Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard

Amendment to the Ottava Rima restrictions case (Ottava Rima unbanned)

Original announcement

These parts of the statement seem to conflict; perhaps this could be clarified? "Anyone found to be goading or baiting him may be two-way interaction banned, as an arbitration enforcement action, for no longer than one month. Enforcement blocks (including of Ottava) may be no longer than three days for the first block, and up to one month for repeated violations." versus "Should Ottava violate these restrictions he may be blocked, as an arbitration enforcement action, for up to one month for the first violation by a consensus of uninvolved administrators." --Rschen7754 18:39, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

I read it as "Enforcement blocks [for IBAN violations] (including of Ottava)...", whereas the other clause is for breach of these restrictions. Amazing how much wordsmithing can go into something and still leave it unclear... GorillaWarfare (talk) 18:48, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

What's the difference between this and Carl Hewitt that prompted it, but not this, to be announced at WP:AN? Nyttend (talk) 12:03, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

People *remember* Ottava Rima. Personally I think this is a horrible mistake Only in death does duty end (talk) 12:48, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

So we can discuss it here, as long as we dont make any mention or link to his global block log which shows why he was blocked on every damn project he contributed at? Well Nyttend apparantly you have your answer. Arbcom dont actually want anyone to comment or discuss this. Only in death does duty end (talk) 13:23, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

According to meta:Special:CentralAuth/Ottava Rima, he's not currently blocked anywhere except for Commons. Is there a page where we can see an account's block logs from all wikis? Nyttend (talk) 13:49, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

Nyttend, it was probably my fault it was not posted at AN. I'm still new at the job and I was in a bit of a hurry; thanks for putting it up there. User:Only in death, that's a really clever answer, but not everything is a conspiracy. Maybe. Plus, it doesn't say you can't discuss him; you will have to try and do it in a civilized manner. Happy editing, Drmies (talk) 14:29, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

• I see only "a consensus of uninvolved administrators" can sanction OR if he should violate the new restrictions. Has the committee given some thought to who is an involved admin for this purpose? Anybody (whether they were then an admin or not) who commented on OR's 2009 RFA, or on the 2009 RFAR, or who had adversarial (or supportive) dealings with OR before he was blocked on 22 Dec 2009? Or? I'm by no means panting to be part of such a consensus myself, I'm more just curious. It's sure to come up if there should be a problem with OR's editing, which we all hope won't happen. Bishonen | talk 15:15, 20 April 2016 (UTC).

  There can't possibly be a single admin who was promoted prior to 2009 who is uninvolved with Ottava Rima. It does not compute. Katie^talk 17:16, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

  Well, that was my thought too, but I was hoping to hear from an arbitrator whether they had thought through the uninvolved thing or not. Hopefully with an explanation of why arbitration enforcement of OR's restrictions can't be entrusted to the discretion of a single admin, the way we are apparently trusted to deal with "anyone found to be goading or baiting him". If it really can't, I agree with Katie that uninvolved oldtimers would be like snowballs in hell. So how about changing the phrasing in the amendment from "consensus of uninvolved administrators" to "consensus of administrators who joined Wikipedia after 20 Dec 2009"? (That was when the original one-year block was placed.) I believe such a simplified definition would forestall much lawyering. Bishonen | talk 21:06, 20 April 2016 (UTC).

  I am retired, so this is probably irrelevant, but I was reading this page and thought I'd mention it. I was promoted in July 2007 (a year when there were hundreds of admin promotions, some of whom actually might have been justified), and I'm pretty sure I never had any dealings with Ottava. So if I didn't (and I used to frequent the drama boards), I'm sure there were plenty of others as well. Anyway, back to retirement. Cheers, Black Kite (talk) 21:53, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

  OTOH, I have no idea if I am uninvolved or not. I'm a 2007 promotion as well, and Ottava's name jumped off the page when I noticed this thread on my watchlist, but I recall literally nothing of his history at this point beyond the fact that he was divisive enough to warrant a six year ban by ArbCom. And certainly do not recall any interactions I may have had or comments I may have made. Now, I am extremely unlikely to use the tools in regard to a controversial figure myself, but if such a discussion were to be held, I have no idea if I could legitimately comment as an "uninvolved administrator". Hopefully Ottava makes this discussion moot, however. Resolute 23:13, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

• Bish, this was a difficult thing. Obviously Ottava had and still has enemies, and the concern was that one single admin with a bone to pick could get this poetic train off the rails with a quick block or whatever. But not every admin who voted for or against Ottava in an RfA or an ArbCom case or an ANI discussion is INVOLVED: that's stretching INVOLVEDness out too much. For now, can we just let the guy write content? He's got some serious restrictions, but he appealed successfully, acknowledging past wrongs, so let him get back to it. Even those who hate him know he's written good stuff (though on some boooooring poets!)--this is a happy occasion. So let's try and make this a workable situation, from which we can all benefit. I'm counting on your help too, Bish, and I've sent chocolates and bourbon to Black Kite to goad them out of retirement. Give it up, BK; you can't spend the rest of your life fishing. Drmies (talk) 01:13, 21 April 2016 (UTC)
• This doesn't answer the question but there are admins who joined Wikipedia after 2009. I assume anyone weighing in on his case would familiarize themselves with the circumstances of his banning. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:30, 21 April 2016 (UTC)
  • As far as I'm concerned that's not necessary. Ottava's edits don't become better or worse because someone becomes better acquainted with his history. Just judge him fairly. Drmies (talk) 02:28, 21 April 2016 (UTC)
• I agree with Drmies' comments and don't have much to add, except that this is going to be confusing, because I'm "OR" ;) Opabinia regalis (talk) 06:10, 21 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Or OR is Or, which is even more confusing. NE Ent 10:09, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

I posted here objecting to the decision, but I was reverted. I guess someone thought my comment might hurt Ottava's feelings, and apparently protecting his feelings is more important than allowing free discussion. Everyking (talk) 06:36, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

• Admins are supposed to be aware of Wikipedia:No personal attacks, to enforce it, and to not break it themselves. You apparently seem to have made up your mind already about Ottava, who has been gone from the project for over half a decade (and people can change), and thus clearly shouldn't be acting as an administrator in his case--see Wikipedia:Administrators#Misuse_of_administrative_tools, item one, "non-neutrality". Thank you, Drmies (talk) 17:03, 21 April 2016 (UTC)
  • How on earth is it relevant that I'm an administrator? I was not "acting as an administrator", obviously. Are administrators not supposed to register their views on things like this? What I posted was essentially just a restatement of the ArbCom's official position on Ottava until a few days ago. Everyking (talk) 17:48, 21 April 2016 (UTC)
    • ArbCom doesn't often really have "official positions". There were past appeals of Ottava's where restrictions similar to this were floated, and they failed to pass more out of I think a general ennui and lack of will for someone to take charge, rather than any deep-seated validation that All Must Be Banned Forever. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 19:00, 21 April 2016 (UTC)
    • It's relevant because you should know what NPA says; because you are an admin you can hardly claim ignorance. You can state a view, maybe, though I don't see why your view would be relevant here--and ArbCom certainly never said what you said; what you said was not "essentially" a restatement of what ArbCom said six and a half years ago. Drmies (talk) 19:24, 21 April 2016 (UTC)
      • Maybe you can help me out, Drmies. Since I am maybe allowed to state a view, how could I state my personal point of view without violating NPA? Also: whose views are relevant here? And how would you characterize the ArbCom's assessment of Ottava six and a half years ago? Everyking (talk) 19:42, 21 April 2016 (UTC)
        • Everyking, I wouldn't characterize it--I would point at it. Some personal points of view--as you know--simply cannot be stated here, because they may violate the BLP or NPA. This is nothing new. I can't tell you what I think of Ted Cruz of Vladimir Putin, or editor X, and fortunately it's not relevant to anything anyway. And your view--just like my view--on Ottava here, in this forum, is irrelevant as well; if there's anything to discuss here it's the decision and the restrictions, or the technicalities of the restrictions, not the editor. Thank you, Drmies (talk) 20:14, 21 April 2016 (UTC)
          • If I was characterizing it, I would use the same phrases I used in my reverted comment. But anyway, since we're only here to discuss the decision/restrictions, how do we discuss them without discussing the editor they pertain to? I think it's a bad decision, and that assessment is based on observation of the editor's past activities. So can I say it's a bad decision, but can't say why it's a bad decision? Everyking (talk) 20:22, 21 April 2016 (UTC)
            • Don't be silly, of course you can. Within the bounds of what's proper. Drmies (talk) 22:00, 21 April 2016 (UTC)
              • In that case I'll try again: Ottava said lots of mean things to lots of people and caused lots of disruption. He said so many mean things, to so many people, for so little reason, that pretty much all of us, including the ArbCom, concluded that he could not work collaboratively as part of a community. The ArbCom has banned many other people for doing much less, or nothing at all, and I think it would be more productive to review other cases and let the verdict in this one stand. Now, is that version a personal attack too? Or is it "within the bounds of what's proper"? Everyking (talk) 23:02, 21 April 2016 (UTC)
                • Thank you. But please note that "review other cases" can only take place if those editors ask us to consider unbanning them. We deal with many of those cases on a regular basis (GorillaWarfare keeps count better than I do--STEM and all that), and I would like to unban more banned editors who, after some time has passed, show a measure of understanding or contrition and state they will abide by our codes of behavior, contributing to the project in their field of expertise and thus enhancing it. Drmies (talk) 13:57, 22 April 2016 (UTC)
                  • Why wait for appeals? If the decision was bad, just go ahead and undo it. You don't even need to dig into the archives to find these cases—what about those two guys you banned earlier this year in secret proceedings contrary to policy? Just fix it. You can do it today. Everyking (talk) 19:57, 22 April 2016 (UTC)
                    • Who said the decision (this decision, I suppose you're talking about) was bad? As for the rest, it's a bit late already, and I'm not ready to negate "continuing harassment of other editors", for instance. Everyking, I wish you would take serious business seriously. There is no joy in banning. I am happy a user got unbanned, and it didn't happen overnight, but it's worth the effort. But I have the feeling that everything I say to you just gets turned into ridicule, and that's depressing my otherwise good spirits, so I'll leave you to it. Drmies (talk) 01:53, 23 April 2016 (UTC)
                      • My point is that it's not necessary to wait for appeals before you can do anything. Don't act like your hands are tied. If you sincerely would like to unban more editors, pick some for consideration and let's see how it goes. Everyking (talk) 03:26, 23 April 2016 (UTC)
                        • While I see your point, there is benefit to reviewing bans/blocks only once the user has appealed: it took three weeks for us to come to a decision and draft the terms of the unban in this case, so it's good to know that the editors appealing their sanctions actually wish to return before spending that kind of time. GorillaWarfare (talk) 03:46, 23 April 2016 (UTC)
                          • People might not want to appeal after they've been gone for years, and they might not want to be kicked around again. They might be happy to contribute if it was stress-free, but might not feel it's worth the trouble to jump through hoops, especially if they're expected to express "contrition" even though they don't believe they were in the wrong, and especially if their last encounters with Wikipedia's processes were negative and frustrating. Everyking (talk) 05:07, 23 April 2016 (UTC)
                            • This would have to be done via a community wide RFC rather than by fiat by arbcom; the sticking point (and why my "Extinct" concept remains a userspace draft) is I haven't come up with a good proposal to deal with real or perceived ban/block evasions. NE Ent 14:40, 23 April 2016 (UTC)
                              • Why? The ArbCom is perfectly free to unban people it banned in the past. I mean, nothing wrong with an RfC, but there's nothing stopping the ArbCom from unbanning more people on its own. Everyking (talk) 18:18, 23 April 2016 (UTC)
                    • Better yet, we ought to do something like User:NE_Ent/Extinct (draft started last November). Briefly, all sanctions should have an automatic sunset (three years? five years?) NE Ent 20:46, 22 April 2016 (UTC)
                      • I think ideally, we would just declare an amnesty for any accounts that have been blocked for a certain number of years, while also drafting a short list of users who, due to particularly egregious conduct, would not be included in the amnesty. Everyking (talk) 20:54, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

break

• • • I'm unclear on why you feel that the "official position" of the Arbitration Committee was that Ottava Rima should be banned for life. He was indefinitely banned (indefinite, not infinite), but always given the opportunity for appeal. GorillaWarfare (talk) 22:18, 21 April 2016 (UTC)
      • The restrictions are so tight that widespread panic is needless. I'm very pleased to see him back (personally), though I realise that the limited capacity is a necessity and shudder at the carnage a full return might lead to. And to say, I consider him somewhat of a (battered) friend. Ceoil (talk) 22:27, 21 April 2016 (UTC)
      • Officially, lifetime bans don't exist, but an indefinite ArbCom ban is essentially a lifetime ban unless the banned party appeals successfully. If Ottava had not appealed, would the ban have ever been lifted? Everyking (talk) 23:02, 21 April 2016 (UTC)
        • Okay, I guess this is perhaps just a difference in interpretation. When I hear "lifetime ban," I think "an infinite ban that will never be overturned, regardless of any appeal." GorillaWarfare (talk) 23:11, 21 April 2016 (UTC)
          • At this point it might be nice if Ottava gave some indication of intent on his talk page. Not an act of contrition obv, but just how he is intending to approach and deal with all of this. From his perspective, none of this can be plesant. Ceoil (talk) 23:48, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

            • He better does not. The guy just does not know how to stop, and in this situation it is better for him not to start. (For full disclosure, I was promoted after 2009).--Ymblanter (talk) 07:10, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

              • Just let him get back to work. Ceoil, I saw you offered your assistance, for which I thank you. Drmies (talk) 13:57, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

                • Hmm Drmies, I suspect my cache with Ottava is quite low these days, and long ago I did interveane as mentor, and despite many share interests and overlap in articles, it was a case of two powder kegs crammed into a box of petrol dosed matches. Best that can be said is that we each gave as good as we got, and I remain fond of him since. My talk is always open to Ottava, if he wants to flirt/bitch/complain/chat; and I will be following his contributions because the subject area is interesting to me. Given the unprecedentedlynarrow condidtions, I think that "Just let him get back to work" is hard to fault, and sensible least we forget that what had been happening was posting of simple, followed by equally widespread hysteria over "proxying for a banned user" when it was tfr'ed to en. Ceoil (talk) 22:36, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

                  • For what it's worth, I'm an admin promoted in 2005 who I'm pretty certain has had no interaction with Ottava. The question is, how should we conduct point # 2? I doubt it would be WP:AFC reviews so can Ottava ping others or use help-me or something? Is this something we should we discuss and work on at Ottava's talk page or should the technical details be hashed out here? -- Ricky81682 (talk) 23:55, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

Infoboxes arbitration case amended

Original announcement

This doesn't seem to have been written very carefully. Are you aware that you seem to have placed Pigsonthewing back on probation? (You rescinded the amendment that removed him from probation.) Perhaps it would be a good idea to state explicitly what remedies are supposed to apply to Pigsonthewing at this juncture. Looie496 (talk) 21:50, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

• @Looie496: It's my understanding that no ArbCom-imposed restrictions currently apply to Pigsonthewing; the ARCA thread makes that clear, although the motions' text are slightly ambiguous. It's all bureaucratic paper-pushing at this point; I don't think anyone would be silly enough to try to enforce the pre-review restrictions. (This is not in my role as a clerk and is not on behalf of the Committee.) Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 22:33, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

It won't be just paper-pushing if trouble arises. If it does then admins will have to try to parse this gibberish and will pull their hair out. I say again that the Committee should explicitly state Pigsonthewing's current status. Looie496 (talk) 23:12, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

To my mind there’s a pretty substantial difference between being cautioned and being under probation: unlike the former, the latter implies definite and fairly immediate consequences.—Odysseus1479 23:28, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

Ha, funny what nobody thinks of in context even for something that took a couple of weeks from proposing to passing. Looie496, L235 is right, there are no specific arbcom restrictions that apply to Pigsonthewing at this time, as I hope is clear from the original discussion. Opabinia regalis (talk) 23:33, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

Arbitration motion restricting Gamaliel

Original announcement

Gamaliel asked for this? If he doesn't want to take any action to enforce any arbitration decision within the GamerGate topic, why doesn't he just not take any action to enforce any arbitration decision within the GamerGate topic? NE Ent 22:21, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

Yes, and his request for this was quite explicit. Courcelles (talk) 22:31, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

The Ent and I don’t seem to agree on a whole lot, but I have to say that I’m puzzled too. The best way to not enforce arbitration decisions is not to enforce them, right? Does this apply as well to gender-related controversies, and biographies of people involved in gender-related controversies? And does it apply to new Arbitration cases, appeals of old cases, and requests for clarification? If so, this motion effectively reverses the most recent ArbCom election for a huge swath of ArbCom business: is that actually within ArbCom’s powers, and is there any precedent? It’s the final day of April (GMT): is this some sort of mirror world April 1 joke? MarkBernstein (talk) 22:37, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

At any rate it extends to GamerGate, which makes the above a rather blatant violation of your topic ban, no? Self-redaction is probably in order. GoldenRing (talk) 14:01, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

Was this action taken to head off some kind of formal sanctions? (which is strongly implied by the use of "remedy" in the motion) If so, it might be a good thing if it led to (at least roughly) the same result with next to no drama. Otherwise, it's a bit unusual - though harmless at the end of the day. Nick-D (talk) 22:50, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

• Just noting that my oppose was because I don't believe sanctions/a motion should be placed on a party to a case during that case except as a temporary injunction in response to ongoing issues. A request from a party to be banned from something which is in the scope of the case can and should definitely be considered but IMHO should be considered as part of the proposed decision not imposed during the evidence phase. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 02:07, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

I'm guessing that Gamaliel doesn't want to fight battle after battle after battle anymore, and so has arranged to make himself forbidden to do so. Kudos to Gamaliel and the committee, this is how it's supposed to work. --SB_Johnny | ^talk✌ 02:16, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

Thanks. User:Nick-D, the use of the word 'remedy' is my error, at the last moment I added a copy-paste appeal clause and somehow missed that. It shouldn't have been included. No, this was not to head off any kind of formal sanction. Doug Weller talk 05:24, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

User:Nick-D I've now corrected this, the word should have been decision, not remedy. Thanks for noticing this. Doug Weller talk 07:07, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

Removing trolling - Don't feed please
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Hm. Out of curiosity, do regular users get the privilege of signing an under-the-table off-wiki plea bargain with the Arbcom, or is this yet another way that some animals are more equal than others? --Миборовский (talk) 16:21, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

Signing? If anyone wants the ctte to give them a ban, just e-mail them and ask for one, you just have to convince enough of the members it is a good idea. Alanscottwalker (talk) 16:54, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

I don't think the reason for this was to get a better deal. It was the realization that the current case against him was almost certainly politically motivated, as regards to GG and American Politics. And this make further campaigns against him less likely.--Jules (Mrjulesd) 17:37, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

alanscottwalker is actually right, but of course it depends upon the reasons and the context. It's unusual but possible. Doug Weller talk 17:56, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

• Miborovsky, there is no table. There's this thing called email, which is like Twitter but only the people this "email" got sent to get to read it. And you can do more words. If you like, you can send us one asking for a ban of sorts and we'll discuss it, in private. Gamaliel is not an animal, and did not--as far as I know--gain anything by this, except for respect, after taking what must have been a very difficult and painful decision; AGF pretty much requires you to do so, but of course even ArbCom or God almighty can't mandate respect. Drmies (talk) 01:00, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
• Wow, I wondered why the above had been collapsed and had a look at the contribs. One of the features of Gamergate has been the amazing number of accounts that have been reactivated to join the fun, but the above is pretty special because Miborovsky's last edit before contributing to this case was in December 2011. Johnuniq (talk) 11:34, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

Just another former admin who walked away and came back to find the inmates running the asylum. What you call "fun" is just another nail in the coffin for the puported neutrality of Wikipedia. Watching ArbCom do its best to give the impression that they're giving preferential treatment to one of their own is too funny for me to not comment upon. --Миборовский (talk) 18:48, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

• Since this motion makes it clear that GamerGate is relevant to the case, I would expect the clerks User:Amortias and User:L235 to restore the GamerGate-related evidence by other editors that they previously removed. Or, I would expect them to explain why they have not done so. You can't have it both ways, folks. Black Kite (talk) 18:26, 1 May 2016 (UTC)
  • We haven't changed the scope so they shouldn't do that. I can understand why you are interpreting it this way, but that's an overinterpretation. We accepted a request from Gamaliel, we didn't impose this on our own initiative. If we'd done this on our own initiative then I'd agree with you. Doug Weller talk 18:34, 1 May 2016 (UTC)
    • Well, I'm unsure why that should make a difference, to be honest. If evidence is relevant, it should be accepted. Black Kite (talk) 18:38, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

Well, unlike the Iban that was implemented, this action is not noted on Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Gamaliel and others. So, the self-requested ban might not be considered to be a part of the case proceedings and it might be seen as a separate arbitration motion of imposing a topic ban. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:43, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

It was noted here: Wikipedia_talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Gamaliel_and_others#Arbitration_motion_restricting_Gamaliel NE Ent 23:48, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

Facepalm My mistake. I didn't think of looking at the talk pages, just the main page and the Proposed Decision pages. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:55, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

• I don't care where it was noted, Black Kite. Of course this particular decision is GG related since it's about GG--that doesn't mean that GG is part of the case. If I were to parse this, I'd say an admin noted that they don't have full support of the community for their work in a specific area and they're doing the right thing. But I'm not parsing this. Drmies (talk) 01:00, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

• A more likely interpretation is that the drip-drip-drip of the gamergaters is succeeding, and Gamaliel is fed up with the off-wiki harassment and the on-wiki misguided commentary. Gamaliel might have chosen to stop monitoring the topic but making it official announces to everyone that it is over, and participants should switch to complaining about the next admin who monitors the area. Johnuniq (talk) 03:51, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

• What, exactly, "is over"? He asked for a ban on enforcing arbitration decisions, not a topic ban. He's therefore capable of editing or serving as a administrator on Gamergate topics, correct? Am I missing something here? Marteau (talk) 04:13, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

  I think you're missing the fact that it seems that Gamaliel is sick and tired of GG and all it entails. You can't just accept this as a good-faith effort on Gamaliel's part? Johnuniq didn't miss it. Drmies (talk) 14:48, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

• It's just weird that evidence in regards to Gamaliel's conduct in the GG space was removed by clerks as being out of scope. Then this happens. I don't think anyone is particularly upset at the result of the motion, just the strangeness of how it's come about. Arkon (talk) 15:08, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

  If he's truly 'sick and tired' of dealing with Gamergate I'm not sure why he's left the door open to editing and adminning it. This does have the potential of short-circuiting the process and preempting the consideration of a Gamergate restriction of real substance rather than symbolism. Marteau (talk) 15:40, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

This is amazingly light considering the seriousness of Gamaliel's misconduct. Surely the matter is not going to be considered settled with this one weak restriction? Everyking (talk) 06:38, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

What part of 'at his initiative' and the fact that the decision wasn't officially recorded as part of the case leads anyone to suggest the case is settled? It goes ahead as normal. And everyone, please don't turn speculation into fact. People have real lives and those lives can be complicated (well, real life usually is). Doug Weller talk 06:48, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

Just saw this. This does address the primary administrative concern I had, and I would applaud Gamaliel for stepping up this way. I think it was the right thing to store faith. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 16:52, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

Again, I think this is the sort of thing an arbitration committee should make a habit of. OTHO, if Everyking's concern can be boiled down to "a day late and a dollar short", I absolutely empathize. --SB_Johnny | ^talk✌ 01:30, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

You May All Be Barking Up The Wrong Tree

Lots of people are speculating that this request is a confession of wrong-doing and an effort to head off greater sanctions. I think you all might be mistaken.

First, it wouldn’t work. Second, it would be irresponsible; an editor may do what they like, but an arbitrator is elected and responsible to their voters. Third: many of you have known Gamaliel for a long time; sometimes, weak-willed Wikipedians ask to be blocked because they can’t control their editing, but self-control is Gamaliel’s middle name. (Believe me: I have the scars to prove it.)

We know (and ArbCom knows) that Gamaliel received at least one murder threat on-wiki, in circumstances suggesting that the person making the threat knew where he lives (and also knew my travel schedule). We know (and ArbCom knows) that other threats of various kinds have been made off-wiki. We know (and the world knows) that trolls have developed a taste for sophisticated opposition research and have used it to damage careers and threaten family members.

If someone were threatening to punish an administrator if that administrator opposed them, how could the administrator prove that they would cease their opposition? Only by either (a) resigning the tools, or (b) having Arbcom ban them from the opponent’s area of interest.

I also observe that, in the event this scenario were the case, the Community on this page would have done a great deal to further the harassment and nothing to obstruct it or to assist its target. That is consistent with what I have come to expect of Wikipedia generally and ArbCom specifically, but it is deeply disappointing. MarkBernstein (talk) 22:00, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

Far be from me but aren't you topic banned from this subject? Arguably, the Arbcom case is larger in scope but this discussion is about an admin's enforcement antics in an area where you are topic banned. Why in the world should you care? Is there any reason why someone shouldn't just collapse this section as entirely off-topic, particularly when you're going to blatantly discuss harassment against Gamaliel so blindly? Isn't there a policy that we protect victims by reducing our discussions of any harassment unless it's relevant? -- Ricky81682 (talk) 22:17, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

The topic of this section is "Arbitration Motion Concerning Gamaliel". We are discussing this motion, and several editors have speculated here on the motivation behind it. I believe those speculations may be mistaken and offer an alternative explanation. I am not (as far as I am aware) topic-banned from the subject of Gamaliel, nor from the subject of Wikipedia governance, arbitration committee, harassment, or extortion; those are the matters I raise here.

The arbitrators have stated repeatedly that the scope of Gamaliel and others does not involve Gamergate. You apparently believe otherwise, but I fancy the arbitrators know their mind.

As a purely general observation: a very good way to encourage harassment and extortion is to pretend that it cannot exist. An excellent way to make harassment and extortion more effective is to punish the victim. MarkBernstein (talk) 23:03, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

And, by far, the worst thing to do is bring it up in a public forum. If such matters are at issue it is the prerogative of the subject of those attacks to decide when and where they are addressed, not for some third party. I would think this would be clear to an ethical journalist, who may have off-wiki knowledge, if not simple common sence for, well... anyone. Speculation without knowledge is even worse and is simple drama mongering and deserving of only contempt. Jbh^Talk 23:16, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

I regret that you believe I am speculating without knowledge, or that I am seeking drama, or that I deserve contempt. You may perhaps be mistaken in some or all of these three opinions. MarkBernstein (talk) 23:27, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

Then you are making public information about a third party, which they have not chosen to reveal, based on implied off-wiki knowledge. That action is deserving of all three of those opinions plus indictive of an ethical failure and, based on WP:OUTING, blockable. Maybe an admin would be kind enough to do so. PS Indent your posts. I have taken the liberty of cleaning up the threading. Jbh^Talk 23:37, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

(edit conflict)I have taken care not to reveal any personal information regarding any people who might be involved. Please calm down. Take a deep breath. If you suspend disbelief and conjecture that I might conceivably be a reasonable person, you may reach a different understanding. (Pro tips: "implied" and "implicit" are different things, as are "indicate" and :indict." All knowledge is off-wiki since the poor wiki doesn't know anything. Sorry about the threading; my threading habits go back to the original Wiki -- Ward’s Wiki, the WikiWIkiWeb -- where deep indents were undesirable.MarkBernstein (talk) 23:54, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

I did what could in some cases be considered a harassment to NBSB yesterday. I should not have done it and won't do it again. Sometimes when someone makes a mistake the best thing to do is accept their apology in good faith. Not everyone has bad intentions - people say things without thinking. Also, people sometimes err or offend without even realizing it. My point is - I messed up -I apologized. All I can do is be grateful that my apology was accepted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:306:8B40:CC20:4944:6CBD:BE69:44BE (talk) 23:51, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

Motion: Oversight block appeals (Oversight-l)

Original announcement