Please read this notice before submitting any material (evidence or workshop proposals or comments) on the case or talk pages. The scope of this case is: Gamaliel's recent actions (both administrative and otherwise), especially related to the Signpost April Fools Joke. The case will also examine the conduct of other editors who are directly involved in disputes with Gamaliel. The case is strictly intended to examine user conduct and alleged policy violations and will not examine broader topic areas. Evidence which does not meet these requirements will be removed by the clerks. The drafting arbitrators may add additional parties to this case as required (if you believe another editor should be added please make a request on the Evidence talk page and ping the drafting arbitrators). All participants are reminded that breaches of the biographies of living persons policy and the no personal attacks policy are prohibited. The clerks are authorised to issue an only warning to any editor who posts inappropriate comments; if the warning is not heeded to, the editor may either be restricted from participating in this case or be blocked at the clerk's discretion. The Committee will be using the arbcom-en-blists.wikimedia.org email address for this case; private evidence should be submitted to that address. Before communicating by email with the Committee, please read our "Communications and privacy" statement.

Wikipedia Arbitration
About arbitration Talk Arbitration policy (CU/OS) Guide to arbitration Noticeboard + Talk Search archived proceedings Ban appeals Report
Open proceedings All open requests Case requests Clarification and Amendment requests Arbitrator motion requests Enforcement requests
Active sanctions Contentious topics (Log) General sanctions Editor sanctions
Arbitration Committee Discuss + Contact Members Procedures Elections Talk History Clerks + Talk Clerk procedures Conflict of interest reports
Audit Talk Statistics Talk Reports (pre-2016)
Track related changes
v t e

After considering /Evidence and discussing proposals with other arbitrators, parties, and editors at /Workshop, arbitrators may make proposals which are ready for voting. Arbitrators will vote for or against each provision, or they may abstain. Only items which are supported by an absolute majority of the active, non-recused arbitrators will pass into the final decision. Conditional votes and abstentions will be denoted as such by the arbitrator, before or after their time-stamped signature. For example, an arbitrator can state that their support vote for one provision only applies if another provision fails to pass (these are denoted as "first" and "second choice" votes). Only arbitrators and clerks may edit this page, but non-arbitrators may comment on the talk page.

For this case there are 11 active arbitrators, not counting 3 recused. 6 support or oppose votes are a majority.

Majority reference

Abstentions	Support votes needed for majority
0–1	6
2–3	5
4–5	4

If observing editors notice any discrepancies between the arbitrators' tallies and the final decision or the #Implementation notes, you should post to the clerk talk page. Similarly, arbitrators may request clerk assistance via the same method, or via the clerks' mailing list.

Under no circumstances may this page be edited by anyone other than members of the Arbitration Committee or the clerks. Please submit comments on the proposed decision in your own section on the talk page.

Arbitrators may place proposed motions affecting the case in this section for voting. Typical motions might be to close or dismiss a case without a full decision (a reason should normally be given). Suggestions by the parties or other non-arbitrators for motions or other requests should be placed on the /Workshop page for consideration and discussion.

Motions require an absolute majority of all active, unrecused arbitrators (same as the final decision). See Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Procedures#Motions to dismiss.

1) {text of proposed motion}

Support:

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

A temporary injunction is a directive from the Arbitration Committee that parties to the case, or other editors notified of the injunction, do or refrain from doing something while the case is pending. It can also be used to impose temporary sanctions (such as discretionary sanctions) or restrictions on an article or topic. Suggestions by the parties or other non-arbitrators for motions or other requests should be placed on the /Workshop page for consideration and discussion.

Four net "support" votes needed to pass (each "oppose" vote subtracts a "support")
24 hours from the first vote is normally the fastest an injunction will be imposed, unless there are at least four votes to implement immediately. See Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Procedures#Passing of temporary injunctions.

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.

Enacted: Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 14:00, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Support

1. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 03:07, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
2. Courcelles (talk) 03:19, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
3. Opabinia regalis (talk) 04:51, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
4. Doug Weller talk 06:47, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
5. kelapstick^{(on the run)} 07:51, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
6. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 08:33, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
7. --In actu (Guerillero) | My Talk 18:04, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
8. Tarapia tapioco (aka Salvio) (talk) 22:25, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

Abstain

Comments:

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 norms concerning biographical articles have been emphasised in a resolution of the Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees. However, there is no clear community consensus on how strictly the policy should be applied to edits outside article space.

Support:

1. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 12:26, 22 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

   Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:36, 22 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

   Doug Weller talk 12:49, 22 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

   Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 13:20, 22 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

   I need to do some thinking. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 16:27, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

2. Though the general principles of BLP TALK have been accepted, the details of how it is to be applied need interpretation. In practice, saying they do not need interpretation means supporting the most restrictive and broadest of any proposed interpretations. DGG ( talk ) 18:07, 22 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
3. Basically, per DGG. BLPTALK is limited enough to cause considerable disagreement among editors, administrators, and even arbitrators. Drmies (talk) 14:24, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

1. Objecting to the last sentence. BLPTALK has been in policy for a long time now, and is fairly stable. Courcelles (talk) 16:21, 22 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
2. I think this is going to need some more wordsmithing, so sitting here for now. In response to some of the talk-page commentary, the last sentence says there is no consensus on how strictly BLP applies, not whether it applies at all. As an empirical matter, it's entirely obvious that comments in "back-office" areas of the project are not treated as strictly as claims in article space. This is true even when those comments don't really reflect the intentions of BLPTALK, which is oriented toward making content decisions. Opabinia regalis (talk) 18:26, 22 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
3. The BLP policy is clear, it applies to all Wikipedia pages as it says in the very first sentence, with the exemption of talk page (and noticeboard, AfD, etc.) discussions related to the inclusion of such contentious material in article space. It certainly doesn't include "let's make up some stuff about someone, and BLP doesn't apply because it's not in article space." --kelapstick^(bainuu) 00:07, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
4. After doing the pondering I promised on the talk page I endorse what Kelaptstick says above. I might support a reworked statement. Doug Weller talk 13:22, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
5. The last sentence is problematic because how policy is enforced does not represent how it should be enforced. The policy is the policy, black and white. The rest of it has issues with how it's worded and has a few spots i'd throw {{cn}} into. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 17:56, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
6. persuaded by discussion on talk page. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:12, 29 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Abstain:

1. I am pulled in two ways about this for several reasons. --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 02:14, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comments:

• The point about WP:BLPTALK has been made on this page's talk page. However, this case has seen a lot of debate about where BLP should apply and how vigorously. Doug Weller talk 16:56, 22 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Does anyone have the links to the previous arbcom comments? I'm thinking about rewriting this Principle, and would like those. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 17:56, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• The extent of the discussion has made it clear that there is indeed no consensus for how it should be enforced. To pretend there is consensus is unrealistic. DGG ( talk ) 18:20, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• @Courcelles, Kelapstick, Doug Weller, and DeltaQuad: How about getting rid of the last sentence and replacing it with a bland, factual statement: "Portions of the BLP policy have been developed to focus on managing disputes about relevant content; in particular, WP:BLPTALK provides guidance on talk-page discussions related to article content, and WP:BLPREQUESTRESTORE outlines a procedure for responding to challenges on BLP grounds." Then, in place of the current #Community encouraged (BLP) remedy, "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." That way we are still recognizing this gap in community norms without giving it "principle" status. Opabinia regalis (talk) 23:59, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Courcelles, Kelapstick, Opabinia regalis, and DeltaQuad: If it's not too late, I'd be willing to consider this. Doug Weller talk 09:27, 26 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• @Opabinia regalis: I've proposed a new one below incorporating your links to BLP restore. I really don't want to try and isolate any part of the BLP policy to give the appearance that it should be enforced more over another namespace, so I left BLP talk out. That said, I was going to oppose your remedy, but reading through it again, the community does need to discuss and make a more robust policy on enforcement of BLPTALK, as I admit, I found BLPTALK to be a lot weaker than I thought we had. So if you propose that, you'll have my support. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 17:51, 26 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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.

Support:

1. The last two sentences added were incorporated directly from WP:BLPREQUESTRESTORE. I've also linked the Manning case (h/t @NE Ent:) in regards to our previous reaffirmations. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 17:51, 26 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
2. This is well done. Opabinia regalis (talk) 18:55, 26 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
3. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 10:09, 27 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
4. kelapstick^(bainuu) 02:13, 28 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
5. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 04:45, 28 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
6. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 04:50, 28 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
7. Support as modified. Doug Weller talk 15:37, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
8. As modified. Courcelles (talk) 16:45, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

1. Until modified as I suggest below. I think the prior principle better represents the actual state of policy. DGG ( talk ) 21:38, 26 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

:#No, for a different reason; "Fundamental values and practices concerning biographical articles have been emphasised in a resolution of the Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees and were also expanded and strengthened." is wrong. All biographical content is covered, not just articles that are explicitly biographies. Courcelles (talk) 18:00, 28 May 2016 (UTC) :# Agree - all mentions of living people are covered by our BLP policy. This suggests otherwise. Doug Weller talk 18:05, 28 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Abstain:

Comments:

@DeltaQuad: Thanks, this is much better. As long as we have new stuff, see also #Community encouraged (BLP) (2) below. Fellow arbs, can we hopefully get these voted on quickly so we can close the case? Opabinia regalis (talk) 18:55, 26 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I would change the " If an editor wishes to restore content removed in good faith under the policy..." to "If an editor wishes to restore content removed from an article in good faith under the policy..."; as recognized in previous discussions the status elsewhere is less clear, and the wording of the previous sentences in this remedy state, correctly, "article" I also give my opinion that it is not altogether obvious that the content on the Trump Signpost page was necessarily removed in good faith. DGG ( talk ) 21:38, 26 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@DeltaQuad, Opabinia regalis, Kelapstick, Casliber, DGG, Courcelles, and Doug Weller: Per Courcelles and Doug's opposes, thoughts on changing "concerning biographical articles" to "concerning any edit made about a living person" or "concerning biographical content"? Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 00:22, 29 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I would agree with a a change to "concerning biographical content in articles" . It is definitely accepted that BLP applies to biographical content about living people in article space regardless of the type of article. I continue to disagree that it applies with equal rigour everywhere, and if the community actually does mean that it will soon find insoluble contradictions and impossibilities, including making criticism or praise of Wikipedia staff or people impossible. DGG ( talk ) 03:37, 29 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, sounds fine. Opabinia regalis (talk) 04:26, 29 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Callanecc and Opabinia regalis: Yes, that was an oversight on my part, I meant exactly what Courcelles and Doug are opposing for. If someone could modify it, I have no objection, just not the time to make sure it's worded properly. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 06:02, 29 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I also note that I am considerably influenced in not making a broad policy statement here by the circumstances: I consider the use of BLP policy requirements in this particular circumstance an absurd interpretation for multiple reasons (including especially that it has no possible effect on the individual's life), so absurd that a reasonable person could have concluded it was so absurd that it could be reversed. DGG ( talk ) 17:16, 29 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Done, FYI Courcelles and Doug Weller. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 10:23, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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.

Support:

1. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 12:26, 22 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
2. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:36, 22 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
3. Doug Weller talk 12:49, 22 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
4. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 13:20, 22 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
5. Courcelles (talk) 16:21, 22 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
6. DGG ( talk ) 18:04, 22 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
7. Opabinia regalis (talk) 18:26, 22 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
8. kelapstick^(bainuu) 21:13, 22 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
9. --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 02:14, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
10. Drmies (talk) 14:25, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
11. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 18:09, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

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.

Support:

1. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 12:26, 22 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
2. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:36, 22 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
3. Doug Weller talk 12:49, 22 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
4. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 13:20, 22 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
5. Courcelles (talk) 16:23, 22 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
6. DGG ( talk ) 18:03, 22 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
7. Opabinia regalis (talk) 18:26, 22 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
8. kelapstick^(bainuu) 21:13, 22 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
9. --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 02:14, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
10. Drmies (talk) 14:25, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
11. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 18:09, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

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.

Support:

1. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 12:26, 22 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
2. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:36, 22 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
3. Doug Weller talk 12:49, 22 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
4. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 13:20, 22 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
5. Courcelles (talk) 16:25, 22 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
6. DGG ( talk ) 18:04, 22 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
7. Opabinia regalis (talk) 18:26, 22 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
8. kelapstick^(bainuu) 21:13, 22 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
9. --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 02:14, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
10. Drmies (talk) 14:25, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
11. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 18:09, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

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.

Support:

1. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 12:26, 22 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
2. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:36, 22 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
3. Doug Weller talk 12:52, 22 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
4. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 13:20, 22 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
5. Courcelles (talk) 16:25, 22 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
6. DGG ( talk ) 18:04, 22 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
7. Opabinia regalis (talk) 18:26, 22 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
8. kelapstick^(bainuu) 21:13, 22 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
9. --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 02:14, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
10. Drmies (talk) 14:26, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
11. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 18:09, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

6) Wikipedia editors are expected to behave reasonably, calmly, and courteously in their interactions with other editors; to approach even difficult situations in a dignified fashion and with a constructive and collaborative outlook; and to avoid acting in a manner that brings the project into disrepute. Unseemly conduct, such as personal attacks, incivility, assumptions of bad faith, trolling, harassment, disruptive point-making, and gaming the system, is prohibited.

Support:

Oppose:

1. Some of you may have passed this many times before, but I haven't! ;) "Prohibited" I guess is accurate in the sense that speeding is "prohibited" - that is, everyone else is also doing it, but you run the risk of a ticket block, variously based on bad luck, time of day, and profiling you suspect but can't prove. 6.1 is much better. Opabinia regalis (talk) 18:26, 22 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
2. 6.1 is better. Doug Weller talk 20:24, 22 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
3. In favour of 6.1 --kelapstick^(bainuu) 00:11, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Abstain:

1. We are only human. Not sure I can go with 'prohibited' Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:36, 22 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
2. In favour of 6.1. We've passed this text so many times, and the word "prohibited" is correct in certain definitions of the term. Courcelles (talk) 16:28, 22 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
3. in favor of 6.1 --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 02:14, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
4. In favour of 6.1. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 10:38, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
5. 6.1 -- Amanda (aka DQ) 18:09, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comments:

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.

Support:

1. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:36, 22 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
2. Doug Weller talk 12:52, 22 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
3. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 13:20, 22 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
4. Courcelles (talk) 16:26, 22 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
5. DGG ( talk ) 18:02, 22 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
6. (with a small copyedit) Opabinia regalis (talk) 18:26, 22 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
7. kelapstick^(bainuu) 21:13, 22 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
8. --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 02:14, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
9. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 10:38, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
10. Drmies (talk) 14:28, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
11. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 18:09, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

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.

Support:

1. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 12:26, 22 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
2. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:36, 22 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
3. Doug Weller talk 12:52, 22 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
4. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 13:20, 22 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
5. Courcelles (talk) 16:28, 22 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
6. DGG ( talk ) 18:01, 22 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
7. Opabinia regalis (talk) 18:26, 22 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
8. kelapstick^(bainuu) 21:13, 22 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
9. --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 02:14, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
10. Drmies (talk) 14:28, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
11. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 18:09, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

8) Administrator tools are not to be used in connection with disputes in which the administrator is "involved". Where there is an appearance that an administrator is involved they should not take administrative action themselves but rather refer the issue to other adminstrators at the appropriate forum. In limited circumstances, such as blatant vandalism or clear, bad-faith harassment, an involved administrator may act, but such exceptions are likely to be rare and best practice (except where the situation is urgent) is to refer the issue to another administrator.

Support:

Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 12:26, 22 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

1. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:36, 22 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

   Doug Weller talk 12:52, 22 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

2. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 13:20, 22 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
3. DGG ( talk ) 18:02, 22 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

1. As written, it gives too much credence to simple "appearance to be involved". There needs to be some reasonable standard, or replace this with Principle 6 of the Rich Farmrough case. Courcelles (talk) 16:37, 22 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
2. On reflection, agree with Courcelles. Opabinia regalis (talk) 18:26, 22 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
3. Moving to oppose. It shouldn't say "appearance to be involved". Doug Weller talk 20:22, 22 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
4. Per Courcelles. --kelapstick^(bainuu) 01:10, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
5. The boilerplate, that Courcelles points to, works much better here --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 02:14, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
6. 8.1 -- Amanda (aka DQ) 18:09, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Abstain:

Comments:

perhaps we need an adjective to qualify "appear to be involved" such as "appear significantly to be involved" or "clearly appear to e involved". DGG ( talk ) 23:58, 22 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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.

Support:

1. Taken from Rich Farmbrough case, in favour of the above. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 10:41, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
2. Drmies (talk) 14:30, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
3. Second choice. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 16:28, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
4. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 18:09, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
5. kelapstick^(bainuu) 19:51, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
6. Opabinia regalis (talk) 20:00, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
7. fine also. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 01:34, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
8. --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 03:03, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
9. Courcelles (talk) 18:22, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

"Is involved" is always going to be a matter of judgment, but the first proposed version was too broad. INVOLVED should be read narrowly rather than "broadly construed", IMO. Drmies (talk) 14:30, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

As thee have been continual debates in a great many situations about how "involved" one has to be, the only way to resolve them is to make sure any admin with possible involvement avoid the matter--which is best expressed by including the part about appear to be involved. In general, I think any admin who insists upon being the one to take action in a particular situation gives the appearance of being involved. DGG ( talk ) 18:09, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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.

Support:

1. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 12:26, 22 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
2. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 13:20, 22 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
3. Over the years, the range of toleration for these on enWikipedia has decreased somewhat. They are not exempt from BLP, but exactly how the policy is to be interpreted concerning them is an open question. DGG ( talk ) 18:00, 22 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
4. Opabinia regalis (talk) 18:26, 22 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
5. BLP should apply to April Fool's jokes as seriously as it is anywhere else. Not everyone has the same sense of humor. Doug Weller talk 20:12, 22 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
6. kelapstick^(bainuu) 21:13, 22 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
7. Courcelles (talk) 22:35, 22 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
8. --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 02:14, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
9. Drmies (talk) 14:30, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
10. A bolding of the last sentence would be appropriate. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 18:09, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

Noting that the page in question, was not tagged with {{humour}}, as per standard convention. --kelapstick^(bainuu) 01:13, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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.

Support:

1. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 12:26, 22 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
2. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:36, 22 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
3. Doug Weller talk 12:52, 22 May 2016 (UTC) We should consider Courcelles's suggestion about the ombudsmen. Doug Weller talk 20:13, 22 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
4. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 13:20, 22 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
5. As statement of fact, correct. As it should be, no. I think the ombudsmen should have the authority to investigate abuse cases against members of any of the global Arbcoms. Courcelles (talk) 16:39, 22 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
6. Opabinia regalis (talk) 18:26, 22 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
7. kelapstick^(bainuu) 21:13, 22 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
8. --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 02:14, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
9. Drmies (talk) 14:31, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
10. What I've said since day one. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 18:09, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

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.

Support:

1. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:36, 22 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
2. Doug Weller talk 12:52, 22 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
3. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 13:20, 22 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
4. Courcelles (talk) 16:40, 22 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
5. DGG ( talk ) 17:58, 22 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
6. And no, this is not a long way to say "you can't criticize the committee"; it's a long way to say "everyone is already stressed and frustrated, so be considerate". Opabinia regalis (talk) 18:26, 22 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
7. Including what OR said. --kelapstick^(bainuu) 21:13, 22 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
8. --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 02:14, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
9. Even more so than in other areas, I believe. Drmies (talk) 14:32, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
10. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 18:09, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

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.

Support:

1. weakly, as there definitely is vitriol aimed at Gamaliel, so is not a figment of his imagination by any means, and the situation has become more polarised and infected subsequent interactions. My impression is that this edit was sarcastic, but that in that situation it's highlighting some burnout. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:52, 22 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
2. in the sense that he has become over-involved. I agree with Casliber that the extremely inappropriate reactions to his correct enforcement decisions is part of the reason. DGG ( talk ) 17:57, 22 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
3. Agree with the above. There's no doubt that Gamaliel has been subject to harassment and mistreatment, and there's abundant evidence that the topic area is deeply unpleasant to work in, so his frustration is entirely understandable. But there's been a loss of perspective here. Opabinia regalis (talk) 18:39, 22 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
4. Also echoing the above comments. --kelapstick^(bainuu) 21:14, 22 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
5. --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 02:24, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
6. Tarapia tapioco (aka Salvio) (talk) 08:20, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
7. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 10:50, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
8. Echoing 1-3, without "weakly". The weight given to this finding of fact is not related to its correctness. Drmies (talk) 14:35, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
9. per Drmies and 1-3. Doug Weller talk 15:14, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
10. Per Drmies. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 18:12, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

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.

Support:

1. I can confirm (obviously) that this took place, though I opposed as stamping it. Any editor is free to not act as an admin in any area they choose without resorting to a motion such as this. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:53, 22 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
2. Statement of fact. To speak to Cas' point this hadn't been at his explicit request -- and it was requested spontaneously -- it would have been inappropriate. I still think that if any admin or editor wrote to us to request such a motion it should be swiftly passed, though with similar appeal time-length and an enforcement provision like any other remedy -- this is not a request to be made lightly. Courcelles (talk) 16:45, 22 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
3. . Statement of fact. The committee thought it appropriate here. Personally, I do not think it is a good idea to do it as a routine matter. DGG ( talk ) 17:54, 22 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
4. Per Courcelles. And FWIW, I have no objection to doing this more often in response to serious requests, by analogy to self-requested blocks. Opabinia regalis (talk) 18:42, 22 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
5. I'm with Courcelles and Opabinia on this. Not something to be given out like candy, but we should be willing to grant serious requests. Doug Weller talk 20:11, 22 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
6. kelapstick^(bainuu) 21:15, 22 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
7. --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 02:24, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
8. I opposed the motion, but it passed, so this FoF is accurate. Tarapia tapioco (aka Salvio) (talk) 08:20, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
9. I opposed the motion, but it passed, so I'm supporting this as a statement of fact. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 10:50, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
10. Drmies (talk) 14:36, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
11. If I was there, I would have opposed the motion, but the FoF is correct. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 18:13, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

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 [1] after others had reverted on the basis of the biographies of living persons policy. Gamaliel was uncivil and disruptive ([2] [3] [4] [5]) in his edits to the Signpost page.

Support:

1. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:55, 22 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
2. DGG ( talk ) 17:55, 22 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
3. Opabinia regalis (talk) 18:44, 22 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
4. kelapstick^(bainuu) 21:16, 22 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
5. Courcelles (talk) 22:39, 22 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
6. --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 02:24, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
7. Tarapia tapioco (aka Salvio) (talk) 08:20, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
8. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 10:50, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
9. Drmies (talk) 14:36, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
10. Doug Weller talk 15:15, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
11. To highlight something that came up on the talkpage, this FoF is true and to add WP:LOCALCONSENSUS (aka an editorial board) can not override the BLP policy. My comment is not a statement of facts, but is a discussion of theory. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 18:18, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

4) Gamaliel created a userbox in his userspace and placed it on his userpage [6] 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.

Support:

1. not thrilled about the anon editor blanking but there was consensus about the page being deleted beforehand..Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:59, 22 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
2. DGG ( talk ) 17:52, 22 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
3. Opabinia regalis (talk) 18:44, 22 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
4. Userpages may be protected upon request of the user, or protected by the user if they happen to be an administrator, at any time. Thus the protection was not in violation of policy, however I do find it to have been disruptive. --kelapstick^(bainuu) 21:18, 22 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
5. The entire thing was an exercise in pointiness, whether or not protecting the page was technically proper or not, the damage was already done by merely creating it. Courcelles (talk) 23:00, 22 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
6. This was boneheaded. --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 02:24, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
7. Tarapia tapioco (aka Salvio) (talk) 08:20, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
8. I reflect Kelapstick and Courcelles's comments. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 10:50, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
9. "Boneheaded" is the right word. Stress-induced boneheadedness, perhaps, but still. But also what K-stick said. Drmies (talk) 14:39, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
10. It was definitely a bad idea. Doug Weller talk 15:16, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
11. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 18:22, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

5) Gamaliel revision deleted [7] links to off-site pages which were about/referred to him on the arbitration motions page. WP:INVOLVED provides an exemption for actions "on the basis that any reasonable administrator would have probably come to the same conclusion". However, best practice would have been to alert another administrator or oversighter and ask them to take action. Gamaliel also pre-emptively salted two pages (1, 2) with log entries that did not make the motivation for this decision clear.

Support:

1. Supporting, as this is what happened. I do believe that another reasonable administrator would have revision deleted the edits (thus the action is exempt from INVOLVED). The pages were pre-emptively salted, another administrator may have come to the same decision, or not. I don't see any issue with the protection personally. The log entries were not accurate, but nobody's perfect. Having said all this, I can support this FoF as the descriptions of the actions are factual, without it requiring sanctions. --kelapstick^(bainuu) 21:22, 22 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
2. Supporting as a factual summary. Given the case was accepted to look at this, a FoF on what happened is accepted. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 10:50, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
3. I could come down on either side, including "abstain". The FoF is accurate; its weight and importance in the grand scheme of things, that's another matter. Anyone who saw that revdeleted link to the thread and had access to a revdel tool would have made the same decision. Drmies (talk) 22:27, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

1. (a) I think any reasonable administrator would have probably come to the conclusion that the links needed to be redacted. (b) I think the information borders on sufficient, but could have been worded a little better for the first example (I think we have the wrong link there for the second). Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 14:12, 22 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
2. The redaction of the links was altogether proper,and it was entirely within policy. The reason for salting seems sufficiently obvious to me., and I consider his action there also within policy. DGG ( talk ) 17:51, 22 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
3. Everything here is true - so it feels a little strange to oppose it as a "finding of fact" - yet I can't support this as a factual grounding for further sanctions, because none of these administrative actions was at all unreasonable. I recognize the "deleting criticism about yourself" aspect of the revdel action, but the content of the link leaves no doubt that it needed to go. Arguing that one should be expected to tolerate harassment and abuse because there is legitimate criticism in the same venue is a bit like insisting the soup is just fine because there's only a little bit of spit in it. Opabinia regalis (talk) 18:49, 22 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
4. Per Opabinia, and noting that those saltings were entirely justifiable. Courcelles (talk) 23:11, 22 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
5. per cas and OR--Guerillero | Parlez Moi 02:24, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
6. Opposing per the above. I don't think in normal circumstances an administrator would be sanctioned for taking these actions. Doug Weller talk 13:26, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
7. Best practices vs. optimal for the situation are not compatible here, and neither is the sanctioning. I'm also opposed to the existence of the last sentence. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 18:28, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Abstain:

Comments:

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 ([8][9]). 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 ([10] [11]). Gamaliel's conduct was below that expected of an administrator (WP:ADMINCOND, WP:ADMINACCT) and an arbitrator (WP:ARBCOND).

Support:

1. I support in that there is enough material for me to indicate the conduct was below that expected of an administrator. Regarding aspersions, there is evidence of harassment so not sure I support a failure of AGF. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 14:09, 22 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
2. DGG ( talk ) 17:49, 22 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
3. There certainly has been harassment, and I entirely sympathize with the feeling of being a target - but describing good-faith concerns raised by a fairly broad range of editors as the effects of an organized Gamergate brigade is too much. It's disrespectful and illustrates the loss-of-perspective problem mentioned above. Gamaliel's real error in all of this was an unfortunate failure to observe Wikipedia:If you're that pissed off, put down the keyboard and go outside. (Why is that still a red link?) Opabinia regalis (talk) 19:05, 22 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
4. kelapstick^(bainuu) 21:24, 22 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
5. Yes, he was being harassed, but this went to the side of personalizing the dispute with editors who were not harassing him, merely taking objection to his conduct. Courcelles (talk) 23:15, 22 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
6. --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 02:24, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
7. Tarapia tapioco (aka Salvio) (talk) 08:20, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
8. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 10:50, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
9. Doug Weller talk 15:17, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
10. Per Opabinia fully without reservation. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 18:41, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
11. Drmies (talk) 22:30, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

7) The Arbitration Committee acknowledges Gamaliel's resignation from the Committee ([12]), and thanks him for his long service to the community.

Support:

1. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 14:05, 22 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
2. DGG ( talk ) 17:49, 22 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
3. Opabinia regalis (talk) 19:05, 22 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
4. kelapstick^(bainuu) 21:25, 22 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
5. Courcelles (talk) 23:15, 22 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
6. --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 02:24, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
7. Tarapia tapioco (aka Salvio) (talk) 08:20, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
8. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 10:50, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
9. Doug Weller talk 15:17, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
10. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 18:41, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
11. Drmies (talk) 22:30, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

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.

Support:

1. definitely Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 14:13, 22 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
2. DGG ( talk ) 17:48, 22 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
3. Opabinia regalis (talk) 19:06, 22 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
4. kelapstick^(bainuu) 21:25, 22 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
5. One of the most miserable examples of what ANI can be. Courcelles (talk) 23:16, 22 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
6. In many ways this is a firm example of how AN/ANI are broken. --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 02:24, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
7. Tarapia tapioco (aka Salvio) (talk) 08:20, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
8. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 10:50, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
9. I don't think it's typical of ANI, but it was ANI at its worst. Doug Weller talk 15:21, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
10. *headdesks* -- Amanda (aka DQ) 19:43, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
11. Drmies (talk) 22:32, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

8B) Gamaliel edit warred to re-close the discussion, which was about him, making three reverts (to JzG's version). [13][14][15]

Support:

1. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 14:15, 22 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
2. DGG ( talk ) 17:46, 22 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
3. Opabinia regalis (talk) 19:06, 22 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
4. kelapstick^(bainuu) 21:26, 22 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
5. This must be read in context with FoF6, which covers other poor behaviour in the ANI thread by Gamaliel. Courcelles (talk) 23:18, 22 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
6. This was also boneheaded --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 02:24, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
7. Tarapia tapioco (aka Salvio) (talk) 08:20, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
8. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 10:50, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
9. Yes, also boneheaded. Doug Weller talk 15:21, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
10. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 19:43, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
11. Drmies (talk) 22:36, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

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 [16].

Support:

1. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 14:16, 22 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
2. DGG ( talk ) 17:46, 22 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
3. Opabinia regalis (talk) 19:06, 22 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
4. kelapstick^(bainuu) 21:26, 22 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
5. Among the worst closes possible. Courcelles (talk) 23:19, 22 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
6. I am very disappointed that this is the second time this year that FOFs were proposed about JzG. --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 02:24, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
7. Tarapia tapioco (aka Salvio) (talk) 08:20, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
8. Seems to be a pattern developing here, and I would strongly caution JzG to take care. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 10:50, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
9. Definitely boneheaded as well as very disappointing. Doug Weller talk 15:21, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
10. Ridiculously disruptive close taking a shot at the OP. Like...seriously?... -- Amanda (aka DQ) 19:43, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
11. Drmies (talk) 22:37, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

8D) Arkon violated the three revert rule to revert JzG and Gamaliel in their attempts to close and re-close the discussion, which he started [17] [18] [19] [20].

Support:

1. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 14:17, 22 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

   Opabinia regalis (talk) 19:07, 22 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

2. Yes, mildly. DGG makes a good point. Drmies (talk) 22:38, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

1. I'm going to oppose this as written. JzG's close was both a personal attack and a BLP violation, so I can't vote for this being a 3RR violation. Courcelles (talk) 23:20, 22 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
2. Moving from support, because (as discussed) Arkon is BLP (and personal attack) exempt from 3RR. I will be keeping the support on the reminder remedy, as there were certainly other means to handle this, rather than blanket reverting. --kelapstick^(bainuu) 00:24, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
3. Tarapia tapioco (aka Salvio) (talk) 08:20, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
4. Per Kelapstick. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 19:43, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
5. I would support this as a second choice, but I prefer the alternative 8.1. I would otherwise support, partly on the basis of his associated statement "no one cares about your mouthpiece"[21] which was overpersonal and inflammatory. DGG ( talk ) 18:14, 23 May 2016 (UTC) DGG ( talk ) 19:33, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
6. Doug Weller talk 14:01, 27 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Abstain:

1. --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 02:24, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

:# at the moment. Doug Weller talk 15:22, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comments:

@Casliber, Opabinia regalis, Courcelles, Kelapstick, Salvio giuliano, DGG, and Guerillero: What do you think about removing "violated the three revert rule to"? Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 10:50, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

As Arkon opened the discussion, it wasn't his to re-open anyway. As I pointed out on the talk page, he could have redacted the offending statement but instead opted to both remove the statement and undo the close. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 11:29, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, sounds fine to me. Technicalities of 3RR aside, it was still edit warring and poor judgment. Opabinia regalis (talk) 20:05, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

8D.1) Arkon reverted JzG and Gamaliel in their attempts to close and re-close the discussion, which he started [22] [23] [24] [25].

Support:

1. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 12:29, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
2. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:14, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
3. --In actu (Guerillero) | My Talk 13:50, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
4. Noting that they are exempt from 3RR, yes this is correct. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 14:47, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
5. Preferred. DGG ( talk ) 17:50, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
6. kelapstick^{(on the run)} 21:18, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

   This is minor in the scheme of things, but it was still poor judgment and needlessly perpetuated the dispute. Opabinia regalis (talk) 22:29, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

1. This FoF is certainly accurate, but I don't think Arkon's conduct rises to the level where a FoF (and a remedy) is warranted. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 16:20, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
2. Per Salvio, though this FoF as written is entirely accurate. Courcelles (talk) 18:26, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
3. Agreed. Accurate but unnecessary. Doug Weller talk 14:02, 27 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
4. For consistency's sake. Opabinia regalis (talk) 05:11, 29 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Abstain:

Comments:

@Casliber, Opabinia regalis, Courcelles, Kelapstick, Salvio giuliano, DGG, and Guerillero: FYI. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 12:29, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

9) DHeyward (talk · contribs) has acted in an incivil manner towards Gamaliel and made personal attacks on the English Wikipedia and Wikimedia Commons ([26][27] [28] [29]). Initially DHeyward did not believe he acted inappropriately ([30] [31]). DHeyward has been warned regarding incivility and making personal attacks on Gamaliel on the English Wikipedia and on Wikimedia Commons ([32] [33] [34]). DHeyward and Gamaliel were prohibited from interacting with or discussing each other for the duration of this arbitration case.

Support:

1. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 14:19, 22 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
2. DGG ( talk ) 17:48, 22 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
3. Opabinia regalis (talk) 19:07, 22 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
4. kelapstick^(bainuu) 21:26, 22 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
5. Courcelles (talk) 23:21, 22 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
6. --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 02:24, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
7. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 10:50, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
8. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 19:45, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
9. Drmies (talk) 22:39, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

10) {text of proposed finding of fact}

Support:

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

11) {text of proposed finding of fact}

Support:

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

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.

1) For conduct unbecoming an administrator Gamaliel is desysopped. He may regain the tools at any time via a successful request for adminship.

Support:

1. Weakly, because of Gamaliel's violation of WP:ADMINACCT and for his casting aspersions. I also want to officially register here my dissatisfaction with the scope restrictions imposed in this case; I was against them, and was overruled, but I still think we should have accepted all evidence, if any was present, of Gamaliel's inappropriate use of the tools, instead of simply saying we did not care about it at all. To my knowledge, that's not how we usually do things. And, as a result, we cannot really decide whether this remedy is really proportionate, in addition to having given (in my opinion) the impression we were looking out for one of our own. Tarapia tapioco (aka Salvio) (talk) 08:36, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
2. Gamaliel in this case has (all in our own words):
   • Requested Arbcom ban him from gamergate instead of stepping back or making a statement that he would not be enforcing in the area - FoF2
   • has painted many opponents with the same brush, leading to an erosion of confidence in his objectivity - FoF1
   • "Gamaliel reverted the addition of a CSD notice in contravention of the criteria for speedy deletion policy." - FoF3
   • "Gamaliel engaged in edit warring and violated the three revert rule [...] after others had reverted on the basis of the biographies of living persons policy." - FoF3
   • "Gamaliel was uncivil and disruptive" - FoF3
   • "Gamaliel created a userbox [...] which continued the dispute after [...] community consensus." - FoF4
   • "[...] 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." - FoF4
   • "[Gamaliel] cast aspersions and assumed bad faith" - FoF6
   • "Gamaliel's conduct was below that expected of an administrator (WP:ADMINCOND, WP:ADMINACCT)" - FoF6
   • "Gamaliel edit warred to re-close the discussion, which was about him, making three reverts" - FoF8b

   So with 10 points about his failure to adhere to the standard for a sysop, I can't find myself anywhere but supporting. As we have seen in cases before (not specifically on admins) people carry their issues to multiple venues. So far we have Gamergate & The Signpost.

   I absolutely understand that there has been harassment, but they need to be able to maintain faith with the community that they can still conduct themselves properly. 1 or 2 major mistakes is fine, as long as they learn from it, it's expected for people to screw up at somepoint. But this is more than just one or two. We are looking at overstepping on several major policies. That for me is the dealbreaker on still having the faith of the community. No doubt I'd still like to see Gamaliel around editing the project, and his contributions and service are fully noted and appreciated.

   If other arbs wish to include a review by arbcom down the road over a full RfA, since some think this is excessive, i'd be open to that possibility. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 15:31, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

   Every time I think about this one thought crosses my mind - he was an arbitrator. We're supposed to be models for the community. During the discussion I wasn't sure if he'd reached the threshold required for removal as an arbitrator. Amanda's analysis above convinces me he did. The off-wiki harassment was quite serious, but that doesn't explain or justify his actions. In the end I don't see that I can vote otherwise. Maybe if he hadn't been an arbitrator as well I might not have supported a desysop, but he was. Doug Weller talk 05:31, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

3. Well below the standard of admin conduct expected. Courcelles (talk) 18:27, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

1. I don't think the issues rise to this level. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 14:20, 22 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
2. Disproportionate. Opabinia regalis (talk) 19:44, 22 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

   As we all-too-slowly move toward finishing this case, I am confirming my vote against this remedy. This situation has been characterized by unnecessary escalations and overreactions from the beginning and a desysop would only perpetuate that pattern. If there is anything substantive to be learned from this, it should be Principle 10 - the April Fool's incident never needed to escalate to this level and the positive feedback loop of frustration and point-scoring behavior that played out at ANI could have been interrupted by short blocks for edit-warring and disruptive behavior. Instead we've been discussing this for nearly two months, and in that time a committed long-term volunteer has been subject to serious harassment, has resigned from the committee, is losing his CU and OS rights, and has, at least for the time being, retired from the project. Sure, a case against a sitting arb doesn't come along every day, and a certain degree of rubbernecking is understandable - but the focus on what happens to Gamaliel has been a distraction from the more general, systemic issues that were raised by this incident, like how to manage disputes about BLP material that is not in article space and is not directly related to content decisions, and the apparent surprise from many in the community at the Signpost's vision of itself and its mission.

   For the record, I also entirely reject the recurring argument that past committees have desysopped other people on weaker grounds and therefore it's only "fair" that Gamaliel should be desysopped as well. Not to put too fine a point on it, that's bullshit. I didn't run for arbcom in order to retroactively validate past bad decisions with new bad decisions. Opabinia regalis (talk) 07:34, 26 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

   Oh, and for all those persisting with the "circling the wagons" narrative: I am pretty damn sure that Gamaliel does not feel like he got the red-carpet treatment over the course of this case. Moreover, the underlying hypothesis doesn't make a lot of sense. If we were really all calculating political power-mongers, wouldn't we throw anyone whose behavior threatened our position under the first bus we could find? Wouldn't we be happy to see a fellow arb depart, so we can enjoy the marginal increase in our own power as a result? On the other hand, if you start out thinking that arbs are mostly reasonable people (with the exception of volunteering for the arb job, that is), you'd probably think the course of events of this case reflects reasonable people doing their best to navigate the previously unprecedented territory of a serious case with a sitting arb as a primary party, while also accounting for difficult privately disclosed circumstances. If a party to any other case disclosed similar circumstances I'd have no problem accommodating them as much as possible. Opabinia regalis (talk) 19:25, 26 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

3. What Cas said. --kelapstick^(bainuu) 21:32, 22 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
4. Indeed, what Cas said. A case against Gamaliel's adminship as a whole is a different case. Drmies (talk) 22:43, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
5. DGG ( talk ) 03:17, 26 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
6. I've been thinking about this overnight. Opabinia is of course correct, bad decisions by the Committee don't justify more bad decisions, although I wasn't suggesting it wasn't fair not to desysop him. My opinion that he should be desysopped came about through my consideration of the wider context that he isn't just an Admin, he was also at the time an Arbitrator. That's still relevant. However there's an even wider context, and that is the serious off-Wiki harassment. It doesn't justify his actions of course and in an email to the Committee last night he affirmed that his mistakes (his word) were his fault, no one else's, but it is part of the context here. Gamaliel's Admin work has been valuable even if not perfect (are any of us?) and he's done it in one of the most difficult areas of Wikipedia. His work has clearly been of net benefit to the encyclopedia despite considerable off-Wiki harassment which was stepped up during the case. Sadly neither us nor the WMF can do much if anything about this type of harassment aimed at a real life individual, not just a username on Wikipedia. About the only thing we can do is not offer them another victim by desysopping him. And given this wider context I'm not willing to give them that. Doug Weller talk 09:21, 26 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
7. I have been going through several versions of my signing statement for this vote over the past few days and nothing felt right, but OR hit it on the head. There was no tool misuse, no long term pattern, and no crossing of the Rubicon. --In actu (Guerillero) | My Talk 15:07, 26 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
8. I agree with Opabinia regalis on this. Yes there was very poor behaviour but I don't think it rises to the level of a desysop. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 14:03, 27 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Abstain:

Comments:

I have my opinion, but I have to go over things such as scope, wording, and emails to make sure my justification is clear and correct. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 20:42, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

When you put it like that I must admit I am reconsidering, however I'd suggest that many of those findings actually relate to some actions that resulted in multiple findings in one series of related interactions over a short period of time. Still need to think about this. Unlike Drmies I don't consider reviewing his adminship a different case and never saw it as "off the table". Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:03, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thinking out loud, we have a four day train-wreck compared with a ten year editing history and 18 months or so of adminning a very difficult area. Just trying to weigh this all up. Ultimately I think it still falls short of a pattern that I would see the person as a net negative as an admin, though have to agree that four days is considerably longer than "brain-snap". I really could be swayed either way by consensus here. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 21:32, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Casliber: Have you compared this with the less than one-day trainwrecks by 2 Admins last year who were desysopped within a few hours (overnight in my time zone)? Or do you see them as completely different? Doug Weller talk 05:18, 26 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I am not familiar with them. Will take a look Okay, yep. remember both now. I don't think this is as bad as either of them for different reasons. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 09:42, 26 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

For me, this segment was a particularly bad episode where a few folks lost their temper, compounded by a bit of stubbornness. Yes the april fools item was a bad idea but to be fair there is a several-year tradition of this sort of thing on WP and this was not grossly egregious compared with some others that have gone before. I could expound on both the others but would rather not rehash things at this point WRT either of them. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 09:53, 26 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Casliber: 3.5 days (that's my estimate of the april fools fiasco start to finish) is a long time to be able to disengage. That's at least 2 or 3 overnight sleeps to even just step back from the dispute and do nothing. If he had, I could have recognized it and could be voting differently. Yes others did not help the situation, but admins need to be to balence that and stepping away.

@Opabinia regalis: Yes, the system needs to be addressed. But if we only address the system, we are saying that yes, you shouldn't of done this, but because the system is flawed, we can't hold you accountable. Both policy and enforcement need to be strong to stop issues like this happening. Next, to go back on a principle we've worked off of for years and I agree with, when we've desysoped admins we also consider in equal their editor status. (Classic example is the Wifione case) If they were acting in a way that was incompatible with both sysopship and being an editor, actions were taken on both functions. So yes, Gamaliel resigned from being an arbitrator, and is going to lose his CU/OS (which honestly have zero to do with this case imo), but the actions were incompatible with adminship in the first place. I would be recommending the same for JzG had the scope of this case not been limited in scope, so it's not like we are doing this to punish him extra because he was an arbitrator. Each position in my opinion has it's own standards, and their own standards of accountability. They need to be treated as such.

@Opabinia regalis, Doug Weller, Kelapstick, Drmies, and Casliber: (sorry if I missed anyone) I'm absolutely willing to modify the remedy to make the desysop temporary as the actions we saw were indicative of a smaller pattern than most desysops we go through. But it has to be clear that this can't be happening. That would give a proper chance to have Gamaliel back on his feet after this ordeal has finished and we are clear that the issues won't continue again. I'm not without heart, another RfA would be salt in the wound of harassment and opertunity for it.

@Guerillero: Tool misuse is not the full requirement for remaining an administrator, nor is a pattern necessary if the actions are erogious. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 18:45, 26 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

As a general matter, I'd be willing to consider reviving the temporary desysop/suspended adminship idea, but I don't think it's a good approach in this case. It would no doubt be viewed as an instance of "special treatment" to try a remedy that went out of fashion years ago, and I fear it would put Gamaliel in an impossible position if and when he returned to the project and had his adminship restored. Opabinia regalis (talk) 19:25, 26 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@DeltaQuad: To all intents and purposes he is having a suspension of tools as he is not editing for a yet undefined period. And furthermore, any questionable use of tools will be brought to us in future given the nearness of a desysop this is coming to. Hence we have to all intents and purposes (a) a vacation and (b) later on a probation. Yes 3.5 days is longer than I'd like but am weighing all the pros and cons including the toxic atmosphere. In the end, we have to decide what's best for the encyclopedia and morale of editors - keeping an admin who behaved problematically under stress, or deadminning them for the same reason. Hard to generalise but that's where I am sitting. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 21:15, 26 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You ignored my third thing, DQ, "crossing the Rubicon". There is a very small list of things that are pure bright lines that can cause a desysop without a pattern of behavior: reversing a CU/OS block out of process, reversing an AE block out of process, reversing an arbcom block out of process, wheel warring, harassment, and socking. That is the entirely of the list to my knowledge. Gamaliel has done none of those things. Wifione, who you bring up, had a long history of POV pushing. Comparing him to Gamaliel is like comparing chalk to cheese. On an unrelated note, I am opposed to bring back tool suspensions. --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 01:29, 27 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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.

Support:

1. agree he should be admonished for the most of these, though not entirely convinced on aspersions segment. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 14:21, 22 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
2. DGG ( talk ) 17:45, 22 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
3. Opabinia regalis (talk) 19:44, 22 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
4. kelapstick^(bainuu) 21:32, 22 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
5. --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 02:35, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
6. Tarapia tapioco (aka Salvio) (talk) 08:36, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
7. I'm definitely here, still deciding on R1 though. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 10:56, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
8. Doug Weller talk 15:24, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
9. Regardless of other remedies. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 20:00, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
10. Drmies (talk) 22:44, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

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

Support:

1. have seen enough bickering to support this. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 14:22, 22 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
2. DGG ( talk ) 17:45, 22 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
3. Per Cas. Opabinia regalis (talk) 19:44, 22 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
4. Yes. --kelapstick^(bainuu) 21:32, 22 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
5. Courcelles (talk) 23:21, 22 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
6. --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 02:35, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
7. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 10:56, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
8. Doug Weller talk 15:26, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
9. Until something better rolls in. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 19:59, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

1. I am philosophically opposed to IBANs, for I have never seen one that works and reduces drama. Tarapia tapioco (aka Salvio) (talk) 08:36, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

   Out of interest, what would you do instead of an IBAN? Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 10:56, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

   I'd be in favour of applying existing policy, really, whereby if a person makes a personal attack or casts aspersions on another editor, that editor is sanctioned, but other than that I believe that relying on people's maturity is the way to go. I have been involved in the enforcement of a couple of IBANs and, as I said, most of the times they are more trouble than they're worth if the parties do not act maturely. In the end, when an editor's interactions with another are irreparably disruptive and maturity is nowhere to be seen, it's better to impose a topic ban or a block, in my opinion. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 16:32, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

2. Drmies (talk) 22:45, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Abstain:

Comments:

@Salvio giuliano:, it helps draw a clear line in the sand really, which I think isn't a bad thing. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 21:33, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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.

Support:

1. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 14:23, 22 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
2. DGG ( talk ) 17:44, 22 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
3. Opabinia regalis (talk) 19:44, 22 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
4. kelapstick^(bainuu) 21:32, 22 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
5. --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 02:35, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
6. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 10:56, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
7. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 20:38, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
8. Drmies (talk) 22:45, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

1. An admonishment here seems disproportionate, when you take into consideration the sanctions which are currently passing wrt the other parties. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 16:24, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Abstain:

Comments:

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.

Support:

1. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 14:26, 22 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
2. DGG ( talk ) 17:44, 22 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
3. Opabinia regalis (talk) 19:44, 22 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

   For the record, I am opposed to any consideration of a desysop here. Opabinia regalis (talk) 20:07, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

4. kelapstick^(bainuu) 21:32, 22 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

   Noting that because of the limited timeframe that the scope of the case covers, I cannot support a desyop as part of this case. --kelapstick^{(on the run)} 23:44, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

5. If he was admonished in GMO I would move to desysop here. --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 02:35, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
6. I'm willing to consider a desysop here, since JzG has already been admonished once for direct[ing] uncivil comments and personal attacks at other editors. (See also Wikipedia:Requests for comment/JzG2.) Tarapia tapioco (aka Salvio) (talk) 08:36, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

   I've found another admonishment and what I'll describe as a free pass for technical reasons. I'm leaning more and more towards considering a desysop necessary. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 17:03, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

7. Doug Weller talk 15:27, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

   I also am opposed to any consideration of a desysop here and agree that it is not within the scope of this case to take earlier actions, admonishments, etc into account. Doug Weller talk 20:37, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

8. With comments inline with Salvio, that due to the scope of this case can not act on with this case. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 20:34, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
9. Strongly admonished. This was boneheadedly boneheaded and needlessly, warrantlessly inflammatory. Drmies (talk) 22:47, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
10. Barely, a desysop is what is warranted. Courcelles (talk) 18:28, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

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.

Support:

1. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 14:23, 22 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
2. DGG ( talk ) 17:45, 22 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
3. kelapstick^(bainuu) 21:32, 22 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
4. --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 02:35, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
5. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 10:56, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
6. Hmm yes sure. Drmies (talk) 22:48, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
7. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 14:52, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

1. Tarapia tapioco (aka Salvio) (talk) 08:36, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
2. As User:Opabinia regalis has said, Arlon's role is pretty minor and I don't think serious enough to warrant a remedy. Doug Weller talk 16:27, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
3. As opposing the FoF. Courcelles (talk) 18:28, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
4. Doug's convinced me there's issues with the wording, and frankly a "reminder" for minor conduct just isn't worth the bikeshedding. Opabinia regalis (talk) 05:09, 29 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Abstain:

Comments:

I think this needs to include the fact that it was exempted. Is that ok with the supporters? -- Amanda (aka DQ) 20:30, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sure. --kelapstick^(bainuu) 00:58, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Something like "... edit warring, even when technically exempt ..."? Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 12:31, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No real objection. Maybe "arguably exempt", but meh - Arkon's role in the problematic aspects of this situation is pretty minor in any event. Opabinia regalis (talk) 01:22, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Given there are already moves to close the case, I have made the change. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 14:52, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

As pointed out on the talk page, the FoF doesn't say he edit warred. Doug Weller talk 05:18, 27 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

7) The community is encouraged to hold an RfC to decide on the extent to which the biographies of living persons policy applies beyond mainspace and to the Signpost.

Support:

strongly (e.g. outside mainspace we don't have inline citations. If applied equally then one can't even discuss adding disputed negative material iwth sourcing for discussion on talk pages or anywhere (???) ) Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 14:24, 22 May 2016 (UTC) I stand corrected per talk page. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:15, 29 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

1. very strongly. that BLP applies to all pages is settled policy; the details of how it applies is a matter of interpretation. There is a difference between a principle and the detailed regulations for applying the principle. DGG ( talk ) 17:44, 22 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
2. Drmies (talk) 22:49, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
3. Per Cas. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 12:32, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

1. No, no... this treats it as an open question, and it really, really is not. "BLP applies to all pages on the English Wikipedia" is such a matter of settled policy that we've passed that sort of language as a principle over and over again. Courcelles (talk) 16:53, 22 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
2. Support the idea, as DGG describes - but on consideration I think the wording fails to capture actual practice, as does the corresponding principle above. Opabinia regalis (talk) 19:44, 22 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
3. I agree with Courcelles. It applies everywhere, and that includes Signpost. I don't see how an RfC could fine tune matters of interpretation or how we could create detailed regulations. Doug Weller talk 20:08, 22 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
4. Per my comment at principle 1. --kelapstick^(bainuu) 00:17, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
5. We really need to have a RfC on the journalistic independence of The Signpost and if the Signpost has the mandate to do independent journalism. --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 02:35, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
6. Tarapia tapioco (aka Salvio) (talk) 08:36, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
7. Per Courcelles. Also, and I'll probably gain some enemies by saying this, as good as the signpost is in being informative of what's going on with Wikipedia, they have moved from that into journalism, so WP:NOTNEWS/we don't host groups independent of WP's mission. I remember seeing some information about it being hosted elsewhere, but as long as it's on Wikipedia it needs to follow the policies without journalistic exemptions. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 20:18, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
8. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:15, 29 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Abstain:

Comments:

No one is doubting that the principles apply everywhere, nor are we asking for a community discussion of them. There is a large body of interpretations about just how we apply it in article space, and nobody is challenging that either. There is not a sufficient history of interpretation outside article space, and, prior to now, apparently none respecting the Signpost. The purpose of this remedy is to ask the community to start thinking about the details outside article space and reaching a consensus about them. Conceivably the consensus will be to apply it in the exact same manner in every detail, though I personally think that unrealistic DGG ( talk ) 00:05, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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.

Support:

1. Opabinia regalis (talk) 18:52, 26 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
2. As I stated in the above section linked by Opabinia. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 19:21, 26 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
3. We can ask, but the community can say no --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 01:31, 27 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
4. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 14:04, 27 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
5. DGG ( talk ) 22:34, 27 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
6. I support this. It seems clear to me that there is disagreement on the matter, disagreement which is partly to blame for our current pickle. Drmies (talk) 14:00, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

1. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 10:09, 27 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
2. kelapstick^(bainuu) 12:19, 27 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
3. Doug Weller talk 12:24, 27 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
4. Courcelles (talk) 18:01, 28 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Abstain:

1. although part of the basis for this case lies in clarifying this issue, it can be decided on a case by case discussion...which it should do now anyway. not fussed. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:17, 29 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comments:

Corresponds to #Importance and application of the BLP policy (2). Opabinia regalis (talk) 18:52, 26 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe I am misunderstanding this, but it sounds like you are encouraging the (potential) creation/amendment of policy which would permit the inclusion of (potentially contentious) material of a living person outside of article space, even if the material is not related to article-content decisions. --kelapstick^(bainuu) 02:14, 27 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Currently, BLPTALK focuses on two things: 1) discussions of potential article content, and 2) material about Wikipedians. There's a gap in coverage for other types of discussion, and obviously significant variation in how people assume that gap is filled in. Opabinia regalis (talk) 04:56, 27 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That doesn't sound like a gap to me. Why would we want to consider adding to what can be included per BLPTALK? In particular because this whole case was initiated by an alleged (I'll say that since some don't believe it was a violation) BLP violating page that was literally something that was completely made up. --kelapstick^{(on the run)} 10:46, 27 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think it can be assumed the community would vote to weaken the policy for some or any of non-article space; iit seems to me at least equally likely that they would do the opposite. But in any case they have the right to decide what to do about it. I would hope they would at least decide the clarify to the policy one way or another. DGG ( talk ) 22:34, 27 May 2016 (UTC) .[reply]

Right now we have a policy that says "This is what you can do". This means "You cannot do everything else". When the policy becomes amended to start including what people cannot do, it strengthens the "Well it wasn't explicitly stated that I could not do this in the policy" argument. Because the policy cannot be exhaustive and include all of the things that people cannot do, any amendment which attempts to strengthen it in this manner actually weakens it by opening it up to greater interpretation. --kelapstick^(bainuu) 09:43, 28 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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.

Support:

1. strongly Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 14:23, 22 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
2. DGG ( talk ) 17:42, 22 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
3. Opabinia regalis (talk) 19:44, 22 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
4. Strong support. Doug Weller talk 20:09, 22 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
5. kelapstick^(bainuu) 21:32, 22 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
6. We should have done this over 5 years ago. --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 02:35, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
7. Tarapia tapioco (aka Salvio) (talk) 08:36, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
8. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 10:56, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
9. The community needs to be repolled for their tolerance levels after this case. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 20:19, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
10. Until last month, it was such a minor thing that I don't think anyone cared. Now, we need to do it. Courcelles (talk) 18:30, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Abstain:

1. I do not know what to say here. Drmies (talk) 22:51, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comments:

9) {text of proposed remedy}

Support:

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

10) {text of proposed remedy}

Support:

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

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.

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

Comments:

1) {text of proposed enforcement}

Support:

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

2) {text of proposed enforcement}

Support:

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

3) {text of proposed enforcement}

Support:

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

4) {text of proposed enforcement}

Support:

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

Clerks and Arbitrators should use this section to clarify their understanding of the final decision—at a minimum, a list of items that have passed. Additionally, a list of which remedies are conditional on others (for instance a ban that should only be implemented if a mentorship should fail), and so on. Arbitrators should not pass the motion to close the case until they are satisfied with the implementation notes.

These notes were last updated by T. Canens (talk) 06:48, 1 June 2016 (UTC); the last edit to this page was on 06:35, 27 March 2022 (UTC) by MalnadachBot.[reply]

Proposed Principles
Number	Proposal Name	Support	Oppose	Abstain	Status	Support needed	Notes
1	Applicability of the BLP policy (1)	3	6	1		Cannot pass
1.1	Importance and application of the BLP policy (2)	8	1	0		·
2	Wikipedia is not a battleground	11	0	0		·
3	Edit warring	11	0	0		·
4	Edit warring and BLP	11	0	0		·
5	Questioning of administrative actions	11	0	0		·
6	Decorum (1)	0	3	5		Cannot pass
6.1	Decorum (2)	11	0	0		·
7	Fair criticism	11	0	0		·
8	Involved administrators (1)	3	6	0		Cannot pass
8.1	Involved administrators (2)	9	0	0		·
9	April Fool's Day	10	0	0		·
10	Committee action as it relates to its members	10	0	0		·
11	Conduct on arbitration pages	10	0	0		·
Proposed Findings of Fact
Number	Proposal Name	Support	Oppose	Abstain	Status	Support needed	Notes
1	Gamaliel and Gamergate	10	0	0		·
2	Gamaliel has withdrawn from enforcement in Gamergate topic area	11	0	0		·
3	Gamaliel and The Signpost page	11	0	0		·
4	Gamaliel and userspace page	11	0	0		·
5	Gamaliel's use of admin tools	3	7	0		Cannot pass
6	Gamaliel cast aspersions	11	0	0		·
7	Gamaliel and the Arbitration Committee	11	0	0		·
8A	ANI discussion	11	0	0		·
8B	ANI discussion (Gamaliel)	11	0	0		·
8C	ANI discussion (JzG)	11	0	0		·
8D	ANI discussion (Arkon) (1)	2	6	1		Cannot pass
8D.1	ANI discussion (Arkon) (2)	6	4	0		·
9	DHeyward and Gamaliel	9	0	0		·
Proposed Remedies
Number	Proposal Name	Support	Oppose	Abstain	Status	Support needed	Notes
1	Gamaliel (desysop)	3	8	0		Cannot pass
2	Gamaliel (admonishment)	10	0	0		·
3	DHeyward and Gamaliel (interaction ban)	9	2	0		·
4	DHeyward (admonishment)	8	1	0		·
5	JzG (admonishment)	10	0	0		·
6	Arkon (reminder)	7	4	0		·
7	Community encouraged (BLP)	3	8	0		Cannot pass
7.1	Community encouraged (BLP) (2)	6	4	1		·
8	Community encouraged (April Fools Day)	10	0	1		·
Proposed Enforcement Provisions
Number	Proposal Name	Support	Oppose	Abstain	Status	Support needed	Notes
0	Enforcement of restrictions	0	0	0		·	Passes by default
0	Appeals and modifications	0	0	0		·	Passes by default

Notes

Important: Please ask the case clerk to author the implementation notes before initiating a motion to close, so that the final decision is clear.

Four net "support" votes (each "oppose" vote subtracts a "support") or an absolute majority needed to close case. The Clerks will close the case immediately if there is an absolute majority voting to close the case or all proposals pass unanimously, otherwise it will be closed 24 hours after the fourth net support vote has been cast.

Support

1. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 01:39, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
2. --In actu (Guerillero) | My Talk 13:53, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

   Everything now has been decided to either pass or fail, so we're finished. DGG ( talk ) 17:39, 26 May 2016 (UTC) not yet, it seems DGG ( talk ) 00:52, 27 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

3. The only remaining loose end is Drmies confirming that he's OK with remedy 7.1, since his vote passes it but his comment on said vote indicates he didn't realize that ;) Since that's a non-binding remedy with no direct implications for the parties, let's go ahead and move this along. Opabinia regalis (talk) 02:09, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

   Thanks Drmies ;) Opabinia regalis (talk) 21:55, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

4. kelapstick^{(on the run)} 09:49, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
5. Callanecc (per email, via Opabinia) 03:10, 1 June 2016 (UTC)
6. Courcelles (per email, via Opabinia) 03:30, 1 June 2016 (UTC)
7. Doug Weller talk 06:20, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
8. now we're finished. DGG ( talk ) 19:32, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

Until we settle the up in the air proposals (aka what still could pass. There is no major rush to close this. @Guerillero: Are you not voting on the desysop remedy at all? -- Amanda (aka DQ) 14:59, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Just confirming here that this is still needed. Another remedy might be coming into play, there is a new principle, and desysop still has people weighing in - and they are flirting the line on a major decision. We need to be sure of ourselves and get it right, even if it's not a desysop. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 18:49, 26 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I likely won't have the time to follow up much more before this needs to close, so dropping my oppose vote. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 05:53, 29 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Agree. too early to close. Doug Weller talk 16:20, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

not until the desysop remedy either passes or fails. --kelapstick^{(on the run)} 21:26, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Parking here for now, more discussion is still needed. Courcelles (talk) 18:30, 25 May 2016 (UTC) (per email, via Opabinia) 03:30, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

@DGG: We have a new principle to vote on. Doug Weller talk 17:59, 26 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]