliel's overzealous rev del was overturned at AN as well as a block he endorsed. Risker summed it up in the first comment and undid all the admin actions. --DHeyward (talk) 00:22, 14 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 Alanscottwalker

[Living person] sues Wikipedia over [alleged insult]

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

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

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

Proposed motion

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

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

Further

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

Statement by Carrite

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

Statement by Iridescent

For probably the first time in my life, I agree with every word Carrite says. This is not a decision Arbcom can make, since it's a question of ethics rather than policy, but it's extremely bad practice for a serving arb to have a position of authority at the Signpost, particularly when they're using that position to make at-best-feeble attempts at comedy in Wikipedia's most public internal forum. Please, consider resigning from one or the other. ‑ 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)

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

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

Statement by SB_Johnny

Kirill Lokshin: Please explain why you are recusing. --SB_Johnny | ^talk✌ 02:57, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

I think undertanding the rationales for the recusals in this case would be good to have on the record. If it's simply a case of not wantint to sit in judgement of a close colleague, that's certainly understandable but it also points to a structural problem.

Drmies: Perhaps in the future it would be better if members of the committee didn't close discussions on AN/I or elsewhere which concern fellow members of the committee. The current committee has been very quick to pull the trigger on (arguably overly argumentative) contributors who don't share a certain viewpoint on "speech politics" that the majority of the committee seems to hold, in some cases without prior discussion and/or much explanation after the fact. Any admin who (rightly or wrongly) blocked Gamaliel after ANI or AE discussion would almost certainly become the focus of a case, if not a speedy desysop. --SB_Johnny | ^talk✌ 15:03, 13 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)

@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)

Gamaliel's recent Gamergate actions included as well

Since MarkBernstein and Gamaliel brought up Gamergate as being behind all this, isn't it logical to include Gamaliel's recent admin tools use wrt Gamergate into this as well? As far as I can see, he has

• Rev-deled links to two Reddit discussions for BLP reasons (I only watched the first ones, where I see no BLP problems but which has mainly discussion of Gamaliel, making this probably not only a RevDel but also a WP:INVOLVED violation)
• Salted Alison Rapp and Allison Rapp with the reasons "Recently deleted BLP: WP:GAMERGATE"; Alison Rapp was created and deleted after one edit in 2005 (correct deletion, no link to Gamergate though), Allison Rapp has never been created. This seems to be pre-emptive salting with a fake reason (recently deleted BLP), as far as I can tell.
• See also his involvement with Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#MarkBernstein, indicating that Gamaliel considers himself an uninvolved admin wrt Mark Bernstein.

The above seems to indicate that Gamaliel really needs to take a step back from Gamergate anbd reconsider when he should or shouldn't use the admin tools personally. Too many very dubious actions in a short time and no sign of an end to this. Fram (talk) 13:12, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

@Gamaliel. Finally an answer to one of the many allegations of misconduct by you. Apart from the rather blatant WP:INVOLVED violation in that revdel, it also doesn't meet the claimed revdel RD2: this explicitly excludes "conduct accusations". That reddit link was focused on conduct accusations against you, said in an incivil way, but does not meet RevDel by far, and certainly not by you. (Again, I haven't looked at the second link, one reddit link was enough for me, it's not my style). Fram (talk) 13:26, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

@Gamaliel; I haven't said that all these were OK, did I? I don't even much care one way or the other about the initial page this all started about. I care about your actions and responses when challenged on these (the start of this case) or in related situations at the same time (this section). There is a difference between what we post, and linking to a page that has relevant discussion but may also have statements that would be BLP violations if we posted them. There is a serious difference though between using BLP to protect a living person from being disparaged in an article (or Signpost page), and misusing BLP to delete links to off-site pages that discuss the actions of people here (and even more so when you are the focus of that discussion). Discussions of editor or admin actions will often include things that that editor doesn't like and may include references to incompetence, abuse, ... If these are accompanied by relevant diffs, then they are not BLP violations (and certainly not revdel worthy). And seriously, nothing in that first reddit link is a serious BLP violation (not about Wikipedia editors, and even less about the few non-editors who are mentioned in passing). It's not material that could be used in an article of course, but on a relevant arb motion? Sure. Fram (talk) 13:51, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

@But, Gamaliel, now I do have you attention, perhaps you can now explain your interpretation of WP:INVOLVED and what "recently deleted BLP" means? Fram (talk) 13:52, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

@Gamaliel, thanks for confirming the impression I already got at the ANI discussion. You are willing to discuss the few raised problems you believe you have an excuse for, but completely ignore the many other things (like your reclosing of the discussion, removal of a CSD tag from a page you created, Involved status at the revdel, completely false reason to salt these pages, ...). So I guess we can now add WP:ADMINACCT to the admin policies you have violated. Fram (talk) 19:39, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

@Drmies, considering all that happened since, I withdraw my claim that at most I could see an admonishment. This is too serious to be dealt with in such a manner, and a case looking at whether Gamaliel can remain an admin may be necessary at this point. Fram (talk) 19:39, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

@Gamaliel: "Seriously? It's a violation of WP:ADMINACCT because I didn't respond to aggressive questioning quickly and sufficiently?" No, it is a violation because you didn't reply at all. These concerns were brought up at the ANI discussion, it's not as if this case request is the first time these are raised. I'll let others decide how convincing your replies are, let me just say that "Because I may have (I say 'may" because I've been attacked so often on Reddit I barely pay attention anymore) been one of those numerous living people attacked in those forums I should not act to protect others?" is a rather disingenuous response. You were the main subject of the actual link you revdel'ed (not somewhere else on reddit or somewhere on that forum, but in that precise link), and the main person that got "protected" by your action was you. That's the textbook example of "involved". It seems highly unlikely that this wasn't your intent. And please reread our BLP policy and what is and isn't covered by it.

As for "Are you seriously making the bad faith accusation that I deleted this BLP violation to cover up a "conduct accusation"? I have no idea what accusation is being made there about my Wikipedia conduct.", let me quote a few things to refresh your memory: "I like how within 2 hours Mark's guard dog Gamaliel decided to extend the 500/30 restriction to the article. 'How did this guy get administrative privileges?' Because everything he's done is always done an "uninvolved" with his own actions. How someone can not be involved with what they do is a classic wikipedia Gordian knot" and further "Neutral and independent and randomly coincidental arb Gamma rolls in to town, and invokes a rule designed for protecting the most controversial pages on Wikipedia like Israel, GamerGate and er... Brianna. Which coincidentally solely restricts the one editor questioning Mark!!! Much neutral. So wisdom. Truly gamma." This is about half of that discussion. Only the last post in it contains the oh-so-offending innuendo that prompted your rev-del, and even then it is only insulting to you, not to those people you supposedly tried to protect. If you really have reread that link and still had "no idea what accusation is being made there about my Wikipedia conduct", then I call bullshit. It's a thread solely about you and your protection of MarkBernstein. It may be completely offbase and nonsense, but your defense of your actions is severely lacking here. Fram (talk) 07:04, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

Using the Signpost as his personal playground

For the first time this year, the Signpost has a "Gallery" section. It is created by Gamaliel, titled "A history lesson", and features political cartoons, two of older political events, and then 5 about US (vice-)presidents, often related to elections. What this gallery has to do with the Signpost is anybody's guess. That it looks like a rather pathetic attempt to compare the Signpost and its April 1 Trump edition with historical newspaper cartoons is obvious though. This again shows that Gamaliel doesn't understand that the Signpost is not a general newspaper, but a newspaper about Wikipedia and the WMF, and that he also doesn't understand that it is not his personal playground. Please don't decline this case because the problems are over, as they clearly aren't. Fram (talk) 14:22, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

Statement by MONGO

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

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

Statement by Arkon

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

I'm still waiting for a clarification, or redaction. @Clerks, any thoughts? Arkon (talk) 21:25, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

Statement by MarkBernstein

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

Statement by Staberinde

Gamaliel's actions, as documented by Fram in the ANI thread, were definitely subpar for an admin. But while some kind of admonishment could be fitting, this incident alone is not really worthy of a full Arbcom case.--Staberinde (talk) 15:59, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

@Drmies, likelihood of more serious sanctions/rulings beyond a simple admonishment seems quite low, so it just does not seem worthy of time and effort for full case. If Arbcom could take a stance on this recent affair through smoother means, like motion or something, then I guess that could be worth considering. That said, previous statement applies only to the most recent BLP/ANI event, as I cannot comment on possible older problems, or lack thereof.--Staberinde (talk) 21:14, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

I would add that biggest issue here is not really about how serious BLP violation actually happened, it is about Gamaliel's actions then others started questioning it. No matter how awesome joke you made, it does not give you right to shut down discussion about it then other editors disagree. Some Gamergate stuff that keeps popping up looks a bit strange too. If case does get accepted, then it probably should be about Gamaliel's recent activities in general, and not just about that BLP-ANI incident.--Staberinde (talk) 21:25, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

Statement by Dennis Brown

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

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

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

Statement by The ed17

What JzG/Guy said above, in full, with the exception of being English. I am not lucky enough to have that accent. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 20:06, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

I'd also like to endorse MastCell's statement below, especially "it's hard for me to see this as motivated by any real concern for BLP. It looks more like a tactical deployment of weaponized policy." (emphasis mine) Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 18:56, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

And I'd like to third Milowent's addition to his statement in the context of MastCell's quote above. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 20:40, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

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

Statement by uninvolved Hammersoft

I make no comment regarding any other person involved in this dispute. I do make the following observations with regards to Gamaliel, who as an administrator and ArbCom member is expected to hold to higher standards of conduct than others (WP:ADMIN#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:

1. On a WP:AN/I thread involving Gamaliel, he reverted to close three times in 11 minutes [3][4][5] (updated to correct diffs). He did not inform and/or warn Arkon, with whom he was edit warring, about 3RR. He just kept edit warring instead. He stopped at 3. WP:3RR is not a bright line. Gamaliel, as an administrator and ArbCom member knew better, and continued the edit war anyway. Worse, Gamaliel is directly involved in the dispute called out in the thread. This is not the first time Gamaliel has been involved in an edit war [6]. There's simply no excuse for this behavior.
2. Gamaliel apparently is more concerned about Signpost working than he is with WP:BLP policy [7]. He posted that in response to User:Ryk72's post a few minutes earlier [8] which cited that policy.
3. Gamaliel violated Wikipedia:No_legal_threats#Perceived_legal_threats policy with this diff. After being taken to task for it [9], he struck the comment [10].
4. Gamaliel appears to have violated WP:RPA in this diff. The three responses from Arkon that he removed as personal attacks were directed at Gamaliel, which raises the bar for removal to "clear cut cases". While some of the content here is objectionable and violates civility, calling all three of these section removals together as a "clear cut case" is an extreme stretch. Again as an administrator and ArbCom member Gamaliel should have known better than to act in this manner, and could have asked for someone else to step in. He did not.
5. According to reports (non-admins can not confirm), Gamaliel removed a speedy deletion tag from Wikipedia: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 [11]. 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)

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

An example

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

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

ArbCom can't handle this

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

Statement by Yngvadottir

This needs examination and action under BLP and under the discretionary sanctions authorized in American politics 2, and also because the AN/I case kicked the can down the street to ArbCom, 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.

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

Statement by MrX

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

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

Statement by Jytdog

To be clear, the proposal as brought is focused squarely on a possible BLP violation by Gamaliel. Examining that, this is ridiculous as we are talking about Signpost and something that was clearly satire. We would be having a different conversation if this had unfolded in the encyclopedia. I urge the committee to decline. Jytdog (talk) 00:03, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

Statement by John Carter

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

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

Statement by Liz

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

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

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

Statement by Cryptic

The ANI closes and reopenings (including diffs modifying closes for completeness): [12] [13] [14] [15] [16] [17] [18] [19] [20] [21] [22] [23] [24] [25] [26] [27] [28] I'm pretty sure that's all of them. —Cryptic 01:01, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
Clerks: I know how the "watch this page" button works, too. Don't add me to the lists.

Statement by Euryalus

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

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

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

Statement by Ryk72

I am of two minds as to the acceptance of this case.

On one hand, there are several concerning aspects which would speak to acceptance:

1. Closing comments for the ANI filing imply that sitting Arbitration Committee members are immune to sanction in that forum ([29]). It is not acceptable that Arbs be universally immune from sanction for clear policy violations; if ANI will not address this, ArbCom must.
2. Gamaliel's actions in clear breach of policy. From the ANI filing these include: Removal of CSD tags from own articles (no diffs, deleted page). Edit warring to restore information removed by clearly identified, good faith, BLP redactions ([1][2][3], deleted page). Edit warring to restore the close of the ANI discussion of which they were the subject ([30][31][32]). Creation and protection of a WP:POINTY Userbox (no diffs, deleted page).
3. Ed's page protection, preventing good faith BLP redactions; graciously self-reverted following discussion (no diffs, deleted page). NOTE: This is included only because it was part of the initial ANI filing. I could not recommend sanction of any kind here.
4. Guy's close of the ANI discussion; clearly without consensus for that close ([33][34]).
5. Gamaliel's personal attacks on, aspersions & general incivility towards editors in the ANI discussion. There appears to be a focus on other editors' motives rather than on Gamaliel's own actions; with particular focus on Gamergate ([35][36][37][38]). NOTE: I would suggest that this demonstrates that the required degree of admin objectivity has been lost with regard to that topic area; and that it would be better it were policed by other admins.
6. Disruptive & derailing shitposts in the ANI discussion; particularly those by MarkBernstein ([39][40][41][42][43][44]) and Milowent ([45]). While shitposting appears to be the stock in trade of the former, it is disappointing to see it spreading to other editors. NOTE: I am the target of some of MarkBernstein's aspersions & personal attacks in that discussion.

Some of these aspects appear unlikely to be addressed without a case.

There are also broader questions as to whether The Signpost should be exempted from our policy on biographies of living persons, which applies everywhere; and of the use of Wikipedia to promote partisan political agendas; the concern in this regard is not only the puerile "small hands" sub-article, but the main News & Notes article from the 1 April 2016 Signpost; political satire which makes derogatory statements about a high-profile U.S. politician, and links to external sites which cast that person in a disparaging light.

Wikipedia is not a publisher of political satire; this includes acting as a signal boost for external political commentary. These questions are perhaps better addressed elsewhere, and I support the calls for RfCs. NOTE: There was also a previous attack on the same politician in the main page summary note for the 16 March 2016 Traffic Report, which implied that U.S. citizens should or would emigrate if that politician was elected President. This is no longer viewable, due to the internal workings of the Signpost.

On the other hand, I am unconvinced that a full case would not serve only to bring more heat & animosity to the Project.

In my block support statement at the ANI filings, I was inclined that this might be best resolved with a brief acknowledgement that actions were wrong, a sincere apology, and a commitment to not again use Wikipedia for the promotion of partisan politics.

Given the statements here, I would now add, per Carrite: resignation from either ArbCom, The Signpost or both; failing that, per the highly estimable Yngvadottir: a recall vote. NOTE: Yngvadottir might feel rightly aggrieved by a failure to address this matter; they were desysopped for far less.

I also believe that the committee needs to send a strong message that it holds itself to the same standards as holds the lowest (by edit count) of our editors, and a motion of censure or admonishment is the bare minimum required.

We can be better. But this episode is not the better to which we should aspire. - Ryk72 ^'c.s.n.s.' 10:18, 12 April 2016 (UTC) amended Ryk72 ^'c.s.n.s.' 11:22, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

Update - On reflection, and review of Gamaliel's statement above, I am concerned that there are issues which will not be resolved by a simple motion of admonishment. Per KingsIndian, while there are some contrite statements, they largely fall into the "non-apology apology" category; and the contention that this is simply an agenda-driven drama stirred up against me demonstrates a lack of understanding of the community's core concerns about this incident. Based on statements by a number of editors, the issues also appear more long standing than just this incident.
There is also a concern of involved use of admin tools outside the context of this particular incident, and outside the scope of American Politics; as highlighted in the statement by Fram. I am particularly concerned by a use of the new "30/500" restriction on an article Talk page,[46] with the effect that a discussion about a potential COI was quashed (additional details at WP:AE#MarkBernstein and WP:A/R/M#Comment by Ryk72; additional diffs & links available on request). We need to be considerate of living persons, and comply rigorously with WP:BLP; but we don't need admins using heavy-handed restrictions of articles, not to protect the article subject, but in protection of polarising editors.

Based on the latest evidence, I could not support not proceeding to a case; unless the committee will countenance both removal (WP:ARBCOND) and desysop by motion. - Ryk72 ^'c.s.n.s.' 20:26, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

Statement by entirely uninvolved Ultraexactzz

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

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

Statement by wbm1058

Carrite makes some valid points, though I won't go that far. My advice to Gamaliel:

• Focus your Signpost work on writing factual news articles, rather than opinion or humor pieces, for the duration of your Arbitration Committee membership
• Your only opinion pieces for Signpost, should you write any more this year, should be made from your official position as an Arbitration Committee member, and should be reflective of the opinion of the committee as a whole

@Gamaliel: "We have no intention of letting humor or fake news spread beyond April 1." Ahem. What do you call this? wbm1058 (talk) 16:15, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

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

Statement by Capeo

The real joke is this ArbCom. Yngvadottir got desysopped for far less than the laundry list of bad behavior on display by a sitting Arb here. That's the level of behavior we are to expect from our Arbs? Blatant political POV pushing, edit warring to keep a BLP issue, a host of pointy edits and protections basically giving the finger to the community's opinion on the matter and now it's all recusals and declines except for one Arb with some good sense? Unreal. Capeo (talk) 18:56, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

• @Opabinia regalis:, I never said if I agreed with Yngvadottir's desysop or not. It followed the letter of the law but an argument could be made for mitigating circumstances surround the SINGLE action that led to the desysop. I brought it up as a point of comparison to juxtapose the huge difference in degree here. Look at Hammersoft's and others difs here. This was a long string of repeated awful judgments that would have gotten anyone else blocked in the very least. This isn't even about the argument of whether or not the article was a BLP violation. It's about the fact that the community decided it was and Gamaliel acted as though he didn't need to abide by the community's decision. When finally forced to he acted like a child with a string of pointy edits and policy violations and seemed to care more about the Signpost than showing the level of decorum expected of an Arb. Sidenote: Gamaliel should be staying a million miles away from AE comments about Gamergate at this point yet there they are right now. Capeo (talk) 15:27, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
• I have to note that it seems pretty much every Arb that has declined this case seems to be mistakenly viewing this as about the joke itself. It's not. One of your own has outlined enough difs themselves to warrant a case and that's ignoring the many more that have been added by other editors since. The request is about edit warring, involved actions, abuse of tools, lack of judgement and a serious lack of accountability. Capeo (talk) 20:03, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
• I have to concur with Fram. The Signpost gallery, titled A History Lesson no less, is just more pointy behavior. I can't quite grasp if the intent is to draw a comparison between the joke article and past political satire or what but either way it's not what the Signpost is for and it's certainly not an action from someone who is taking seriously that their apparent pointy, politicized editing is one of the issues being discussed here. Capeo (talk) 14:35, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

Statement by Davey2010

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

Statement by Sir Joseph

While I'm not sure if the behavior violates BLP, it most certainly violates "Conduct Unbecoming" which should be a policy, if it isn't one already. While I doubt any serious repercussions will occur, at the very least Gamaliel should be admonished that this most recent episode is not the way an editor, let alone an admin, let alone a member of Arbcom should act. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 20:44, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

The claim that the Signpost is independent and therefore subject to 1A and not BLP would work if Wikipedia didn't host the signpost and have it within Wiki's purview of laws. It's not independent, it's part of Wikipedia. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 20:36, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

Statement by Ched

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

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

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

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

Statement by Pldx1

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

Statement by Only in death

Given that Short-fingered vulgarian was in the process of being deleted (in part due to a number of delete voters expressing BLP concerns) at the same time as this kerfuffle, it should have been clear to anyone that there was a BLP discussion to be had that could not be summerarily reverted/waved away. It should also be clear to anyone that a well-sourced encyclopedia article (despite being overly negative) is very different to a non-article piece of political smearing. Article space is sourced and the intent is to inform the reader. The signpost essentially exists to provide a place for its writers to pontificate. What made this a BLP violation was not the content specifically, it was that it was from the start intended to demean and disparage a living person for no purpose other than entertainment of its author/s. That is absolutely a BLP violation and Gamaliel's subsequent actions (including edit warring, abuse of tools as per Fram etc) have deserve, at the minimum, a topic ban from American Politics. Only in death does duty end (talk) 08:07, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

Statement by Hasteur

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

Statement by Starke Hathaway

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

Gamaliel, in point of fact WP:BLPTALK does draw a distinction between linking to potentially objectionable BLP material in non-article space and outright posting it on Wikipedia. -Starke Hathaway (talk) 13:49, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

Statement by Tony1

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

Statement by Beyond My Ken

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

Statement by Resolute

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

Statement by Uninvolved The Wordsmith}

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

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

Statement by Cirt

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

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

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

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

— Cirt (talk) 16:22, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

Statement by BU Rob13

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

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

Statement by Kharkiv07

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

Statement by Neutrality

I agree wholeheartedly with MastCell's wise comments. I see little or no evidence of a long-term or enduring problem here (though undoubtedly this was nobody's finest hour). I cannot help but feel that the full Arbcom treatment would shed far more heat than light. In sum, I do not think acceptance of this case would help build the project. Neutrality^talk 03:16, 15 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)
• Recuse Kharkiv07 (T) 00:15, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
• Recuse Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:45, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
• Recuse as I was involved with the CSD Mdann52 (talk) 11:46, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

BLP and the American politician: Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter <6/3/4/2>

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)
  • As was to be expected this little plant has seen some healthy growth: must be the spring rains. Please allow me one quick note before I try to take in the whole: I understand the concern expressed by User:Ryk72 regarding this closing comment. The optimistic reading of User:SB Johnny's close, "no administrator is going to take action", as a pragmatic statement, i.e., this discussion is not going to lead to a block. However, I emphatically disagree with the rest, "... without explicit prior approval from ArbCom". There is no such rule and there shouldn't be such a rule: if I screw up and abuse my tools or, I don't know, am edit warring to a blockable degree, someone better warn me and, if need be, block me. Drmies (talk) 17:30, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

Long-windedness with an ACCEPT in the middle--regrettably. Drmies (talk) 20:00, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

I am of two, maybe three minds. Yes, the joke was a BLP violation; the BLP makes no exceptions for jokes or for the Signpost. But BLP violations come in various kinds, and this was not en egregious kind. Wrong, but not a capital offense. Subsequent actions were bad as well; I am particularly bothered by the edit warring over the ANI close. JzG's close was not funny and a BLP violation in its own right, and Gamaliel's reverting its undoing was clearly INVOLVED; repeating it was foolish and unbecoming. Moreover, when one is in a hole one should stop digging, but Gamaliel continued to dig. Justifying those actions by pointing at the motes in others' eyes also constitutes digging, though my metaphors are getting out of hand. Some of the comments made by other editors in this case request seem to whisk away the BLP infraction and the unbecoming behavior (for an Arb/admin), but the matter is serious enough. At the same time, I cannot help but think that some of the hyperbole here indicates there are axes to grind, and bringing up "five unimpressive candidates" for the presidency and gender trouble is just that--hyperbole. This doesn't take away from the facts of the case, but it is certainly...well, also unbecoming. If the Signpost is the problem, and Gamaliel's involvement with it, that should be dealt with in another forum. Gamaliel doesn't edit the Signpost as an arb and if our entire project looks like an exercise in Marxist marketing, it's not the Signpost's fault. By now, having pondered this long enough, I want to stay on the safe side and Accept. I do not think that the case is strong enough right now to force Gamaliel to step down or to give up the tools, and whether I am correct in that or not, a case will prove it (I believe in the process). I do believe that a censure of some kind is in order, an admonishment like Kelapstick's eloquent comment about shit. And let me add that of course I do feel some loyalty to my ArbCom colleagues, but my first loyalty (here on Wikipedia) is to the community of editors and then to the BLP. Let me add also that I have respect for Gamaliel as an editor and an admin, while I believe that simultaneously I (we) can look objectively at the facts and decide on them. If we (as someone suggested above) are supposed to be examples--well, then I apologize for setting such a long-winded example, such a waffling one. This is just not an easy case, neither immediately clear as a serious-enough case that should be immediately acted on, nor something to be whisked away as a joke. And to name-check Yngvadottir, I ran for ArbCom in part because I think that difficult cases should be handled with deliberation, not with immediate desysopping. Drmies (talk) 19:57, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

• SB_Johnny, maybe so, but I think we all agree that the ANI discussion was going nowhere. If it had been headed toward a block or ban or desysop, I wouldn't have closed it--and if it had been headed for a desysop it would have been an ArbCom matter anyway. ANI is just not a real good forum for complicated stuff. Whether this is any better, who can tell. Drmies (talk) 15:47, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
• Recuse. Keilana (talk) 18:44, 11 April 2016 (UTC)
• Okay so the issues that I see ArbCom possibly being able to look at / resolve:
  • Actions on Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2010-03-17/News and notes from various editors - BLP vio or not, edit warring, removing CSD notices (had been notified), questionable use of rollback, this ridiculous nastiness and POINT series [47] [48] [49] [50] [51] (the page would need to be put into history only review for the case)
  • Actions at User:Gamaliel/Small hands - POINT or not, BATTLEGROUND or not, use of full protection in own userspace vs. INVOLVED.
  • Actions in the ANI discussion - civility/personal attacks, revert warring the close (I'd be very appreciative if someone would please collect all of the diffs of someone closing the discussion and the reverts of it being closed [from everyone who did it]), closing a discussion about oneself (and something about a WP:STICK [52] [53] [54]).
  • Issues relating to Gamaliel specifically, those I've mentioned above as well as what's presented in Hammersoft's statement

Is there anything I've missed from anyone involved? @Iridescent: Where is the wheel-warring you mentioned? Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 00:22, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

• I was minded to accept the case based on my dot points above. Having thought about it over the last few days I'm even more convinced that we need to accept a case to look at the April Fools issue (primarily my dot points) involving Gamaliel and others (policy/guideline violations, disruption as well as general nastiness) and Gamaliel's recent administrative actions (Fram's statement). For clarity, I don't see the need to have another case about Gamergate, but I imagine it's going to relate to it. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 10:30, 14 April 2016 (UTC) Rewritten (clarified intent, intended meaning not changed). Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 14:06, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

• decline Gamaliel has been contrite about the initial material that led to this. The material is nebulous and tangential enough that it is in a grey area WRT BLP policy, and the subsequent morass involved alot of folks with opinions and I think it would be unproductive to prolong that for another several weeks, particularly as the issue as such has been deleted/resolved. The outstanding query is whether an arb should be writing on the signpost and the best way to resolve that would be a community-wide RfC to get a quantitative feel rather than the opinions of a few here. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 02:24, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
• Decline. First off, to paraphrase Francis Ford Coppola's Apocalypse Now, Handing out BLP sanctions for April Fools Day hijinks is like handing out speeding tickets at the Indy 500. This has been well documented by MastCell above. If that is to change, it has to come from the community and be done wholesale, not targeted at one specific user. Second, everyone involved in anything related to April Fools' Day 2016 should be admonished (and I really hate that word) because y'all aren't funny. Third, I agree with Cas, determining if someone should sit as an Arbitrator, and the editor-in-chief of The Signpost is not a Committee decision, a proper RfC should be held to determine that. Fourth, I was unfortunate enough to watch the AN/I thread pan out in near real time, Gamaliel's actions there were poor to say the least (I will not use the term subpar as that would be even more of an understatement than poor), however in my mind, they do not reach the level of someone being desysopped (arbitrator or not). They do not reach the level of blocking (administrator or not). His actions fall short of points 1 and 2 of Wikipedia:Arbitration/Policy#Conduct_of_arbitrators, however I would not say that they are repeated nor gross enough to warrant removal from the committee. As those three actions are really the only outcomes that would come out of this arbitration case request, my formal response is:

Gamaliel, you know better than this. You are better than this. Get your shit together, and lead by example.

I trust if there is to be an actual admonishment motion, that someone may write something a little more eloquent than that. Or not. --kelapstick^(bainuu) 05:34, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

For clarity, Ryk72, and thank you for bringing it up, being a member of ArbCom grants no immunity from AN, AN/I, or any other page which are abbreviated and posted in blue-linked capital letters. I don't think anybody on the Committee believes they have any such immunity (although I wouldn't presume to speak for them, that is just my understanding). --kelapstick^(bainuu) 10:28, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

Reviewing the Admin Accountability concerns brought up by Fram, this request has moved beyond edit warring over The Signpost, and a kerfuffle at AN/I. All this combined (which is far more than the initial case request was) suggests that there should be an in-depth review. Change to Accept. --kelapstick^(bainuu) 21:34, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

• Decline. I was in the middle of writing a long post when I was interrupted in real life, and when I returned I found Kelapstick's one-liner much superior to my four meandering points. So I'm just going to put it in a handy little collapse box and say "per Kelapstick" up here. Opabinia regalis (talk) 06:16, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

Long-windedness

Some people have proposed a case scope involving allegations of political POV-pushing dating back years. An example offered is an article last deleted in 2007. The community had ample opportunity to review over a decade of Gamaliel's editing during the course of several weeks in November and December 2015, and the result of that review was to elect him to arbcom. This is not a productive avenue of inquiry. Members of arbcom volunteered for a specific role in dispute resolution. It shouldn't come with diplomatic immunity. If you think someone has behaved poorly while performing some other role on Wikipedia, there is no reason it should have to come to arbcom just because that person is a member of the committee. If you think there are some roles not compatible with committee membership, take it up with the person affected, or start a community RfC about it; I can't see a situation where we are going to start picking and choosing the on-wiki extracurriculars of our membership. Most of what happened in the ANI thread was indeed poor behavior that unnecessarily antagonized the situation. People do sometimes defensively overreact when dragged to ANI; this is hardly new news. A lesson for all to keep in mind next time someone appears here after some drama-escalation at ANI. I certainly hope we won't see more of it, but it is not arbcom-case-worthy. Having a case about this will do nothing but give several more weeks of undue prominence to this particular joke, which surely those who have serious BLP concerns would prefer to avoid. Opabinia regalis (talk) 06:16, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

• Hammersoft Quite the opposite, in my opinion it would be disrespectful to the community to take any action that implies arbitrators are somehow immune from normal community processes. Outside of arb business, an arb has exactly the same status as any other community member. We don't need to be further reinforcing the perception that Wikipedia has an aristocracy. Capeo, that action was taken by a different committee with different members; I think you'll find that some of us now here would have opposed it. Opabinia regalis (talk) 20:28, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

• Accept Any long-term editor, any administrator, and for damn sure any arbitrator should have known better than to produce BLP violations, especially by intentional choice rather than error or forgetfulness. The actions after this was pointed out to Gamaliel was just as bad. I really, really do not want to spend the next four weeks on this (and therefore would likely support an extremely strong admonishment) but this was not acceptable conduct from an admin and an arbitrator. Courcelles (talk) 16:04, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
• Recuse GorillaWarfare (talk) 18:05, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
• Decline per MastCell and OR. Was the 30+ year old "joke" funny? No. Do we trounce someone for repeating a joke that was covered by Last Week Tonight, The Drudge Report, Vanity Fair, NPR, The Washington Post, CNN, The Huffington Post, Vice, Talking Points Memo and The Hill? Again no, especially when you stand it beside things that were said in AfDs that very same day. If you would like to bar someone from being on the signpost staff and an arb, start a RFC. If you would like to end any leniency for April Fools "jokes", then start a RFC. (I would personally support sending most of this tradition to Valhalla.) None of those things can be done here. --In actu (Guerillero) | My Talk 18:46, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
• Accept in accordance with email request on behalf of arbitrator Salvio giuliano (talk · contribs). Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 14:27, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
• I'm working on reading through this, but i'm not there yet. The one thing I will note is that if there is consensus to take action against and Arbitrator, that the community do it. They community can further ask for a review by us or just simply let us know. But I'd rather the community not be held back by the fact that the member is a sitting Arbitrator. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 16:34, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
• Accept. The are several points in this request where I think the committee needs to make a statement, and a case would be the open way to do it. Though I would have thought them pretty obvious, this discussions here seems to show otherwise. They have respect to the independence of the Signpost, the common-sense view of the relationship of jokes and BLP, and the delusion that being an arb should be seen by themselves or others as an immunity from criticism or a permission for irresponsibility. DGG ( talk ) 19:21, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
• I'm on holiday at the moment and would prefer not to vote until I get back and can read through this again when I am less exhausted. I will definitely do this by Saturday. Ah, I didn't count the recuses, my vote won't matter. So I shall simply state that Arbs have no special immunity, that I can see the issue concerning his role on Signpost but agree that it would be a community decision or hi, and that continuing to discuss the BLP issue perpetuates it. Hopefully a case, which seems inevitable now, can be dealt with I with a shortened timeline to avoid that. Doug Weller talk 19:58, 14 April 2016 (UTC)