Jump to content

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Gamaliel and others

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Main case page (Talk) — Evidence (Talk) — Workshop (Talk) — Proposed decision (Talk)

Case clerks: Miniapolis (Talk) & Lankiveil (Talk) Drafting arbitrators: DGG (Talk) & Callanecc (Talk)

Wikipedia Arbitration
Open proceedings
Active sanctions
Arbitration Committee
Audit
Track related changes

Case opened on 13:31, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

Case closed on 03:39, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

Watchlist all case (and talk) pages: Front, Ev., Wshp., PD.

Do not edit this page unless you are an arbitrator or clerk. Statements on this page are copies of the statements submitted in the original request to arbitrate this dispute, and serve as verbatim copies; therefore, they may not be edited or removed. (However, lengthy statements may be truncated – in which case the full statement will be copied to the talk page. Statements by uninvolved editors during the Requests phase will also be copied to the talk page.) Evidence which you wish to submit to the committee should be given at the /Evidence subpage, although permission must be sought by e-mail before you submit private, confidential, or sensitive evidence.

Arbitrators, the parties, and other editors may suggest proposed principles, findings, and remedies at /Workshop. The Workshop may also be used for you to submit general comments on the evidence, and for arbitrators to pose questions to the parties. Eventually, arbitrators will vote on a final decision in the case at /Proposed decision; only arbitrators may offer proposals as the Proposed Decision.

Once the case is closed, editors should edit the #Enforcement log as needed, but the other content of this page may not be edited except by clerks or arbitrators. Please raise any questions about this decision at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment, any general questions at Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee, and report violations of the remedies passed in the decision to Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement.

Case information

Involved parties

Prior dispute resolution

Preliminary statements

Statement by NE Ent

American presidential candidate Marco Rubio recently made a comment about Donald Trump's hands, which is known to be a reference to penis size [1]; per the US constitution, this is acceptable speech in the US. On Wikipedia, however, the arbitration has previously made clear in Manning principles (selected passages, emphasis mine) that:

Removal of material about living persons

3) The policy on biographies of living persons requires that non-compliant material be removed if the non-compliance cannot readily be rectified. The policy does not impose any limitations on the nature of the material to be removed, provided that the material concerns a living person, and provided that the editor removing it is prepared to explain their rationale for doing so.

Once material about a living person has been removed on the basis of a good-faith assertion that such material is non-compliant, the policy requires that consensus be obtained prior to restoring the material.

Equality and respect

5.2) Wikipedia editors and readers come from a diverse range of backgrounds, including with respect to their race, ethnicity, national origin, religion, sex or gender, sexual orientation, and gender identity or expression. Comments that demean fellow editors, an article subject, or any other person, on the basis of any of these characteristics are offensive and damage the editing environment for everyone. Such comments, particularly when extreme or repeated after a warning, are grounds for blocking or other sanctions.

Applicability of the BLP policy

10) All living people who are subjects of Wikipedia content are entitled to the protections of the biographies of living persons policy. An editor's personal dislike of the subject or their actions does not abrogate in any way the usual protections of the policy.

The BLP policy and article titles

11) The biographies of living persons policy applies to all references to living persons throughout Wikipedia, including the titles of articles and pages and all other portions of any page.

end of excerpt

A review of the applicable discussions shows these policies were clearly not followed; the material was not removed expeditiously nor did Gamaliel et. al. ever acknowledge the non-compliance; rather he has posted content on his user page [1] mocking the legitimate concerns of the Wikipedia community.

The committee should accept this case because

  • writing in the Wall Street Journal Joseph Epstein asks of the candidates this year How did it come about that we have five such unimpressive contenders for the presidency of the United States? [2] The upcoming campaign will be rife with negative commentary and innuendo; to maintain the integrity of the project, it will be essential that we uphold the primacy of the WP:BLP policy.
  • our article Gender bias on Wikipedia notes that it's been suggested "Wikipedia culture is sexual in ways they find off-putting." Comments about a living persons penis that have no encyclopedic value whatsoever clearly falls into this category.NE Ent 23:53, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ http://www.cnn.com/2016/03/08/health/trump-small-hands-penis/
  2. ^ http://www.wsj.com/articles/these-five-are-the-best-we-can-do-1459899387

Filing party coda

Committee: Thanks! See ya on the evidence page.

Everyone else, including clerks: The purpose of a case request is to convince the committee to accept a case, or not, depending on the writer's point of view. Given the count is 9/2/4, 82% / plus 7 and has been for days, this is an accepted case. While I can't say worrying about the number of words this editor or that editor got is the most ridiculous thing I've seen in Wikipedia dispute resolution -- I've read way too many WP:ANI posts -- it certainly does rate as rather silly. NE Ent 18:05, 16 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Gamaliel

I take BLP very seriously and I enforce it on a daily basis. I do not believe BLP is violated by mild humorous topical references on April Fools' Day, nor do I feel those mild humorous topical references do any damage to living individuals. We have a long history of such references on Wikipedia. I also take seriously real concerns expressed to me in a civil manner regarding BLP. The record will show that when the community in general expressed serious concerns in the MFD discussion, the editorial board of the Signpost discussed and acted on the matter and agreed with the community consensus. The record will also show that much of the drama here was driven by editors with self-admitted grudges against me personally or were directed here from multiple off-site Gamergate forums. I see no reason why I should not treat that drama with the contempt that it deserves, nor do I feel that attitude has anything to do with my ability to adhere to or enforce the BLP policy. I have been enforcing BLP since it was created in 2005, I've spent years on and off working at the BLP noticeboard, I've been an OTRS volunteer, and I've spent a year in the weeds at Gamergate defending the encyclopedia from being used as a weapon for harassment. BLP is one of our most important policies. However, we've had many, many examples in the history of that policy of editors acting in an overly zealous manner, being obnoxious and self-righteous towards other editors, or hijacking the policy to push their own agendas or settle their personal grudges. That's what's happening here, that's what the evidence will show, and that's what some of the drama mongers have openly stated. We can all do better, personally, and as a community. We should do a better job of preventing those individuals from hijacking our processes so the serious editors can discuss their differences respectfully.

In retrospect there are things I could have done better. I understand the community objections to the dummy standalone pages I created to make the template work and I wish I had found a better way to create that template, and the responsibility for that is mine alone and does not lie with anyone else at the Signpost. I wish I had not lost my temper when being harassed and personally attacked. However, I do not regret collaborating with other Signpost editors to create the story, which many people enjoyed. I do not regret mocking the agenda-driven drama stirred up against me, as many other people did. I do not regret thinking Wikipedia-based humor is funny, as many people do and have over our history. Those are all views that I share with many other editors. None of those views are against Wikipedia policies or affect my ability to enforce them.

The dummy pages have been deleted, the offending headline has been removed from the joke story and has not been restored, even though there was no consensus that its presence was a violation, only that the standalone pages were a problem. I realize lots of people don't like me, or April Fools' Day, or humor on Wikipedia, or that my views differ from theirs regarding encyclopedia policies or ethics in gaming journalism. There's lots of people who disagree, and yet we still manage to write an encyclopedia, at least those of us who are here to do so. It's time for us drop the stick and get back to that. Gamaliel (talk) 00:40, 11 April 2016 (UTC) [reply]

Collapsing as over-length. Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 13:31, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

DHeyward admits that he has held a grudge against me for a decade and referred to me as Joseph Gobbels only a few weeks ago. I mostly avoid editing politics these days and do not remember much of these many, many interactions DHeyward repeatedly claims we've had on political articles. It is true I was once a very active editor of American political articles in the early years of my decade+ on Wikipedia. Yet DHeyward presents no evidence of POV-pushing in that editing; he only names articles, some of which I do not recall editing, some of which I haven't edited in a decade, and some of which where my only crime was disagreeing with DHeyward's edits. His sole link is not a diff, but a link to an external Gawker article which only names me in a quote attacking me by an account impersonating a living individual. And absolutely none of this has anything to do with an April Fools' Day joke, it's just an opportunity for DHeyward to attack me again. Gamaliel (talk) 01:20, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

In regards to Gamergate actions:

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

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

Coda by Gamaliel

It is perhaps somewhat unusual to place a statement here, but Gamaliel asked me to post this on his behalf, and I did not want it buried somewhere on this already voluminous page. Now that we are headed to arbitration, we have reached closure for this stage and it seems proper to me that he get a final statement in. Drmies (talk) 03:44, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I began writing this before the case was accepted. Maybe there's no point in finishing it, but there are things that need saying regardless.

I had a long conversation with someone yesterday evening who has turned out to be a better friend than I realized, or deserve. This person told me that I acted poorly and I've been approaching this matter all wrong, both then and now. And they are absolutely right.

I am no politician. I don't say that as a point of pride, as politicians and others often do, I say that to mean I lack certain skills would have served me well over the last week. I try to say what I mean and take ethically appropriate actions, but I do not pay sufficient attention to how those statements and actions will be perceived by those who have legitimate concerns or how they may be used against me in bad faith. I have some differences of opinion with some of the editors here and those opinions will not change. The disruptive conduct of others has affected how I reacted to these situations, and this conduct continues, with one editor here starting a pointy MFD aimed at me that was quickly closed, and another editor here being rebuked on two different projects by three different admins in 24 hours for harassing me and vandalizing my user page. I have every right to bring up this conduct and these differences.

However, I realize now that this may be interpreted as attempting to excuse or minimize what I did wrong . Let me be absolutely clear: despite the provocation, I acted poorly and rashly, and the fault is mine and belongs to no one else. I should have left the CSD tags alone and let others deal with the obvious provocation that they were. I should not have edit warred to reclose the discussion even if the other party in that edit war was involved and disruptive, I should have let uninvolved parties deal with that. My actions resulted in wasting the time of the community and will result in wasting the time of the Arbitration Committee for the next month. I ran for the Committee in order to help prevent the kind of disruptive harassment that was directed at me that evening and to protect other editors from that kind of behavior. I did those editors and the community no service by acting in the way I did, and the result was detrimental to myself, the community, and the issues I joined the Committee to address. And the blame for that belongs only to me.

In regards to Gamergate, I believe every action I took there since it began in October 2014 was both consistent with policy and the desire to protect living individuals and other editors. The charge of "involvement" has been chanted like a mantra since then and I have yet to see a shred of evidence to back it up. At what point do you get to stop answering an unsubstantiated charge? After a year? Two? Five? Again and again we hear from the harassment boards on Reddit about me and Mark Bernstein, how we are supposedly buddies, or homosexual lovers, or whatever, and yet I've sanctioned him and rebuked him, publicly and privately, numerous times. I've spent dozens of hours trying to mediate the dispute between DHeyward and Mark Bernstein alone, attempting to keep them away from each other's throats and keep both of them from getting blocked, and I'll be glad to send the committee all of those emails that prove it. If people think that I'm doing that topic area a disservice, please go there and assist your fellow editors. I have done nothing to prevent any administrator from working in that area or to prevent them from imposing a sanction they deemed appropriate. When others have worked in that topic area, I have attempted to collaborate with them effectively, including (if memory serves) Acroterion, Dreadstar (RIP), EdJohnston, and Zad68. I really want nothing more to do with it.

This from Gamaliel, from an email, copied and pasted on his request. Drmies (talk) 03:44, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by DHeyward

Gamaliel has a long history of inserting his POV in American Politics. From John Kerry and the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth to Joe Scarborough and his creation of Lori Klausutis to Bill O'Reilly to G. Gordon Liddy to Fox News to Patrick Buchanan; he's never seen a liberal (they are all "moderate" and everyone else is a "conservative" or "neocon" or whatever label he can create to exaggerate extremism. This has occurred through his whole history at WP. It's not neutral. It doesn't support BLP. It's so biased as to be noted by outside reliable sources less than a year ago [2]. His actions along Gamergate lines is legendary. My own experience is that admins went to the extraordinary step of reversing my block, undoing Gamaliel's rev del and chastising him for being overzealous. His latest defense of the 9 day April 1st joke regarding Trump garnered widespread community condemnation for supporting a position that he may hold personally but violates NPOV and BLP policies. He says he's learned but even today he is trying to "Keep" a commons image linking Trump to WP and Wales. Wales himself is concerned about the being implicated with Trump. He doesn't take BLP seriously unless it supports his political view which he prominently displays on his userpage. In short he shouldn't be allowed to comment on any aspect of American Politics. Every area he touches turns into a battleground due to an unrelentingly obtuse approach that he is always right and neutral. Accept his case and end a number of controversies including GamerGate. --DHeyward (talk) 01:08, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

Fram In this action, Gamaliel's overzealous rev del was overturned at AN as well as a block he endorsed. Risker summed it up in the first comment and undid all the admin actions. --DHeyward (talk) 00:22, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Preliminary decision

Clerk notes

This area is used for notes by the clerks (including clerk recusals).
  • As a reminder, the arbitration policy states (emphasis mine) "An arbitrator may recuse from any case, or from any aspect of a case, with or without explanation[...]". Although asking arbitrators the reason for their recusal is allowed, the arbitrator is by no means required to answer. Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 04:34, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Recuse Kharkiv07 (T) 00:15, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Recuse Liz Read! Talk! 00:45, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Recuse as I was involved with the CSD Mdann52 (talk) 11:46, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter <9/2/4/0>

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

  • Recuse. Gamaliel (talk) 00:41, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Recuse. Kirill Lokshin (talk) 00:43, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Before I go Accept/decline/recuse/other, can I ask some of the commenters here, those who think (like Fram) that Gamaliel's actions were "subpar" (Staberinde's term) but suggested that this is not a case ArbCom should take, what they think an appropriate course of action might be? Moreover, it seems to me that the charge by Ent addresses only the BLP, whereas some of the comments take a broader view--and if we accept something it would be good to know what we are to accept. Drmies (talk) 18:23, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • As was to be expected this little plant has seen some healthy growth: must be the spring rains. Please allow me one quick note before I try to take in the whole: I understand the concern expressed by User:Ryk72 regarding this closing comment. The optimistic reading of User:SB Johnny's close, "no administrator is going to take action", as a pragmatic statement, i.e., this discussion is not going to lead to a block. However, I emphatically disagree with the rest, "... without explicit prior approval from ArbCom". There is no such rule and there shouldn't be such a rule: if I screw up and abuse my tools or, I don't know, am edit warring to a blockable degree, someone better warn me and, if need be, block me. Drmies (talk) 17:30, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Long-windedness with an ACCEPT in the middle--regrettably. Drmies (talk) 20:00, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I am of two, maybe three minds. Yes, the joke was a BLP violation; the BLP makes no exceptions for jokes or for the Signpost. But BLP violations come in various kinds, and this was not en egregious kind. Wrong, but not a capital offense. Subsequent actions were bad as well; I am particularly bothered by the edit warring over the ANI close. JzG's close was not funny and a BLP violation in its own right, and Gamaliel's reverting its undoing was clearly INVOLVED; repeating it was foolish and unbecoming. Moreover, when one is in a hole one should stop digging, but Gamaliel continued to dig. Justifying those actions by pointing at the motes in others' eyes also constitutes digging, though my metaphors are getting out of hand. Some of the comments made by other editors in this case request seem to whisk away the BLP infraction and the unbecoming behavior (for an Arb/admin), but the matter is serious enough.

At the same time, I cannot help but think that some of the hyperbole here indicates there are axes to grind, and bringing up "five unimpressive candidates" for the presidency and gender trouble is just that--hyperbole. This doesn't take away from the facts of the case, but it is certainly...well, also unbecoming. If the Signpost is the problem, and Gamaliel's involvement with it, that should be dealt with in another forum. Gamaliel doesn't edit the Signpost as an arb and if our entire project looks like an exercise in Marxist marketing, it's not the Signpost's fault.

By now, having pondered this long enough, I want to stay on the safe side and Accept. I do not think that the case is strong enough right now to force Gamaliel to step down or to give up the tools, and whether I am correct in that or not, a case will prove it (I believe in the process). I do believe that a censure of some kind is in order, an admonishment like Kelapstick's eloquent comment about shit. And let me add that of course I do feel some loyalty to my ArbCom colleagues, but my first loyalty (here on Wikipedia) is to the community of editors and then to the BLP. Let me add also that I have respect for Gamaliel as an editor and an admin, while I believe that simultaneously I (we) can look objectively at the facts and decide on them. If we (as someone suggested above) are supposed to be examples--well, then I apologize for setting such a long-winded example, such a waffling one. This is just not an easy case, neither immediately clear as a serious-enough case that should be immediately acted on, nor something to be whisked away as a joke. And to name-check Yngvadottir, I ran for ArbCom in part because I think that difficult cases should be handled with deliberation, not with immediate desysopping. Drmies (talk) 19:57, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • SB_Johnny, maybe so, but I think we all agree that the ANI discussion was going nowhere. If it had been headed toward a block or ban or desysop, I wouldn't have closed it--and if it had been headed for a desysop it would have been an ArbCom matter anyway. ANI is just not a real good forum for complicated stuff. Whether this is any better, who can tell. Drmies (talk) 15:47, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Recuse. Keilana (talk) 18:44, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Okay so the issues that I see ArbCom possibly being able to look at / resolve:
    • Actions on Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2010-03-17/News and notes from various editors - BLP vio or not, edit warring, removing CSD notices (had been notified), questionable use of rollback, this ridiculous nastiness and POINT series [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] (the page would need to be put into history only review for the case)
    • Actions at User:Gamaliel/Small hands - POINT or not, BATTLEGROUND or not, use of full protection in own userspace vs. INVOLVED.
    • Actions in the ANI discussion - civility/personal attacks, revert warring the close (I'd be very appreciative if someone would please collect all of the diffs of someone closing the discussion and the reverts of it being closed [from everyone who did it]), closing a discussion about oneself (and something about a WP:STICK [8] [9] [10]).
    • Issues relating to Gamaliel specifically, those I've mentioned above as well as what's presented in Hammersoft's statement
Is there anything I've missed from anyone involved? @Iridescent: Where is the wheel-warring you mentioned? Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 00:22, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I was minded to accept the case based on my dot points above. Having thought about it over the last few days I'm even more convinced that we need to accept a case to look at the April Fools issue (primarily my dot points) involving Gamaliel and others (policy/guideline violations, disruption as well as general nastiness) and Gamaliel's recent administrative actions (Fram's statement). For clarity, I don't see the need to have another case about Gamergate, but I imagine it's going to relate to it. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 10:30, 14 April 2016 (UTC) Rewritten (clarified intent, intended meaning not changed). Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 14:06, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • decline Gamaliel has been contrite about the initial material that led to this. The material is nebulous and tangential enough that it is in a grey area WRT BLP policy, and the subsequent morass involved alot of folks with opinions and I think it would be unproductive to prolong that for another several weeks, particularly as the issue as such has been deleted/resolved. The outstanding query is whether an arb should be writing on the signpost and the best way to resolve that would be a community-wide RfC to get a quantitative feel rather than the opinions of a few here. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 02:24, 12 April 2016 (UTC) switched to accept due to concerns over edit warring and potential involved admin conduct Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 03:23, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@SlimVirgin:, yes I have been thinking about the preexisting disputes, but at the end of the day (after re-reading) there is enough concern to warrant a review of the situation. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 21:22, 16 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Decline. First off, to paraphrase Francis Ford Coppola's Apocalypse Now, Handing out BLP sanctions for April Fools Day hijinks is like handing out speeding tickets at the Indy 500. This has been well documented by MastCell above. If that is to change, it has to come from the community and be done wholesale, not targeted at one specific user. Second, everyone involved in anything related to April Fools' Day 2016 should be admonished (and I really hate that word) because y'all aren't funny. Third, I agree with Cas, determining if someone should sit as an Arbitrator, and the editor-in-chief of The Signpost is not a Committee decision, a proper RfC should be held to determine that. Fourth, I was unfortunate enough to watch the AN/I thread pan out in near real time, Gamaliel's actions there were poor to say the least (I will not use the term subpar as that would be even more of an understatement than poor), however in my mind, they do not reach the level of someone being desysopped (arbitrator or not). They do not reach the level of blocking (administrator or not). His actions fall short of points 1 and 2 of Wikipedia:Arbitration/Policy#Conduct_of_arbitrators, however I would not say that they are repeated nor gross enough to warrant removal from the committee. As those three actions are really the only outcomes that would come out of this arbitration case request, my formal response is:
Gamaliel, you know better than this. You are better than this. Get your shit together, and lead by example.
I trust if there is to be an actual admonishment motion, that someone may write something a little more eloquent than that. Or not. --kelapstick(bainuu) 05:34, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
For clarity, Ryk72, and thank you for bringing it up, being a member of ArbCom grants no immunity from AN, AN/I, or any other page which are abbreviated and posted in blue-linked capital letters. I don't think anybody on the Committee believes they have any such immunity (although I wouldn't presume to speak for them, that is just my understanding). --kelapstick(bainuu) 10:28, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Reviewing the Admin Accountability concerns brought up by Fram, this request has moved beyond edit warring over The Signpost, and a kerfuffle at AN/I. All this combined (which is far more than the initial case request was) suggests that there should be an in-depth review. Change to Accept. --kelapstick(bainuu) 21:34, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Decline. I was in the middle of writing a long post when I was interrupted in real life, and when I returned I found Kelapstick's one-liner much superior to my four meandering points. So I'm just going to put it in a handy little collapse box and say "per Kelapstick" up here. Opabinia regalis (talk) 06:16, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Long-windedness
  • Some people have proposed a case scope involving allegations of political POV-pushing dating back years. An example offered is an article last deleted in 2007. The community had ample opportunity to review over a decade of Gamaliel's editing during the course of several weeks in November and December 2015, and the result of that review was to elect him to arbcom. This is not a productive avenue of inquiry.
  • Members of arbcom volunteered for a specific role in dispute resolution. It shouldn't come with diplomatic immunity. If you think someone has behaved poorly while performing some other role on Wikipedia, there is no reason it should have to come to arbcom just because that person is a member of the committee. If you think there are some roles not compatible with committee membership, take it up with the person affected, or start a community RfC about it; I can't see a situation where we are going to start picking and choosing the on-wiki extracurriculars of our membership.
  • Most of what happened in the ANI thread was indeed poor behavior that unnecessarily antagonized the situation. People do sometimes defensively overreact when dragged to ANI; this is hardly new news. A lesson for all to keep in mind next time someone appears here after some drama-escalation at ANI. I certainly hope we won't see more of it, but it is not arbcom-case-worthy.
  • Having a case about this will do nothing but give several more weeks of undue prominence to this particular joke, which surely those who have serious BLP concerns would prefer to avoid. Opabinia regalis (talk) 06:16, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hammersoft Quite the opposite, in my opinion it would be disrespectful to the community to take any action that implies arbitrators are somehow immune from normal community processes. Outside of arb business, an arb has exactly the same status as any other community member. We don't need to be further reinforcing the perception that Wikipedia has an aristocracy. Capeo, that action was taken by a different committee with different members; I think you'll find that some of us now here would have opposed it. Opabinia regalis (talk) 20:28, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Hammersoft and Iridescent: To clarify, I was making a point in general, and I know that kicking the can again is a stupid idea.
Accept There are concerns about abuse of the tools, conduct unbecoming an Arb, and questions about BLP and actions taken around it. Perfect case to accept while remembering our limitations. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 08:43, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Accept. The are several points in this request where I think the committee needs to make a statement, and a case would be the open way to do it. Though I would have thought them pretty obvious, this discussions here seems to show otherwise. They have respect to the independence of the Signpost, the common-sense view of the relationship of jokes and BLP, and the delusion that being an arb should be seen by themselves or others as an immunity from criticism or a permission for irresponsibility. DGG ( talk ) 19:21, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm on holiday at the moment and would prefer not to vote until I get back and can read through this again when I am less exhausted. I will definitely do this by Saturday. Ah, I didn't count the recuses, my vote won't matter. So I shall simply state that Arbs have no special immunity, that I can see the issue concerning his role on Signpost but agree that it would be a community decision or his, and that continuing to discuss the BLP issue perpetuates it. Hopefully a case, which seems inevitable now, can be dealt with a shortened timeline to avoid that. Doug Weller talk 19:58, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Accept Doug Weller talk 20:02, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]


Temporary injunction

1) For the duration of this case DHeyward (talk · contribs) and Gamaliel (talk · contribs) are prohibited from interacting with or discussing each other anywhere on Wikipedia. An exception is granted for the main case page, evidence and workshop pages, but not for any case talk page. This injunction is to be enforced with blocks of up to one week, any blocks made are to be logged on the main case page.

Passed 8 to 0 at 14:00, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

Final decision

All tallies are based the votes at /Proposed decision, where comments and discussion from the voting phase is also available.

Principles

Importance and application of the BLP policy (2)

1.1) There is widespread agreement in the Wikipedia community regarding the importance of the biographies of living persons policy. The policy has been adopted and since its inception repeatedly expanded and strengthened by the community. In addition, the Arbitration Committee has previously reaffirmed the values expressed through that policy. Fundamental values and practices concerning biographical content has been emphasised in a resolution of the Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees and were also expanded and strengthened. If an editor wishes to restore content removed in good faith under the policy, the burden of proof is on those who wish to retain, restore, or undelete the disputed material. Restoring the original content without significant change requires consensus.

Passed 8 to 1 at 03:39, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a battleground

2) Wikipedia is not a place to hold grudges or insult, harass, or intimidate those with whom you have a disagreement. Editors should approach issues intelligently and engage in polite discussion. Editors who consistently find themselves in disputes with each other when they interact on Wikipedia, and who are unable to resolve their differences, should seek to minimise the extent of any unnecessary interactions between them. Interaction bans may used to force editors to do so.

Passed 11 to 0 at 03:39, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

Edit warring

3) Edit warring is unconstructive as it causes ill-will between editors and makes it harder to reach consensus. Editors who engage in multiple reverts of the same content but are careful not to breach the three revert rule are still edit warring. Editors engaged in a dispute should reach consensus or pursue dispute resolution rather than engage in edit warring.

Passed 11 to 0 at 03:39, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

Edit warring and BLP

4) In the case of edits which fall afoul of the biographies of living persons policy, exemptions from the edit-warring policy are made for removing BLP violations. Restoring what is perceived to be a BLP violation, instead of discussing whether it is a BLP violation or not, can lead to sanctions.

Passed 11 to 0 at 03:39, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

Questioning of administrative actions

5) Administrators are accountable for their actions involving administrative tools. As such, they are expected to respond appropriately to queries about their administrative actions and to justify them where needed. Criticism of the merits of administrative actions are acceptable within the bounds of avoiding personal attacks and civility.

Passed 11 to 0 at 03:39, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

Decorum (2)

6.1) Wikipedia editors are expected to behave reasonably and calmly in their interactions with other editors, to keep their cool when editing, and to avoid acting in a manner that brings the project into disrepute. Administrators are expected to adhere to this at a higher standard. Unseemly conduct—including, but not limited to, lack of respect for other editors, failure to work towards consensus, disrupting Wikipedia to make a point, offensive comments, trolling, harassment, gaming the system, and failure to assume good faith—is inconsistent with Wikipedia. Editors should not respond to such behaviour in kind; concerns regarding the actions of other editors should be brought up in the appropriate forums.

Passed 11 to 0 at 03:39, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

Fair criticism

7) Editors are encouraged to engage in frank discussion of matters affecting the project, and are encouraged to share even those facts and opinions which demonstrate the shortcomings of the project, its policies, its decision making structure, and its leaders. Such discourse is limited by the expectation that even difficult situations will be resolved in a dignified fashion, with evidence and without resorting to personal attacks. Editors who have genuine grievances against others are expected to avail themselves of the most appropriate dispute resolution mechanism.

Passed 11 to 0 at 03:39, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

Involved administrators (2)

8.1) Administrator tools are not to be used in connection with disputes in which the administrator is involved. In circumstances where an administrator is involved, the administrator should not take administrative action but should instead report the issue to a relevant noticeboard, perhaps with a suggestion for appropriate action, to be dealt with by another administrator. In limited circumstances, such as blatant vandalism or bad-faith harassment, an involved administrator may act, but such exceptions are likely to be rare.

Passed 9 to 0 at 03:39, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

April Fool's Day

9) April Fool's Day jokes are a widespread tradition in the English-speaking world, reflected on Wikipedia as an expression of community jollity and tolerated by established consensus supported by the outcome of various noticeboard and deletion discussions. On Wikipedia the convention has been to speedy close vexatious AfDs but otherwise (for example with joke RfAs) to archive soon after midnight UTC on April 2 with a "humor" template. April Fools is a contentious tradition on Wikipedia, in part because it is not a fully international tradition. April Fool's Day jokes are not exempt from the biographies of living persons policy.

Passed 10 to 0 at 03:39, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

Committee action as it relates to its members

10) The Arbitration Committee is responsible for investigating the conduct of its members when serious concerns are raised about their ability to meet defined expectations. However, arbitrators who behave poorly while engaging in routine editing or administrative tasks unrelated to their arbitration duties should be treated like any other community member. It is not necessary to escalate routine disputes to the Committee simply because an arbitrator's conduct is involved.

Passed 10 to 0 at 03:39, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

Conduct on arbitration pages

11) The pages associated with arbitration cases are primarily intended to assist the Arbitration Committee in arriving at a fair, well-informed, and expeditious resolution of each case. Participation by editors who present good-faith statements, evidence, and workshop proposals is appreciated. While allowance is made for the fact that parties and other interested editors may have strong feelings about the subject-matters of their dispute, appropriate decorum should be maintained on these pages. Incivility, personal attacks, and strident rhetoric should be avoided in arbitration as in all other areas of Wikipedia.

Passed 10 to 0 at 03:39, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

Findings of fact

Gamaliel

Gamaliel and Gamergate

1) Gamaliel has worked in the Gamergate topic area to such an extent that he has painted many opponents with the same brush, leading to an erosion of confidence in his objectivity. See, for example, Kingsindian's, Fram's and Gamaliel's evidence.

Passed 10 to 0 at 03:39, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

Gamaliel has withdrawn from enforcement in Gamergate topic area

2) At Gamaliel's request the Arbitration Committee "indefinitely restricted [Gamaliel] from taking any action to enforce any arbitration decision within the GamerGate topic, broadly construed" in this announcement.

Passed 11 to 0 at 03:39, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

Gamaliel and The Signpost page

3) As part of April Fools Day events Gamaliel created a satirical Signpost news report related to Donald Trump. The page was tagged for speedy deletion as a hoax. Gamaliel reverted the addition of a CSD notice in contravention of the criteria for speedy deletion policy. Gamaliel engaged in edit warring and violated the three revert rule (Fram's evidence) on the Signpost page [11] after others had reverted on the basis of the biographies of living persons policy. Gamaliel was uncivil and disruptive ([12] [13] [14] [15]) in his edits to the Signpost page.

Passed 11 to 0 at 03:39, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

Gamaliel and userspace page

4) Gamaliel created a userbox in his userspace and placed it on his userpage [16] which continued the dispute after the Signpost page had been deleted by community consensus. After an anonymous editor blanked citing WP:POINT, Gamaliel applied full protection. While this protection was technically in accordance with the protection policy it prevented the addition of a deletion discussion notice and perpetuated what other editors believed was a BLP violation. Gamaliel deleted the page himself and removed it from his userpage.

Passed 11 to 0 at 03:39, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

Gamaliel cast aspersions

6) During the course of the dispute, Gamaliel belittled the concerns many editors had expressed about his conduct. He cast aspersions and assumed bad faith by describing those editors as being "Gamergate editors" and effectively accusing them of having participated in a coordinated harassment campaign ([17][18]). He failed to recognize that his own actions were problematic and that many concerns were expressed by people not involved with Gamergate, instead making sarcastic and pointed comments ([19] [20]). Gamaliel's conduct was below that expected of an administrator (WP:ADMINCOND, WP:ADMINACCT) and an arbitrator (WP:ARBCOND).

Passed 11 to 0 at 03:39, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

Gamaliel and the Arbitration Committee

7) The Arbitration Committee acknowledges Gamaliel's resignation from the Committee ([21]), and thanks him for his long service to the community.

Passed 11 to 0 at 03:39, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

ANI discussion

8A) There was a discussion on ANI regarding the Signpost page and the creation of the page in Gamaliel's userspace (see the timeline). There were 14 different closes, reverts and re-closes over a period of approximately two days, and the suggestions at WP:CLOSECHALLENGE were not followed. The tenor of discussion was largely uncollegial and incivil.

Passed 11 to 0 at 03:39, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

ANI discussion (Gamaliel)

8B) Gamaliel edit warred to re-close the discussion, which was about him, making three reverts (to JzG's version). [22][23][24]

Passed 11 to 0 at 03:39, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

ANI discussion (JzG)

8C) JzG's close of the ANI discussion indicates a standard of conduct below that expected of an administrator. The close was needlessly inflammatory and belittling, and perpetuated the perceived BLP violation [25].

Passed 11 to 0 at 03:39, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

ANI discussion (Arkon) (2)

8D.1) Arkon reverted JzG and Gamaliel in their attempts to close and re-close the discussion, which he started [26] [27] [28] [29].

Passed 6 to 4 at 03:39, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

DHeyward and Gamaliel

9) DHeyward (talk · contribs) has acted in an incivil manner towards Gamaliel and made personal attacks on the English Wikipedia and Wikimedia Commons ([30][31] [32] [33]). Initially DHeyward did not believe he acted inappropriately ([34] [35]). DHeyward has been warned regarding incivility and making personal attacks on Gamaliel on the English Wikipedia and on Wikimedia Commons ([36] [37] [38]). DHeyward and Gamaliel were prohibited from interacting with or discussing each other for the duration of this arbitration case.

Passed 9 to 0 at 03:39, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

Remedies

Note: All remedies that refer to a period of time, for example to a ban of X months or a revert parole of Y months, are to run concurrently unless otherwise stated.

Gamaliel (admonishment)

2) Gamaliel is admonished for multiple breaches of Wikipedia policies and guidelines including for disrupting Wikipedia to make a point, removing a speedy deletion notice from a page he created, casting aspersions, and perpetuating what other editors believed to be a BLP violation.

Passed 10 to 0 at 03:39, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

DHeyward and Gamaliel (interaction ban)

3) DHeyward and Gamaliel are indefinitely prohibited from interacting with or discussing each other anywhere on Wikipedia, subject to the usual exemptions.

Passed 9 to 2 at 03:39, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

DHeyward (admonishment)

4) DHeyward (talk · contribs) is admonished for engaging in incivility and personal attacks on other editors. He is reminded that all editors are expected to engage respectfully and civilly with each other and to avoid making personal attacks.

Passed 8 to 1 at 03:39, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

JzG (admonishment)

5) For conduct which was below the standard expected of an administrator — namely making an incivil and inflammatory close summary on ANI, in which he perpetuated the perceived BLP violation and failed to adequately summarise the discussion — JzG is admonished.

Passed 10 to 0 at 03:39, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

Arkon (reminder)

6) Arkon is reminded that edit warring, even if exempt, is rarely an alternative to discussing the dispute with involved editors, as suggested at WP:CLOSECHALLENGE.

Passed 7 to 4 at 03:39, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

Community encouraged (BLP) (2)

7.1) The community is encouraged to hold an RfC to supplement the existing WP:BLPTALK policy by developing further guidance on managing disputes about material involving living persons when that material appears outside of article space and is not directly related to article-content decisions.

Passed 6 to 4 at 03:39, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

Community encouraged (April Fools Day)

8) The community is encouraged to hold an RfC regarding whether the leniency for April Fools Day jokes should be continued and if so, what should be allowed.

Passed 10 to 0 with 1 abstention at 03:39, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

Enforcement

Enforcement of restrictions

0) Should any user subject to a restriction in this case violate that restriction, that user may be blocked, initially for up to one month, and then with blocks increasing in duration to a maximum of one year.

In accordance with the procedure for the standard enforcement provision adopted 3 May 2014, this provision did not require a vote.

Appeals and modifications

0) Appeals and modifications

This procedure applies to appeals related to, and modifications of, actions taken by administrators to enforce the Committee's remedies. It does not apply to appeals related to the remedies directly enacted by the Committee.

Appeals by sanctioned editors

Appeals may be made only by the editor under sanction and only for a currently active sanction. Requests for modification of page restrictions may be made by any editor. The process has three possible stages (see "Important notes" below). The editor may:

  1. ask the enforcing administrator to reconsider their original decision;
  2. request review at the arbitration enforcement noticeboard ("AE") or at the administrators’ noticeboard ("AN"); and
  3. submit a request for amendment at "ARCA". If the editor is blocked, the appeal may be made by email through Special:EmailUser/Arbitration Committee (or, if email access is revoked, to arbcom-en@wikimedia.org).
Modifications by administrators

No administrator may modify or remove a sanction placed by another administrator without:

  1. the explicit prior affirmative consent of the enforcing administrator; or
  2. prior affirmative agreement for the modification at (a) AE or (b) AN or (c) ARCA (see "Important notes" below).

Administrators modifying sanctions out of process may at the discretion of the committee be desysopped.

Nothing in this section prevents an administrator from replacing an existing sanction issued by another administrator with a new sanction if fresh misconduct has taken place after the existing sanction was applied.

Administrators are free to modify sanctions placed by former administrators – that is, editors who do not have the administrator permission enabled (due to a temporary or permanent relinquishment or desysop) – without regard to the requirements of this section. If an administrator modifies a sanction placed by a former administrator, the administrator who made the modification becomes the "enforcing administrator". If a former administrator regains the tools, the provisions of this section again apply to their unmodified enforcement actions.

Important notes:

  1. For a request to succeed, either
(i) the clear and substantial consensus of (a) uninvolved administrators at AE or (b) uninvolved editors at AN or
(ii) a passing motion of arbitrators at ARCA
is required. If consensus at AE or AN is unclear, the status quo prevails.
  2. While asking the enforcing administrator and seeking reviews at AN or AE are not mandatory prior to seeking a decision from the committee, once the committee has reviewed a request, further substantive review at any forum is barred. The sole exception is editors under an active sanction who may still request an easing or removal of the sanction on the grounds that said sanction is no longer needed, but such requests may only be made once every six months, or whatever longer period the committee may specify.
  3. These provisions apply only to contentious topics placed by administrators and to blocks placed by administrators to enforce arbitration case decisions. They do not apply to sanctions directly authorised by the committee, and enacted either by arbitrators or by arbitration clerks, or to special functionary blocks of whatever nature.
  4. All actions designated as arbitration enforcement actions, including those alleged to be out of process or against existing policy, must first be appealed following arbitration enforcement procedures to establish if such enforcement is inappropriate before the action may be reversed or formally discussed at another venue.
In accordance with the procedure for the standard appeals and modifications provision adopted 3 May 2014, this provision did not require a vote.

Enforcement log

Any block, restriction, ban, or sanction performed under the authorisation of a remedy for this case must be logged at Wikipedia:Arbitration enforcement log, not here.

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Gamaliel_and_others&oldid=1150318859"