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

Main case page (Talk) — Evidence (Talk) — Workshop (Talk) — Proposed decision (Talk)

Case clerk: TBD Drafting arbitrator: TBD

Behaviour on this page: Arbitration case pages exist to assist the Arbitration Committee in arriving at a fair, well-informed decision. You are required to act with appropriate decorum during this case. While grievances must often be aired during a case, you are expected to air them without being rude or hostile, and to respond calmly to allegations against you. Accusations of misbehaviour posted in this case must be proven with clear evidence (and otherwise not made at all). Editors who conduct themselves inappropriately during a case may be sanctioned by an arbitrator, clerk, or functionary, without further warning, by being banned from further participation in the case, or being blocked altogether. Personal attacks against other users, including arbitrators or the clerks, will be met with sanctions. Behavior during a case may also be considered by the committee in arriving at a final decision.

Part of my evidence removed by ArbCom for BLP reasons

In this edit ArbCom (through a clerk who is not to blame) has removed part of my evidence because it "appears to violate the policy on BLP". It seems to me essential that a disputed rev-del action can be discussed and checked, and I would like explanation from the arbcom member(s) which ordered this why this was removed. It is obviously not a source that belongs in article space, but this is an arbcom case about the actions of an editor, and by removing this part of evidence you are actually making it harder (if not impossible) to judge this for other editors. Considering that pages which have been deleted at MfD as BLP violations can be undeleted for the duration of the case, I wonder why this one reddit link was so terrible that it wasn't acceptable as evidence. Fram (talk) 06:43, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

Hi Fram. The removal was not requested by Arbcom directly. A request was sent to the clerks mailing list asking for the submission to be reviewed. As it appeared it may have been a BLP violation this was removed by myself and I have advised Arbcom of the removal so they can decide what to do with regards to it, if they agree it can be included then we can reinatate it. Amortias (T)(C) 07:30, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

Hi Amortias, If the concern is with the link included within the removed evidence, then I direct the attention of the committee & clerks to: i) WP:BLPTALK, Although this policy applies to posts about Wikipedians in project space, some leeway is permitted to allow the handling of administrative issues by the community, which explicitly permits the inclusion; and ii) WP:NPA#External links, Linking to off-site harassment, attacks, or privacy violations against persons who edit Wikipedia 'for the purpose of attacking another person who edits Wikipedia is never acceptable, which implicitly permits such links. The purpose here, and in my original edit which included these links, is not to attack another person who edits Wikipedia; the purpose is firmly placed in the handling of administrative issues by the community - in this case, a discussion of whether an admin acted while involved. - Ryk72 ^'c.s.n.s.' 08:05, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

"Part of your evidence submitted at this page appears to violate the policy on BLP. I this evidence is required then it should be submitted to arbcom-en-b@lists.wikimedia.org . This has been carried out as a clerk action and should not be reverted without express permission from the Arbitration committee. " was the message you left on my user talk page. It now turns out that "appears to violate the policy on BLP" is purely on the say-so of some anonymous editor, and that you claim that a clerk action without instructions of the ArbCom can only be reverted with explicit permission of the ArbCom? This seems very, very weird; clerks should not get involved with what evidence is acceptable and what isn't to such a degree as you are doing here. Nothing in Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Clerks or Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Clerks/Procedures seems to give you the right to make such a change on behalf of an anonymous editor with only the ArbCom having the right to undo it. Either you believe it to be a BLP violation, and you remove it based on your opinion; or you get instructed by ArbCom to do so; or you just leave it alone.

If you want to clerk, you can remove the "evidence" by Whatamidoing (not evidence as defined at the top of the page) and Montanabw (largely the same reason, not a single diff in all of his text). Or perhaps I should have asked you this by less visible means to get some result? Please reinstate my evidence and let ArbCom decide whether it is necessary to keep that link as evidence of an involved rev-del or not. Just like the restored MFD-deleted page is necessary as evidence in this case, even though it is also a BLP violation. Fram (talk) 09:24, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

Hi Fram. The issue was brought to our attention on the mailing list. I reviewed it and in my opinion it was a BLP violation. As such I removed it. As soon as I have had a response from the committee about the status of the statement I will either revert myself (or any other clerk can do so if they get thee before me) or advise further. I have requested that the case clerks review the evidence you have mentioned above as I am currently working off my phone and clerking evidence isn't easy to do so at present.

Amortias (T)(C) 12:07, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

Ah yes, that mailing list where some people involved in this case will afterwards get to see who requested such things, and other people involved here won't. I wonder why "this is a BLP violation" needs to be said in secret instead of out in the open. I also wonder why such things are even accepted. Anyway, if that is a BLP violation, then you will have to delete many things used or linked to in the evidence, starting with the MFD pages that were undeleted. Very, very strange, I hope the ArbCom will revert your action. Fram (talk) 12:17, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

Fram, the question was "please look into it" and the answer was "yes", and my follow-up action was, well, Wikipedia:Revision_deletion#Criteria_for_redaction, item 2. How secret this list is or will be is of little relevance. I am surprised that you have a problem with this, but if you want me to say "this is a BLP violation" out in the open, sure: this is a BLP violation, and I have revdeleted this because I consider it to be "Grossly insulting, degrading, or offensive material". If the point of including it was "lots of folks on the internet think Gamaliel is xxxx", well, that point does not need to be proven with this diff. I don't know if I speak for all ArbCom members here but I would have done this if I were merely a lowly adminny peon, and if something like that had been said about you and someone posted it, I would have revdeleted it too. As a side note, I can't help but thinking that this is a side note, and that all this harping on clerks and hammering on procedure and whatnot is unproductive. Drmies (talk) 05:29, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

• Hi Amortias, I note that the removed evidence itself (not including any links) contains information about exactly two living persons - I am one; the second is a party to this case - none of the removed evidence appears to contain unsourced information about either of these persons; it is, rather, copiously sourced. Without repeating the ostensible "BLP violation", are you able to advise, by number, the sentence of the removed evidence in which it is contained?
  I further note this discussion, on the Talk page of another ArbCom clerk; in the interests of transparency, are you able to advise: A. Is the "living person" 1) a Wikipedia editor, 2) a party to this case, 3) mentioned in the evidence provided in this case? B. Is the reporting person i) a party to this case, ii) mentioned in the evidence provided in this case? C. Is the ostensible "BLP violation" only in relation to the included link? - Ryk72 ^'c.s.n.s.' 13:16, 21 April 2016 (UTC)
• There is a consensus of clerks supporting Amortias's clerk action. It was perfectly valid and is appreciated. For the avoidance of doubt, clerk actions need not be requested by arbitrators; any non-recused clerk may take such clerk actions as are necessary to fulfill their mandate under the arbitration policy, including enforcing good standards of conduct and decorum on the Committee's pages, which clearly extends to dealing with BLP violations. Appeals of such clerk actions may be directed to the clerk team or the Arbitration Committee (clerks-llists.wikimedia.org or arbcom-en-blists.wikimedia.org. Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 00:10, 22 April 2016 (UTC)
  • I would like to note here that Amortias's conduct here has been exemplary. Upon his action, he immediately posted to the clerks' list for review, and noted this discussion. I'd also like to note that this action has been endorsed by two arbitrators (Drmies, by revdelling the link, and OR, by email). Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 00:17, 22 April 2016 (UTC)
    • Could you confirm that it's the position of the committee that a) disputed material that may be a BLP violation should be removed until a clear consensus as to its status is determined, and b) that even though something may be published on a first amendment external protected website, it may be not be published on wiki due to the higher standards of the project? NE Ent 01:33, 22 April 2016 (UTC)
      • @Ryk72 and NE Ent: Yes, the problem is the link, which contains both BLP violations and harassment. I doubt any of the reasonable people here need any further guidance on what part of the linked material is the problem. I don't think I, Drmies, or the committee as a whole is taking a general position by removing this particular link. And as for the first amendment, XKCD is always right ;) Opabinia regalis (talk) 04:22, 22 April 2016 (UTC)
      • Oops, also meant to ping Fram. Opabinia regalis (talk) 04:23, 22 April 2016 (UTC)
        • @Opabinia regalis: If it's not obvious to you, I believe NE Ent (talk · contribs) is actually referencing Gamaliel's actions as well as Fram's.--v/r - TP 04:31, 22 April 2016 (UTC)
          • @TParis: Maybe so, but a talk page thread about redacting Fram's evidence is entirely the wrong place to make statements of general principle that implicitly judge matters that are already at issue in the case. Opabinia regalis (talk) 04:58, 22 April 2016 (UTC)
            • Actually, I was asking a question to try to get information that will help me better utilize the limited space I have on the evidence section; a common theme has been the material at the heart of the case was justified per first amendment rights; Opabinia regalis's reply indicates that at least 1/11 of the committee understands that is incorrect, which is a positive sign. NE Ent 09:38, 22 April 2016 (UTC)
        • @Opabinia regalis: Many thanks. While I do not concur that the redaction & revdel is aligned with policy (either BLP or NPA), understanding the concern will make it possible to submit evidence without repetition of the issue. - Ryk72 ^'c.s.n.s.' 04:42, 22 April 2016 (UTC) clarifying, reping - Ryk72 ^'c.s.n.s.' 04:54, 22 April 2016 (UTC)
• I've reviewed the removed content and the only piece I could even imagine falling under the BLP and Harassment policy is the actual link itself. The rest of the content should be restored minus the link. The link itself should at least be submitted in private to Arbcom and considered as private evidence. *And Fram should be minnow'd for linking to an off-wiki discussion. That's toeing the line on the wrong side of it.--v/r - TP 04:29, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

Before we get the fish out, we should probably amend our policies to align with our practices. - Ryk72 ^'c.s.n.s.' 04:42, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

On balance, I think it's better to let Fram decide how to reframe that part of his presentation. Opabinia regalis (talk) 04:58, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

• TParis, sure, maybe, sure, but let's not forget--and I know you know this--that there are real living people hiding under these user names. There is no need for "I could even imagine" (my italics)--you saw it. I would be the last to be minnowing (or trouting) Fram, who has been here for much longer than me and has done more for this beautiful project than I ever could, but I am somewhat puzzled by it. Drmies (talk) 05:29, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

@Opabinia regalis: Fair enough, but has that been communicated to Fram? Generally, the policy is that if you attempt to restore oversighted material - you get blocked. Oversighting material is a pretty bright line that tells all involved to back the f--- off. So, unless Fram was invited to rephrase, I don't imagine they'd be inclined to risk it.--v/r - TP 06:35, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

• @TParis: I would never link to such off-wiki discussions in itself: the question is whether Gamaliel's rev-del was an involved action (he claims it wasn't and that the link wasn't about his actions); the only way for everyone to judge this was to provide the link, where in my opinion the BLP violations (parts of the final two posts in it) were so minimal as to be outweighed by the relevance of the remainder of the link to the evidence. Fram (talk) 07:12, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

• @Fram: I'm sure we could go back and forth on this - but it'd be a waste of time. Let's move forward and see how Arbcom wants you to present that evidence now.--v/r - TP 07:15, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

I believe it to be ridiculous to remove a link to that reddit page from an ArbCom evidence page for BLP reasons (when e.g. the page deleted at MFD is restored, apparently BLP doesn't count then?), but I'll not restore it. But I would appreciate guidance from the ArbCom whether I may restore the remainder of that post I made (the evidence that the revdel by Gamaliel was involved and that his defence that the thread wasn't about him was ridiculous) can be restored, and why all of it had to be deleted instead of just the link.

Secondly, if even those selected quotes and my commentary are not acceptable for some weird reason, please tell me how I am supposed to present evidence of Gamaliels involved revdel (which, as policy violation and abuse of admin tools, is not a minor aspect of this case). ArbCom often gets the criticism of doing too much in secret (in camera, if you prefer) and not enough out in the open, and actions like this (no matter how much the ArbCom and clerks back each other on it) strengthen that impression. Fram (talk) 07:05, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

@Fram:It's the link that was the problem - such links can be emailed to use but should not be added to evidence. The length of your evidence of course is another issue which we'll address. I want to emphasise that Drmies said, that there are real living people behind these names and actions on Wikipedia can have serious real life consequences. Doug Weller talk 13:46, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

OK, thanks. I don't completely agree with how this was handled (I prefer such things to be there for everyone to judge, and don't think the posting of that link really can have any "serious real life consequences"), but it's not important enough to continue about it, and I'm glad that it now is clear what was considered unacceptable to post, and what was OK. I'll readd my post (or a shorter version) about it minus the link, and if I do need to shorten my evidence somehow I'll deal with that later. Fram (talk) 13:55, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

I hope this version is acceptable? It loses some information, but I have to be brief apparently. Fram (talk) 14:03, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

That's fine with me, Fram. What it loses is that which was unacceptable--and therefore could not be "there for everyone to judge". Didn't we cover this earlier already? Drmies (talk) 14:06, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

Thanks. I sometimes have the tendency to restate my objections when I'm not convinced by earlier explanations. What you call "unacceptable" is for me (in the context where it was used now, and as an EL) "mildly objectionable". Everyone who tried to post such "fantasy" crap as at the end of that discussion "here", in an article or talk page, about anyone, should get reverted and trouted at the least. It's the same difference as not calling Erdogan names here (onwiki), but linking to or extensively quoting from the German controversial satire on the talk page of a relevant article (or even in an article). (Böhmermann affair is what I'm talking about). But I'll shut up now ;-) Fram (talk) 14:29, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

Comment to Kingsindian

Hi Kingsindian, you said apologies if I have missed anyone. The one editor that's obviously missing in the list is Arkon. See [1] for background. Cheers, Andreas JN466 12:01, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, added. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 12:52, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

Throwing that article under the gamergate umbrella is a stretch, but whatever. Arkon (talk) 15:29, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

None of your edits seem to be related to Gamergate, though many of the discussions are with people involved in the Gamergate article, this is why I mention you for completeness. The mention is not meant to indicate anything nefarious (I have edited the Sommers page as well). Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 16:08, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

Indeed, one may be considered affiliated with GG despite never having heard of GamerGate before. I find it a bit odd to see a label like that so liberally and attributed to specific arguments, but I suppose that's how GG lasted so long isn't it? Sethyre (talk) 23:53, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

Question

1. How does one access the deleted "news and notes" that is at the center of this controversy? 2. If it is not accessible, how can one make an informed comment on its contents? Coretheapple (talk) 23:36, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

See [2] where the pages have been temporarily restored for the purposes of this case. --MASEM (t) 23:55, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

Thanks. Coretheapple (talk) 02:55, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

Also a question

Fram, you know I'm pretty dense usual, but that gallery--"it is only meaningful for people aware of this case". I'm very aware of this case and still it's not meaningful to me. It's about elections, sure--but I don't see anything Trumpish or GG-related. Is that anatomically unlikely fart the carrier of a hidden meaning? I see that TParis commented on it as well, but I just don't know what you want us to see in that. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 02:19, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

The primary argument is that Gamaliel was just engaging in political satire, even if it was disparaging. Next, he published a gallery of disparaging political satire. The connection isn't difficult, even for the "dense" as you called yourself. I'm very frustrated that the English Wikipedia Signpost is being used to engage in US American politics.Someone should call the FEC, I'm pretty sure that Wikimedia's non-profit status prohibits political campaigning (that's a bit of sarcasm, not a legal threat). Gamaliel should start a blog.--v/r - TP 02:36, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

So at best the argument is "Gamaliel appreciates political satire"? Sure, those images are pretty disparaging, which is what political satire frequently is. But none of it is topical, none of it relates to Trump, none of it can be seen as left (anti-Trump?) or right (pro-Trump?). So you can say "well it's all satire so there", but to go from something that depicts Andrew Jackson in an, ahem, unfavorable light to a BLP violation and GamerGate advocacy is too much of a stretch for me. This is not to say I have a clue why this Anglo-centric gallery is important for the Signpost, but you can hardly argue that it engages in US politics, let alone the current election, if the most recent image is an anti-Obama satire. (BTW, TParis, I got your five bucks in and your Bernie bumper sticker is in the mail!) But I'm interested in hearing why Fram included this. Drmies (talk) 05:12, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

Actually, Drmies, I am inclined to proudly display said bumper sticker. Unfortunately, there isn't a suitable candidate on my side of the fence worthy of you. And that's just unfortunate for all of us. Regarding Gamaliel, it speaks more than just about an appreciation for satire. But I think you know that, and are withholding that bit because it's inconvenient to your argument. What we can agree on, though, is that no matter the message that was intended, it was inappropriate for the signpost. That's not to say I am calling for Gamaliel to step down, but I would like to prod him to stay on topic in the future and to serve the needs of the project; not his own. This topic really isn't worth the severity of Arbcom, though, which is why I haven't brought the topic up in evidence, myself.--v/r - TP 06:15, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

This seems beyond the scope of the case. Wouldn't an RfC on whether The Signpost should cover or refer to American politics be more appropriate? The resounding consensus would be "no", and that will more effectively deal with the issue. ~ Rob^Talk 03:13, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

The other side of that coin is Signpost editors using it to win content disputes. That is a bit more inside the scope of this case.--v/r - TP 03:19, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

(remove) --DHeyward (talk) 04:07, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

I got this. You'll be more of a distraction by participating in these discussions than helpful.--v/r - TP 04:00, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

@Drmies:, is agreeing with someone's negative self-description a PA? ;-) When someone claims that political satire is being oppressed (right-wing conspiracy and the like) on their "newspaper", and the next week they present in that same outlet "A history lesson" with examples of political satire, then the link seems pretty obvious to me (and other commenters here), while no one outside the participants in this case would know what the lesson was about or why that gallery was chosen then (no gallery was used earlier in 2016, and most of the ones in 2015 had a clear link to the wiki (like the best pictures from an editathon or other wiki-event), or an explanation, like the Moon landings one, making it clear to everyone why that gallery was used). The subject, title and timing all have only one goal, and it has nothing to do with the goals of the Signpost and everything to do with the bruised ego of the EIC. Fram (talk) 07:25, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

• Thanks Fram. Drmies (talk) 13:50, 22 April 2016 (UTC)
• @Drmies:, having watched the whole thing as it unfolded with copious amounts of popcorn[3], there is no question that the Gallery article in the April 14 Signpost was a veiled protest to the deletion of the silly Trump joke. The Signpost has always welcomed differing opinions and debates, and op-eds from many viewpoints. Fram's MFD of the Gallery was unfortunate, but it only lasted two hours and luckily that branch of the drama stopped there. More discussion, and even venting, as opposed to edit wars and wiki-litigation, is better for everyone. Perhaps only thru political cartoons can we see how silly we've all been[4].--Milowent • ^hasspoken 13:11, 22 April 2016 (UTC)
  • No popcorn for me, Milowent; I'm a terrible American, I know. Drmies (talk) 13:50, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

Request to exceed the evidence length limit

Arbcom, I have been warned that my evidence section is too long, but that I may ask for an exception. I have yesterday severely shortened my section, but I don't see how I can shorten it to under the limit without losing a lot of relevant material. It's all diffs with very short explanations on why they are relevant, nothing more (no asking for actions, policy changes, whatever). Please review my evidence and grant me a (limited) exception to the limit. Fram (talk) 07:15, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

• If Fram is granted relief, I would also like to request an expansion of my word limit to equal his limit, as Fram's current statement includes references to me which I had no space to comment upon, including a suggestion that my comments upon the stupidity of the whole kerfuffle from April 3 to 10 "spurred" Gamaliel on.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 13:21, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

Evidence presented by WhatamIdoing

Current word length: 326; diff count: 0.

Manning principles need revised

This is perhaps a side comment, but I place it here in the hope that it is a less-inconvenient location from the POV of the clerks:

A statement on the main case page quotes Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Manning naming dispute#Removal of material about living persons, which says, "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."

WP:BLPREQUESTRESTORE – the actual policy – says, "When material about living persons has been deleted on good-faith BLP objections, any editor wishing to add, restore, or undelete it must ensure it complies with Wikipedia's content policies. If it is to be restored without significant change, consensus must be obtained first."

One of these things is not like other. This policy declaration is being made primarily in the context of a WP:REFUND (or equivalent actions), not the normal BLP-related editing in which you blank something as a WP:CHALLENGE and I revert your blanking and add a source. The focus in the policy is on "without significant change" (e.g., without adding a reliable source that supports the contested claim).

According to the actual policy, if you blank something or even speedy-delete it on the grounds that it's contentious and unsourced, then I may immediately restore it and add the needed reliable sources ("significant change"). According to the "Manning principles", if you blank something because it's contentious and unsourced, then the sole acceptable option is for me to get prior written permission to restore that material and add the needed reliable sources. This is neither what the policy requires, nor how the community operates in practice.

If these "Manning principles" are part of the source of confusion or contention, then ArbCom may want to revise the old principle to accurately reflect the actual policy. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:49, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

Removal of Evidence by Dennis Brown

The Evidence by Dennis Brown section was removed in this edit[5]; on the basis that it is out of scope, as explained here[6]. Given the scope is Gamaliel's recent actions (both administrative and otherwise), especially related to the Signpost April Fools Joke. The case will also examine the conduct of other editors who are directly involved in disputes with Gamaliel. The case is strictly intended to examine user conduct and alleged policy violations and will not examine broader topic areas., and the evidence removed demonstrates a pattern of involved actions, including recent actions, by the party named in the scope, would the clerks please explain the reasoning by which it has been excluded? Specifically, what parts of the scope are not met? @L235:, as the responsible clerk. - Ryk72 ^'c.s.n.s.' 04:53, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

And yet, Ched's "Wiki is fucked up" evidence section which consists of one paragraph stayed. Heh, some priorities we have here. --Pudeo' 05:10, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

Logically, the rebuttal to the removed evidence, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Gamaliel_and_others/Evidence#Evidence_presented_by_Johnuniq, should also be removed. NE Ent 14:33, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

• My evidence is 100% about recent conduct as an admin, but it appears that isn't why we are here. If we trim enough evidence and just leave the negative comments about those who question him, then we don't have to consider any misconduct and can pin a medal on him instead. This looks very crooked to me, and I know damn well I'm not the only one. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 18:38, 24 April 2016 (UTC)
• What is the definition of "recent"? Once you open the door to GamerGate, there's no end! It seems to me the better argument is that much of Dennis' statement was not "evidence" at all, but argument. Maybe that is what normally passes for "evidence" in arbitration, as I have no experience with it. The section of my "evidence" that was deleted, i.e., my proposed decision, was clearly not evidence. Since my proposed decision was eminently correct, once could also say this was crooked. However, I've seen enough Judge Judy to know that when she says she doesn't want to hear something, persisting in trying to say it is useless, as she's already considered and rejected it.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 21:36, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

• Cleary Dennis's and the committee's definition of recent differ; if the committee has some cutoff in mind, it would have been far more courteous and informative to make that clear rather than remove it with a very vague "out of scope." Likewise, if Milowent's analysis is correct, stating that instead of a very vague out of scope would give Dennis the opportunity to update his section in a manner compliant with the committee's intention; while I do not concur with Dennis's analysis (crooked), I certainly share his frustration with the opaqueness of committee to community communication. NE Ent 21:49, 24 April 2016 (UTC)
• Atleast I understand that when we refer to the "GamerGate" as a Wikipedia controversy, it also covers issues with very similar patterns, "any gender-related dispute or controversy" per the ArbCom case sanctions. I think Gamaliel gets emotionally involved in gender-related controversies when he does administrative actions, and that should be relevant to the case. If it's not "recent" enough, they should simply state this case's scope is post April 3 2016. --Pudeo' 23:48, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

• Hi everyone. My reading of "Gamaliel's recent actions" (my emphasis) was "around and after April 1", and I removed that evidence based on that interpretation (and based on the instructions of the drafting arbs, "The clerks have been instructed to remove evidence which does not meet these requirements"). I'm not speaking for the Committee (or even the clerks) with regards to that interpretation of the case scope, and to this point, I've only removed material that clearly falls out of that scope (been too busy to evaluate the rest). However, with respect to this action specifically, there were two days of discussion on the clerks' list on this, with four arbs/clerks (not counting me) opining, with none objecting to the proposed action. Thanks, Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 01:13, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

• L235So how can the rebuttal by Johnuniq of Dennis's out of scope evidence be in scope?NE Ent 01:28, 25 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Due to rather weariness, I've actually gone inactive as an arbitration clerk (and removed myself as a case clerk here). I've asked the clerks' list to handle anything here, though. Thanks, Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 02:09, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

• Removal is okay as long as Arbcom does not have a finding of fact or end up with any sort of 'lesser' remedies based on this being a "first" or "limited" action by Gamaliel. I'm not passing judgement on Dennis Brown's evidence or Gamaliel's actions. Those can be judged on their merits. But if Dennis Brown claims to have evidence showing a pattern of behavior, Arbcom removes the evidence as out of scope, and then has a finding of fact claiming there to be no evidence of a pattern, then we have a problem.--v/r - TP 02:35, 25 April 2016 (UTC)
• The latest GG issue with Gamamiel was ongoing at the beginning of this case, so "recent" isn't arguable, and it was a prime example as noted by his first statement. I was only claiming a bias, but it if was found to be an abuse of the admin bit (Fram and other's evidence touch on GG as well), then it would be very relevant. If it was out of scope, why did an Arb ask for diffs in what was then hatted? I intentionally stayed out of the BLP issue simply because others were already covering it and I saw no need to be redundant, instead providing evidence of a pattern with the admin bit only, which others added to later. Rebuttals to my evidence are "evidence" while my evidence is not admissible? Hogwash. I would love to hear the explanation for that. While you can argue my evidence was ancillary to the primary problem, it still showed a problem in recent behavior (ie: a pattern), one that goes back for some time, and ties in with the Super Mario claims made by others previously. The whole thing looks fishy, like protection. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 12:38, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

Case scope

I DON'T EVEN KNOW WHAT I'M TALKING ABOUT!
— Lou Costello in Who's on first?

I filed this case because I care greatly about this project as a whole, and I honestly believe WP:BLP as a bedrock principle has been, and will be, important to perceived integrity of, and subsequent world support of the project. I generally don't read or care about the Signpost -- by that I mean I am neither in support of, or opposition to, its operation. I stumbled upon a contentious ANI thread. Following the breadcrumbs back in time, the following was apparent to me:

• Gamaliel posted a blatant attack page which had no place on Wikipedia.
• The community, or, more accurately, the subcommunity that participates in MFD and ANI discussions totally failed to execute WP:BLPRESTORE. Evidence has already been posted supporting the realization that, although he started with the best of intentions and has done yeoman work in trying to wrangle the Gamergate mess, he has in a wiki sense Jumped the shark and needs to withdraw from participating in these arenas, whether voluntarily or involuntarily. What strikes me is that, if the community had strongly supported WP:BLPRESTORE the poor taste joke would have been quickly removed, Gamaliel given a minnow and everyone would have moved on.
• Arbcom was required because the structure of ANI is not conducive to thoughtful deliberations.

Since then the statements by MastCell, Milowent regarding historical "jokes" and the statement by Kingsindian regarding the Trump/Wales "joke" indicate such BLP violations are widespread. It would be good if the committee addressed this. Given the historical precedent of Civility enforcement, I understand not wanting to wade into that briar patch. Therefore it was my intention to focus as much on the BLP / BLPRESTORE aspects while not opening defying the committee's restriction (hard to get votes that way). That's where I'm coming from.

The statement top of the evidence page states Detailed but succinct submissions are more useful to the committee. Unfortunately, from my point of view, the committee's actions thus far have made making "useful to the committee" nearly impossible. The scope of case states Gamaliel's recent actions (both administrative and otherwise), especially related to the Signpost April Fools Joke. The case will also examine the conduct of other editors who are directly involved in disputes with Gamaliel. The case is strictly intended to examine user conduct and alleged policy violations and will not examine broader topic areas.

• This isn't about an April Fools Joke. April's Fool's Day in April 1. The conflict started April 3.
• Dennis Brown presented detailed evidence regarding Gamaliel's actions; that has been clerked removed as "out of scope." ???
• JzG's been added as a party. While he did vote delete on the MFD [7], his ANI actions primarily consisted of repeated closing of the thread [8],[9], [10]; I can't possibly see how he can be considered "in disputes with Gamaliel."
• user conduct and alleged policy violations but not broader topic areas? That's the type of statement that sounds like says something, but when I try to parse it down into actionable guidance, turns out not to be helpful. There is a concept the admins and arbcom do not make policy, and the overwhelming majority of admin and arbitrators take this seriously. In reality, policy is not only what is written but what gets enforced, and wiki policies typically go beyond the written and extend in practice (per WP:IAR), and again, this is good: it's impractical to try to write every contingency into policy. Because the committee is the primary enforcement agency for admin conduct, in realpolitik the committee does have a vital role in defining policy; if it doesn't define the policy per se, it defines the edges, if you will.

At the risk of a) repeating myself ad naseum and b) being a suck-up Yuk! I totally get the need for both some evidence and committee deliberations to be done in private, and that the committee is not an evil hive mind, but 11 individuals separated in space, time, and wiki-philosophy, but it's simply unrealistic to expect the community to provide the desired input in a civil manner to such chaotic collective prompts from the committee and clerks. NE Ent 14:32, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

Speaking from my point of view, my reasoning behind taking the case was the behaviour after the posting of the material, specifically admin actions WRT involved status. There is enough ambiguity in response to the nonmainspace material to indicate it's not sanctionable as such, however it is worth pursuing community consensus via an RfC on such issues. Arbcom does not need to make policy on this. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:20, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

Thank you, that's a helpful start. Should we consider the scope inclusive of all administrators, regardless of their opinions on the specific incident? Does the committee want evidence showing how behavior in this instance is a continuation of longstanding problematic behavior, or should submitters limited themselves to actions in this particular instance? NE Ent 00:35, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

I should clarify I am not drafting this case. In the first instance, the review would be looking at the event and behaviours of those directly involved. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 02:11, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

There has been no change in the scope of the case. To repeat it again (sorry), it is "Gamaliel's recent actions (both administrative and otherwise), especially related to the Signpost April Fools Joke. The case will also examine the conduct of other editors who are directly involved in disputes with Gamaliel. The case is strictly intended to examine user conduct and alleged policy violations and will not examine broader topic areas." Key words there are "especially" and "related". In other words, the main focus is on activities related to the April Fools Joke. I thought that made it clear that the scope includes subsequent actions, eg NE Ent's comment about the conflict that started April 3. We do not intend to extend the case to broader topic areas, and that means that GamerGate is not on the agenda and evidence relating to GamerGate should be not be added. I should also make the point that inclusion as a party should not be seen as an intention by the committee to sanction that person. Doug Weller talk 08:52, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

Well yes, that is quite unclear. "Gamaliel's recent actions (both administrative and otherwise), especially related to the Signpost April Fools Joke. The case will also examine the conduct of other editors who are directly involved in disputes with Gamaliel." Since most of the other editors issues with Gamaliel (outside of the BLP crap) are in the gamergate area, you are on the one hand appear to be saying you will be investigating other editors for gamergate-related conflicts, but not Gamaliel. When you then start adding editors as parties to the case who pretty much *only* have an issue in the gamergate area, you can probably see why your 'scope' is about as clear as mud. Perhaps in future if you want to restrict something from the scope of a case, you should explicitly do so and not add parties who have no bearing on the actual scope. Really,"I should also make the point that inclusion as a party should not be seen as an intention by the committee to sanction that person." - Then dont add them as a bloody party. Only in death does duty end (talk) 09:06, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

• @Doug Weller:, To be absolutely clear, could you confirm that it is, or is not, the committee's position that "Gamaliel's recent actions (administrative)" where related to the Gamergate controversy are, by sole virtue of being in that topic space, explicitly excluded from the scope of this case? I would respectfully suggest that the community's expectation is that involved administration & misuse of tools should be included regardless of topic space. - Ryk72 ^'c.s.n.s.' 12:35, 25 April 2016 (UTC)
• Its also unreasonable to expect people to provide evidence of a pattern of involved misuse of administrator tools, then exclude the topic area in which the majority of those involved actions took place. Only in death does duty end (talk) 13:09, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

Well, yes I agree with this. It seems like 'selective evidence'; the prosecutors excluding whatever does not reflect a negative light and the defenders withholding whatever evidence will bring about a conclusion of guilt. Call it 'outside the scope' all you want, it still is hiding the incriminating DNA of this case. This can not possibly turn out fairly no matter which side one is on. Fylbecatulous talk 13:20, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

• @Doug Weller: My primary interest in this case is that it is yet another example of admins/super users being treated differently than ordinary mortals. That seems to be within the scope of this case. But I also think April Fool pranks have gotten out of hand, and I believe that Arbcom needs to make clear that there is no such thing as an "only fooling" excuse when BLP is violated or people are disruptive. But I don't want to spend much more time on the latter if it is beyond the scope of this case. Coretheapple (talk) 13:17, 25 April 2016 (UTC)
• Not sure if my $0.02 is welcome here, but FWIW I think the committee should consider the Gamaliel/MarkBernstein material and resolve it one way or another. At present, Gamaliel is unable to take any administrative action in the GamerGate space without loud cries of "INVOLVED!" Whether there is a case there to answer or not, I'll leave to wiser heads, but I think a definitive statement one way or the other would be helpful.

And as I think others have tried to hint, adding DHeyward to the case gives the appearance that you are prepared to consider GG issues (since the two have butted heads very hard in that area) but not Gamaliel's actions in the GG space (since those are out of scope). It seems a bit inconsistent. But I guess this can wait and see what comes out in evidence; so far the only evidence I can see directly related to DHeyward is non-GG. GoldenRing (talk) 13:42, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

• I'm not one of the drafters and I can't speak for my colleagues. I do believe we have some agreement about the scope of the case, and that scope is determined by the request filed by the old Ent, and does not specifically include GamerGate. That doesn't mean that it's not something that can come up--let's say that after Ent filed the case, and let's say that Ent is a prolific GG editor, and Gamaliel subsequently makes a GG-related decision pertaining to Ent, and it smacks of payback. That seems appropriate as a matter of investigation. But complaints about Gamaliel's long tenure and decisions they made during it were not part of the case request, though some editors brought it up, but that some editors brought it up doesn't mean that the committee has to accept that as under the scope of the case. This case is already big enough. As far as DHeyward is concerned, their evidence and some statements made during the case request made the committee consider adding them to the case. That doesn't mean the committee is looking to sanction DHeyward anymore than the committee is looking to sanction anyone. Drmies (talk) 14:07, 25 April 2016 (UTC)