The article regarding the ongoing Gamergate controversy has been plagued by dispute over it's objectivity from the beginning. The party's I have named appear to be the most active in editing, and most active on the talk page. A great deal of emotion is invested in this issue, but it ultimately seems to boil down whether or not Wikipedia's reliable sources and undue weight polices require a Wikipedia article to reflect the predominant opinions in the mainstream media. The effect of bias on a source's reliability is also a key issue. Some editors are arguing that Gamergate is a one sided issue, and presenting the pro-Gamergate side in the lead constitutes undue weight. I believe this requires arbitrator intervention because the dispute has only gotten worse, and the legitimacy of the POV dispute is in itself in dispute. The dispute did not resolve, or improve after the article was fully protected for a while, and discussions are now occurring on the talk page that the POV tag should be removed despite the clear bias in the article. Thank you for your attention.

Statement by Ryulong

Statement by Masem

Statement by Tarc

Statement by Loganmac

Statement by NorthBySouthBaranof

Statement by {Non-party}

Clerk notes

This area is used for notes by the clerks (including clerk recusals).

Gamergate: Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter <0/0/0/0>

Vote key: (Accept/decline/recuse/other)

Gamaliel

Initiated by Andyvphil (talk) at 07:00, 23 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Involved parties

Andyvphil (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

[1]

Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried

[2]

Statement by Andyvphil

Admin Gamaliel was involved in a content dispute with user Andyvphil at Neil deGrasse Tyson [3]

In response to a personal attack[4] Andyvphil posted a response which Gamaliel (1st admin action, involved) revdel'd "Nope, you don't get to use this space as a forum to expound on your bullshit theories denigrating the subject of the article."[5]

Andyvphil on on Gamaliel's talk page requested access to the deleted words so that he could object.[6] Gamaliel declined, saying that Andyvphil had repeatedly made "racist" assertions, and "insist[ed] on making blanket racist assertions" and claimed, "You have repeatedly suggested that a prominent and successful academic of color was a failure as an academic and only succeeded as a result of affirmative action", and "...you assert that someone only succeeded because... or in part because of a racist assumption unsupported by evidence". No such assertions had been made. Andyvphil asked Gamaliel to solicit a second opinion, request ignored. Gamaliel repeatedly refused to provide any diffs and his explanations involved false descriptions of both deleted and undeleted text. Gamaliel threatened Andyvphil with "blocking and/or profanity in multiple languages" if he did not stop his inquiries. He "archived" the conversation, deleted a further reminder to him of his "duty as an administrator to [respond] promptly and fully to all good-faith concerns raised about [his] administrative actions" and, after Andyvphil again reminded him "that 'go away' is an out-of-policy response to a civil inquiry as to [his] administrative actions" and that if an administrator finds that he or she cannot adhere to site policies the admin ought to take the question to a noticeboard or get a 2nd opinion, deleted that and blocked Andyvphil(2nd admin action) for, initially, 24 hours. Some time after that he unblocked Andyvphil with the comment, "Harass away!", but blanked and protected (3rd admin action) his talk page.

transcluded complete exchange:[7]

Attenmpted dispute resolution: Gamaliel didn't show up at AN/I despite editing elsewhere; his apology for not using process was deemed sufficient there. Andyvphil got a BLP block. [8]

Closing was by Arb. Beeblebrox, of whom I request recusal as his he failed to evaluate Gamaliel's apology for it's failure to recognize errors and misrepresentations, and we have conflicted over that.

addendums:

The broader significance of this appeal is to discover whether Arb is interested in addressing the hostile editing environment for those not of Gamalaiel's political valence that he and others are creating in certain areas of Wikipedia. This has progressed from asserting control of mainpage content to censoring and interfering with discussion page conversation (the revdel, but also rampant hatting and redaction) and even talk page semi-private conversation.[9]

I mentioned the topic ban only in order to avoid accusations I was hiding it, but it is true that I was topic-banned as a result of attempting to call an administrator to account for what is rather uncontroversially actual abuse.

@Johnuniq:Given that nothing I had written was racist (here is the redaction, visible for non-admins: http://prntscr.com/4yjo8c), it was an act of incredible chutzpah for G to take offense while repeatedly averring without responding to demands for proof that what I had said was racist. ~~I have not reposted the revdel onWiki.~~* Since Columbia had an Affirmative Action program is it really controversial, still less "racist", to say T almost certainly got that consideration?

*correction: I posted that fragment, as a demonstration of its obvious unobjectionability, on the talkpage of the admin who had secured it for me. He objected and I reposted my point with the fragment redacted. I've made no attempt to call anyone's attention to this "racist" material, and had forgotten it was in the history.

@Wikidemon: "Self-respecting editors avoid AN/I like the plague..." I agree. But I didn't see, and when I inquired was not informed of, any alternative. Throwing my ability to edit Wikipedia on the pyre was a necessary preliminary to getting here. Where we will find out if there are any reserves of decency and self awareness left on Wikipedia.

Statement by Gamaliel

Statement by Johnuniq

This case is unlikely to be accepted as it only concerns a single sub-optimal incident with plenty of extenuating circumstances. Some background can be seen at the recent ANI report here (permalink) which was opened by Andyvphil. The result was a community-imposed topic ban for Andyvphil from all BLP editing, with no support for any sanction regarding Gamaliel given the acknowledgement on their talk.

Andyvphil should have taken the hint in Gamaliel's comment: "You have repeatedly suggested that a prominent and successful academic of color was a failure as an academic and only succeeded as a result of affirmative action, despite ample evidence of his achievments in his field. This is incredibly offensive and racist, even if you do not mean it to be, and I find it particularly offensive personally as an academic who is a racial minority myself."

That was at Gamaliel's talk, and is in the first reply here. The disagreement concerns a comment that Gamaliel rev-deleted; that comment was apparently reposted by Andyvphil: "It is of course virtually certain that Tyson got special consideration on account of his race (and maybe political connections)."

Editors and admins are not expected to be perfect and to always function in an ideal manner. What counts is the general benefit-to-noise ratio associated with a contributor, and the only question raised by this case is whether Andyvphil is a good fit for Wikipiedia. Johnuniq (talk) 11:15, 23 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by MONGO

Andyvphil was attempting to insert racially charged speculation and opinion in a BLP without a reliable source to back it up. End of story. Gamaliel acted in the best interests of BLP to prevent repeated instances of this BLP violation from occurring. As an administrator, that is within Gamaliel's remit. The rest has been an ongoing saga and not in need of arbitration attention at this time. As Johnuniq states above, the question is if Andyvphil can understand our policies well enough to continue editing in similar arenas...the community already decided that in the article in question and the answer is a resounding NO.--MONGO 11:53, 23 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Prioryman

In all honesty I think the Committee should take this case, so that definitive closure can be provided on this matter. It's clear that Gamaliel got too involved with the Neil deGrasse Tyson BLP and overstepped the line. It would have been better had he not got so involved, but he did the right thing in recognising that he had crossed the line, stepping back, disengaging and apologising publicly. We should recognise in mitigation that he clearly got stressed, made some poor decisions as a result and then took the necessary corrective actions. At the very most his conduct would merit a mild admonishment; admins are only human and will make mistakes, the question is how they deal with those mistakes. Gamaliel seems to me to have done all the right things following the initial error.

The more problematic question concerns Andyvphil's conduct, which is the root cause of this issue. Andyvphil's statement makes it seem like the dispute arose from nothing. In fact, as others have mentioned, Andyvphil's conduct on the Tyson article and some other BLP-related content over a substantial period has been so poor that he ended up with a community ban from all BLPs as a result [10]. This conduct has included posting overtly racist comments about Tyson's supposed dependence on affirmative action [11][12] (which appears nowhere in reliable sources but appears to be a meme on certain conservative blogs), gratuitously abusive comments towards other editors [13][14][15] and edit-warring on the Tyson article to add his preferred negative framing of the subject's academic career [16]. While the community ban discussion was in progress he announced on his talk page that he would "seek attention to it outside Wikipedia as the best way to improve the workings of the project" [17] and contacted a conservative blog that has posted criticism of Tyson to highlight the discussion [18] (uploaded by Andyvphil). The individual he contacted has previously posted criticism of Wikipedia's coverage of Tyson, so this is a rather obvious attempt at off-wiki canvassing. Since his topic ban was enacted he has continued with an extremely aggressive approach towards editors and admins - see [19] and on down - including making bizarre accusations that they are "extreme leftis[ts]" for referring to Gamaliel as "they".[20][21] I see no sign at all that Andyvphil has reconsidered his approach following the community ban and every sign that he intends to continue to fight with other editors, as this arbitration request would seem to indicate.

In short, I think there's a definite need to review Andyvphil's conduct and consider whether his continued presence here is of any further benefit to the project. I urge the Committee to take the case on that basis. Prioryman (talk) 12:54, 23 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Obsidi

There is no doubt in my mind that both sides in this dispute have acted poorly. One of them was an administrator who should have known better. That said given the apology in this case, I don’t think warrants anything more than a warning not to do it again. I believe people are misinterpreting statements that the articles subject benefited from affirmative action as statements that he couldn’t have gotten admitted but for affirmative action. The second is racist the first is not. Andyvphil said that he got “special consideration” which if you consider an affirmative action bonus on an application to be “special consideration” then is likely true. That clearly doesn’t mean the material should be included in the article as it may have not mattered to the life of the subject as he may have been able to get in anyway. Andyvphil should have been told that and if he insisted on it maybe a topic ban for that.

Secondly an edit by Andyvphil in which he refers to the subject as having “washed out” is being used to say that Andyvphil is racist. Given 1) The reliable source referred to the incident as having “essentially flunked out” and 2) the subject refer to it as “kicked out”, and 3)the phrase “washed out” means “Having dropped a project or an enterprise or having been dropped from one: a washed-out officer candidate.” [22] 4) this was already brought before arbitration enforcement with the result of “not actionable”. I do not believe this was properly used as a reason to impose the ban on Andyvphil.

I do not believe that Andyvphil engaged in off-wiki canvassing. He was not trying to get people to come and influence any active decision (including any active RfC or other similar decision). Andyvphil is free to go to whatever source he wishes to talk about WP in general and what he believes to be an unfair ban of himself.

Andyvphil was clearly subjected to a ban by an involved administrator in this case and that is likely to make anyone angry, for that reason I would give him a little slack on some of the angry statements he made after that occurred. Andyvphil also has exhibited other poor behavior in the article that warrants a topic ban, but a BLP ban goes a bit too far. This is a single incident on a single BLP, not an on-going problem. Most articles in SOME way talk about a living person, so it amounts to almost a site ban in itself, and yet is not reviewable like a normal site ban would be. Maybe in your estimation Andyvphil shouldn’t be on this project anymore, or maybe his ban should be limited to a topic ban. I ask this committee to take this case as the only reviewer of the ban imposed on Andyvphil (even if the result is to just reaffirm as appropriate).

--Obsidi (talk) 14:52, 23 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Drmies Sorry, I meant "said racist things". --Obsidi (talk) 22:47, 23 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Lithistman

I watched this unfold in real time. Gamaliel (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) was deeply involved, both at Dr. Tyson's BLP in general, as well as with Andyvphil in particular. As I've made perfectly clear to Andyvphil, I don't care for the tone he tends to take, but I have to say, the things he's been accused of saying (and of being for that matter)--with little or no support in the diffs--during this debacle have been quite disgraceful. And after he was blocked by Gamaliel, I asked Gamaliel to reconsider per the fact that he was WP:INVOLVED, but he simply brushed off my concerns. It was not until a couple of other administrators stepped in and questioned what he had done that he even considered that he might be wrong. Even still, in lieu of simply undoing the block and apologizing, he undid it with an angry summary, and then compounded the problem by blanking and fully protecting his userpage, so that only admins could edit it. Eventually, he decided (perhaps after some emails from other admins, but I obviously can't be sure of that) to leave a long "apology" (scare quotes intended) at his talkpage, which some have judged to be adequate for what he did. I disagree with this strongly and, while I agree with Obsidi above that this isn't quite enough for a straight desysop, I think this case should be accepted, both for the resolution it would give to the current problems at the Dr. Tyson page, as well as for the purpose of putting Gamaliel on notice that even one more such egregious block and he will lose the bit. Blocking is the most potentially disruptive tool in an admin's toolkit, and misuse of it should not be taken lightly, as it seems to have been in the (ill-advised) ANI thread Andyvphil originally started regarding this issue. LHM^{ask me a question} 15:13, 23 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by A Quest for Knowledge

The purpose of ArbCom is to settle conduct issues that the community cannot. I believe the community has largely settled the issue with regards to Andyvphils conduct and is satisfied with Gamaliel's unblock and subsequent statement. I don't see a need for an ArbCom case unless the scope expands (as Lithistman seems to suggest) to the larger issues of the Tyson/Federalist dispute. To be sure, there's plenty of bad conduct to go around. But we all know how such a case will end: the most divisive editors will get topic banned and the Tyson/Federalist topic space will get placed under discretionary sanctions. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 15:38, 23 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Hullaballoo Wolfowitz

This should be summarily declined. Andyvphil does not argue that the community resolution does not lack appropriate consensus support, that the resolution contravenes applicable policies and guidelines, or that there were significant procedural irregularities in the resolution process. Andyvphil might benefit, however, from a reminder that the community discussion evidences a belief that his own course of conduct was, at best, no more appropriate than the conduct he continues to complain about. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 15:35, 23 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by MrX

This case should be declined, per the succinct arguments put forth by MONGO and A Quest for Knowledge. The community has already made a determination that Gamaliel did not make an major error in judgment nor is there a pattern of such errors. The discussion was properly assessed for consensus and closed. - Mr X 18:12, 23 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Drmies

This cannot be about Andyvphil's topic ban, which was approved at ANI by a considerable margin, yet many of the comments here continue to address it; Andyvphil seems to go down that route as well, accusing Beeblebrox, the closing admin, of something involving Gamaliel. Besides, pace Obsidi, above, "an edit by Andyvphil in which he refers to the subject as having 'washed out' is being used to say that Andyvphil is racist"--no one said Andyvhil "is" racist, and it's not important anyway. This is supposed to be about Gamaliel's behavior, and I have not yet seen compelling evidence of some sort of gross misconduct by Gamaliel (not "error"--to err is human).

In other words, I do not see why the Arbs should take this case which, it seems to me, is an attempt to get retried on the original set of offenses. For the record, I support Gamaliel's revdel of that particular edit. Drmies (talk) 19:10, 23 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Wikidemon

I urge Arbcom to seriously consider taking this case, and not dodge out on a dubious assertion that the community has handled it. A thread open barely 24 hours on AN/I, with one side shouting racism while the other side asking where's the proof, hardly represents the will of Wikipedia's editing community. Self-respecting editors avoid AN/I like the plague, and those participating are often involved in the underlying dispute or just there for the drama. Unless I'm missing something like standing discretionary sanctions, isn't there supposed to be a pathway involving escalating sanctions, warnings, or an RfC/U?

On the actual !vote, the first 4 hours saw 11 favoring some editing restriction for AVP (BLP topic ban, ban from Neil deGrasse Tyson page), and 10 opposed on substantive grounds (his edits were okay, not racist, not sanctionable) or procedural grounds (no evidence or arguments presented). In the next 20 hours of overtime, 14 in favored and 2 opposed, so the total at close was 25 to 13. Who knows, if it had gone another inning it could have ended at 30 to 25. Either way, it's impressive to get a majority actually favoring sanctions given the large contingent that usually opposes any efforts to rein in unruly editors; either AVP has burned too many bridges and not played enough politics to have the customary team of supporters, or maybe the anti-authoritarians are busy watching the World Series. Either way, the vote numbers aren't even statistically meaningful, much less clearly representative of the will of the community. A principled decision on effectively banning a long-term editor indefinitely from the project ought to be given more time, participation, and discussion.

If we have that discussion here, does AVP deserve a topic ban? Sanctions are supposed to be for avoiding disruption, keeping the editing environment productive, and in this case perhaps, shielding an African American scientist and television personality against talk that he is intellectually weak, his academic credentials limited, and that he benefitted from affirmative action. Perhaps NDGT deserves that protection and the best way is to throw an editor off our boat; perhaps not. Personally I think it is a dangerous, somewhat Orwellian move to quash discussion and punish editors for talking frankly about public figures. That goes well beyond the stated reason for BLP, to avoid hurting people and so that Wikipedia doesn't get sued. Or perhaps it's not BLP but preserving a community that welcomes diversity and avoids racism. But if race-related issues discussed widely throughout America (and presumably other issues in other places) cannot be discussed here, that evinces contempt for the larger world, and can interfere with our encyclopedic mission.

Gamaliel's hotheadedness, use of tools while involved, and reflexive deletion of material about which reasonable good faith editors disagreed, were all less than ideal, but he (?) is aware and apparently remorseful beyond any need for contrition. He's self-corrected, and I don't see any of that being serious enough to require any action by anybody, much less Arbcom.

Statement by Collect

I suggest that if this case is accepted, that the general issue of proper process for BLP bans be addressed, as I rather think major sanctions decided in less than a day may be too heavily influenced by "first responders agreeing to the ban" where a more cautious approach might have a different result. There are, in fact, editors on Wikipedia who do not live on the site. Collect (talk) 21:24, 23 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Ultraexactzz

I started the thread about the topic ban for Andyvphil at ANI. While I believed that there would be a clear consensus in favor of such a ban, I did not expect the request to be closed so quickly. The problem with his edits wasn't that he raised a concern about the subject, but that he did so in speculative fashion, utterly without sources or backing of any sort, and in a manner that disparaged the subject. The effect would have been the same if he had said "Of COURSE he didn't get into the program on his own merit - I mean, LOOK at him!" When he throws around terms such as "almost certainly got consideration...", and then offers no sources that back that statement, he falls afoul of BLP. It is clear, from his own comments here, that Andyvphil does not adequately understand why his edits are a problem. IF the committee wishes to dig deeper into Andyvphil's conduct, in this and in other matters, a case (or a motion) might be appropriate. For now, I believe the topic ban is sufficient.

I don't have anything new to offer on Gamaliel - he overstepped, corrected himself, and apologized. The critical difference between Gamaliel's conduct and Andyvphil's is that Gamaliel acknowledged his error and demonstrated that he (correctly!) understands policy. He can be expected to follow it moving forward. The same cannot be said for Andyvphil. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 13:26, 24 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Arzel

This situation is quite simple. Gamaliel clearly abused his admin powers as noted in WP:TOOLMISUSE. It has been misstated numerous times that Gamaliel blocked Andyphil for violating BLP. However, Gamaliel clearly blocked Andyphil for continuing to post on his talk page. Andyphil had been badgering Gamaliel for clarification about the edit Gamaliel deleted that he considered to be racist. After some back and forth arguing over whether Andy was actually making a racist statement Gamaliel told Andy to go away and closed the discussion. Andy Comments again Gamaliel deletes the comment and says to go away in the edit summary Andy again responds Gamaliel reverts again without comment Gamaliel blocks At no time was BLP invoked by Gamaliel in their discussion and Gamaliel blocked for Disruptive Editing (on HIS page).

Now there is no arguing that Andy was badgering Gamaliel for what he thought was already an abuse of admin tools. But Gamaliel should have gone to ANI and had a none-involved Admin warn/block Andy for continuing to post on his page after being told to stop. Gamaliel even states "This is incredibly offensive and racist, even if you do not mean it to be, and I find it particularly offensive personally as an academic who is a racial minority myself." The question the ARBCOM needs to ask is it ok for an admin to abuse their tools. Although he eventually did relent and unblock Andy, it was hardly civil and then locked down his own page. This action should be reprimanded in some manner. Perhaps not a loss of admin tools, but given the power that admins have he should be explicitly reminded that this is not acceptable.

Statement by The Devil's Advocate

I have various good reasons to believe Gamaliel's conduct as an administrator is in serious need of addressing by ArbCom. However, my concerns revolve around a topic area where many admins have engaged in misconduct that is in need of addressing, in addition to various editorial problems. As such, I would suggest declining this case. Within a week there may very well be a case request where Gamaliel is a chief figure alongside other editors and admins with a history of misconduct and his overall conduct as an administrator can be addressed in that case.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 06:33, 25 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Rich Farmbrough

I share the apparent consensus that Gamaliel probably made some unwise decisions, and recall that he had recntly made another dubious admin decision. However I also share the apparent consensus that since he has realised he was slipping, and is presumed able to address it there is no action required at the moment, if at all.

It does pain me that AVP is not afforded the same option to reconsider his actions, and "play nicely" in the future. It seems even more unfortunate, as another editor commented above that the AN/I was closed so quickly - actually as I was reading it, though I'm not certain I would have commented there.

As I understand it AVP made a foolish statement which, had it simply been worded differently would have not fallen afoul of WP:BLP. For example he might have simply asked "Has anyone seen RS that Tyson has benefited from affirmative action?" It is also important to see the context - immediately after the statement in question he says "No suggestion... that anything be inserted in the article without reliable sources." Moreover the statement in question was made after a long conversation, full of coded and not so coded suggestions of racism.

(If affirmative action is a good thing, it does make me wonder how it can be racist to say that someone benefited from it. But that, perhaps, is a tangent.)

It seems to me that there is an attempt to brand AVP as having an incorrect world view, and hence to be incapable of contributing to Wikipedia.

For example Prioryman cites this diff, where AVP changes

"he was unable to complete his Ph.D. because his thesis committee voted to dissolve itself"

to

"he failed to make progress on his dissertation and professors encouraged him to consider alternate careers. Eventually his thesis committee was dissolved, washing him out of the Ph.D. program."

The source says

"Tyson wasn’t making progress on his dissertation, and professors encouraged him to consider alternate careers."

and

"After Tyson finished his master’s thesis, his advisors dissolved his dissertation committee—essentially flunking him."

Clearly in this case (unless "flunk" and "washing out" have different meanings in Texas than Lincolnshire) AVP's interpretation of the source is sound, if anything he follows it too closely.

Similarly suggesting that he wants to reform WP from outside is not an offence, otherwise we would be banning all our Wikipediocracy friends.

Beeblebrox says on AVP's talk page "You may note that my closing contained no judgement whatsoever as to whether you are a closet racist or not. " This (as well as skirting dangerously close, or even onto BLP territory itself) effectively confirms that Beeblebrox read the AN/I as being about AVP's alleged racism, rather than BLP issues.

I'm not arguing AVP hasn't made errors, nor that he hasn't been overly prickly, as a glance at his talk page shows. However a BLP ban is to all intents and purposes a block, for a general purpose editor. And I see no reason that a long standing editor should be shut out for a six-month rather than simply be advised to take a short wiki-break, and be more careful in future - as indeed Gamaliel has decided to do.

Even with the sanction in place I find the suggestion " I would really like to see you in six months editing with a better appreciation of what you can and can't say about living people" laughable, there is no way that someone is going to improve at a task they are banned from.

I don't believe there is any need to accept this case in terms of removing admin bits, or other action with respect to Gamaliel. Conversely I don't believe (though I may be wrong) that the committee has the power to overturn Beeblebrox's close, though any admin (or possibly any editor) may do so on their own cognisance. The committee could of course issue reminders and so forth to Gamaliel, AVP and Beeblebrox, but I hope they have all learned their lessons anyway, so that would seem pointless.

Statement by Ivanvector

As I stated in the AN/I thread I feel that we should allow administrators fairly wide latitude to ignore all rules to enforce the BLP policy, and it certainly appears to me that Gamaliel's actions were justifiable, despite not following all of the proper procedures. I have not and will not review the apparently racist comment which Gamaliel deleted, but Andyvphil's relentless campaign to have the revdel reversed, his tenacious defense of comments the community deemed inappropriate, and his dragging of Gamaliel's actions through multiple community processes make me further believe that urgency was justified in Gamaliel's actions. In my opinion Gamaliel should have immediately posted at AN to have an uninvolved admin review their actions after setting the blocks, because they were obviously involved, but they have acknowledged this and apologized, and that satisfies me. Thus I encourage the arbitrators to decline this case. Ivanvector (talk) 16:06, 27 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by (editor)

Clerk notes

This area is used for notes by the clerks (including clerk recusals).

Gamaliel: Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter <0/6/0/0>

Vote key: (Accept/decline/recuse/other)

Awaiting additional statements, but strongly leaning decline at this point. I don't see any indication that this can't be handled by community action and discussion, and it appears it largely has been. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 14:39, 23 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Decline, I don't see any need for further action here. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 03:43, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The comment in question does indeed appear to be, at the very least, racially insensitive; and it also evinces an overly nonchalant approach to editing BLPs which may certainly warrant a topic ban. For that, I believe the exercise of the community's power to restrict was so reasonable and so ArbCom's interference is not warranted.
Moving onto Gamaliel's actions, the original revdeletion was defensible, as he was protecting a living person from a contentious and unsourced assertion downplaying the article subjeect's academic achievements on account of the colour of his skin. And the claim that Gamaliel was involved is not particularly persuasive, because, under WP:GRAPEVINE, [a]dministrators may enforce the removal of clear BLP violations with page protection or by blocking the violator(s), even if they have been editing the article themselves or are in some other way involved.
Since this appears to be a rather clear-cut violation of BLP, Gamaliel's actions do indeed look justified. Furthermore, policy requires admins to explain their actions, which Gamaliel did; it does not require them to convince the other editor and neither does it force them to continue discussing past the point of diminishing returns. If you're unhappy with an admin's explanation, you go to the appropriate noticeboard and start a discussion, you do not continue badgering him.
Now, in my opinion, up to this point, Gamaliel's actions were not in breach of the standards of behaviour expected of administrators. The subsequent block, however, was and so was the full protection of Gamaliel's talk page. However, a. there were extenuating circumstances, b. this appears to have been a case of simple misuse of tools (rather than the more serious abuse of tools) and c. there is no evidence this was not merely a one-off mistake. For all these reasons, I vote to decline the request. $Salvio$ ^{Let's talk about it!} 10:18, 24 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Decline. I would say that Gamaliel was involved, but his actions were generally appropriate (if intemperately made) given the circumstances. If there are issues with Andyvphil's edits, then presumably they can be handled as his previous behavior was, without our involvement. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 13:01, 24 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'm generally unhappy with Gamaliel's behaviour at the time and would have been accepting a case - were it not for the fact that Gamaliel had explained himself, apologised and taken a break. I hope he spots that a break is needed sooner in future. I believe the community has handled the rest of the issues at play here, so decline. Worm^TT(talk) 13:12, 24 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Decline. Gamaliel has acknowledged the issues with his actions, and I'm seeing no indication that this is part of any pattern of inappropriate administrator conduct. Regarding the various users who are interested in the Arbitration Committee addressing Andyvphil's behavior, I believe it can be handled successfully by the normal community processes. GorillaWarfare (talk) 21:25, 25 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Decline. With respect to Gamaliel, I generally agree with the comments above. With respect to Andyvphil, I endorse the outcome of the ANI discussion and urge a complete reconsideration of his approach to editing if he is going to remain active. Newyorkbrad (talk) 19:52, 27 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 13: / Line 13: @@
 *{{userlinks|Skrelk}}, ''filing party''
 *{{userlinks|Ryulong}}
-*{{userlinks|Masem}}
+*{{admin|Masem}}
 *{{userlinks|Tarc}}
 *{{userlinks|Loganmac}}
@@ Line 31: / Line 31: @@
 *Link 2
+===Statement by Skrelk ===
+The article regarding the ongoing Gamergate controversy has been plagued by dispute over it's objectivity from the beginning. The party's I have named appear to be the most active in editing, and most active on the talk page. A great deal of emotion is invested in this issue, but it ultimately seems to boil down whether or not Wikipedia's reliable sources and undue weight polices require a Wikipedia article to reflect the predominant opinions in the mainstream media. The effect of bias on a source's reliability is also a key issue. Some editors are arguing that Gamergate is a one sided issue, and presenting the pro-Gamergate side in the lead constitutes undue weight. I believe this requires arbitrator intervention because the dispute has only gotten worse, and the legitimacy of the POV dispute is in itself in dispute. The dispute did not resolve, or improve after the article was fully protected for a while, and discussions are now occurring on the talk page that the POV tag should be removed despite the clear bias in the article. Thank you for your attention.
 === Statement by Ryulong ===
 === Statement by Masem ===