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

The following pages have been restored for history only review for the duration of this arbitration case:

• Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2010-03-17/News and notes at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Gamaliel and others/Evidence/Wikipedia Signpost/2010-03-17/News and notes
• Wikipedia talk:Wikipedia Signpost/2010-03-17/News and notes at Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Gamaliel and others/Evidence/Wikipedia Signpost/2010-03-17/News and notes
• User:Gamaliel/Small hands at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Gamaliel and others/Evidence/User:Gamaliel/Small hands

The Wikipedia website is owned by a private entity (WMF), therefore first amendment rights do not exist per XKCD: Tinker is not applicable. Per firstadmentcenter.org: Therefore, the First Amendment does not provide protection for students at private schools. [1].

The foundation urged us in 2009 to uphold the integrity of the project by, amount other things Taking human dignity and respect for personal privacy into account when adding or removing information, especially in articles of ephemeral or marginal interest;

WP:BLP requires:

• Editors must take particular care when adding information about living persons to any Wikipedia page.(emphasis original)
• Contentious material about living persons (or, in some cases, recently deceased) that is unsourced or poorly sourced – whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable – should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion. (emphasis original)
• Pages that are unsourced and negative in tone, especially when they appear to have been created to disparage the subject, should be deleted at once if there is no policy-compliant version to revert to; see below. Non-administrators should tag them with {{db-attack}}. Creation of such pages, especially when repeated or in bad faith, is grounds for immediate blocking.
• Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced and not related to making content choices should be removed, deleted, or oversighted, as appropriate.
• To ensure that material about living people is written neutrally to a high standard, and based on high-quality reliable sources, the burden of proof is on those who wish to retain, restore, or undelete the disputed material. When material about living persons has been deleted on good-faith BLP objections, any editor wishing to add, restore, or undelete it must ensure it complies with Wikipedia's content policies. If it is to be restored without significant change, consensus must be obtained first.

The events presented show multiple editors, including some with the administrator WP:UAL, either commiting BLP violations by direct action (A) or interfering with the removal of disputed content (D)

Timeline of blp violations:

• A Gamaliel creates attack page [2]
• Note: initial CSD was for hoax, not BLP
• D Gamaliel repeatedly revert blanking of disputed BLP [3] [4] [5]
• D ed17 full protects page while disputed BLP present [6], removes protection [7] when referred to WP:BLPRESTORE policy
• A DHeyward changes target of attack page [8]
• A Gamaliel reverts to prior target. [9]

In real life, it's understood that the enforcement of rules is as, or more important than, the declaration of them. The Australian Indigenous Governance Institute has this to say about rule enforcement [10]: Weak rules and strong rules – What happens to your governance?

It has suggested by that I'm not "personally troubled" by the BLP with out of context diffs, implying, perhaps, my filing is a pretext to some other agenda.

In fact, I posted words of support for Gamaliel during WP:ARBGG [11] and have prevously petitioned for deletion of attack pages I stumbled upon.

If it was in my power, I would, in fact, revert all the WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS BLP violations that have been presented during the case request and evidence phases. It's not. I have been a wiki volunteer for over a decade [12], and have made 1K edits to WP:WQA and 3K to WP:ANI. [13] There is no doubt that if I started on a BLP deleting rampage, at best, my efforts would simply be reverted. In the words of Billy Joel / Angry Young Man "I believe I've passed the age of consciousness and righteous rage;" and WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS behavior is "And there's always a place for the angry young man...He's fair and he's true, and he's boring as hell." As a single editor among 120,786 active, the scope is fair beyond me, but given an opportunity to nudge the community in the right direction, I'll at least make the attempt.

Several people expressed concern about Gamaliel's dual role as an arbitrator and one of the Signpost's two editors-in-chief. As a Signpost editorial board member, I'd like to state that Gamaliel's conduct concerning ArbCom-related editorial discussions (including the ArbCom election) has been exemplary. I've been genuinely surprised to find people I respect expressing fears to the contrary.

Consider – Signpost staff aren't getting paid for the job. They could walk away and blow the whistle at any time if they were constrained by an editor-in-chief, in the process doing exactly what they've volunteered for: community journalism.

Specifically: Signpost reports on ArbCom business are never written by Gamaliel. Gamaliel has never sought to influence the writers. Since joining ArbCom, the only edits he's made to arbitration reports have been page moves and template edits (part of the publication process), and one picture edit.

Without Gamaliel, there would have been no Signpost the last six months. He's done a huge amount of work, mostly handling the chore of publication single-handedly. He should be thanked.

The Signpost and Wikipedia policy: It's readily apparent that Signpost articles "violate" multiple Wikipedia policies: BLP, OR, "not a newspaper", etc. You cannot write a Wikipedia newspaper without those "violations". An ArbCom statement on this would be appreciated.

As for April Fools' jokes, I'd be happy to have a community RfC deciding whether the Signpost should run April Fools stories involving living people, or any at all. Perhaps ArbCom could provide a corresponding recommendation.

Many people said sensible things in the case request. Every view expressed had some merit. But Sarah's statements there and on the associated talk page seemed the most clear-headed, cutting to the nub of the matter.

If we could all strive to remember that everyone here is a human being deserving of patience and respect, perhaps we could arrive at something genuinely deserving the name "arbitration" – a process that seeks insight and understanding rather than revenge and punishments. --Andreas JN466 14:33, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

1. Rob, review Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2016-02-17/Special_report. Isn't the article a policy violation, riddled with original research and improper BLP sourcing? If we followed WP:BLPSOURCES the way you suggest, we'd have to remove anything not "attributed to a reliable, published source using an inline citation" and could only regurgitate other sources. That's not the idea of the Signpost. Andreas JN466 00:57, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
2. April Fools' jokes clearly marked as humour "are not advanced as factual assertions". --Andreas JN466 06:22, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Fram, revisit [14]. This edit merely added an April Fools' Day link to red-linked passages, to mark the existing text even more clearly as a joke, in addition to the humour template already present.

Re WP:OWN: Unlike mainspace articles, Signpost pieces have named authors (see your own op-ed). Typo fixes are welcome, but wouldn't you be angry if someone came along and edited your op-ed according to their ideas, absent a community consensus (say at a noticeboard) that a particular passage should be re-written or deleted? Andreas JN466 03:08, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Given the Signpost's function – isn't the reasonable move to establish consensus (at BLPN etc.) before edit-warring in the Signpost? --Andreas JN466 19:50, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

BLP is a policy which is aimed at protecting living persons. It is true that WP:BLP contains a statement that "BLP applies everywhere", but the standards are not the same everywhere. It is silly to claim that an April Fools joke in The Signpost violates BLP. Anyone advancing such an argument would not be consistent. It is child's play to find other cases where they wouldn't apply the argument.

A very simple example is the accompanying Trump/Wales 2016 April Fools joke. By the same standards, it is double the BLP violation: against Jimbo and Trump. Yet nobody deleted it and nobody proposed sanctions against Andreas or Montanabw. Needless to say, it would be outrageous if anyone proposed this.

Bad taste is not a BLP violation. I would be happy to see the April Fools tradition eliminated not just from Wikipedia but from the world, but that is not relevant.

Gamaliel has claimed that 90% of the people involved are due to Gamergate, without any evidence. Let's look at the the people who have commented on WP:ANI and this Arb request. Of them, I count the following people who have edited the Gamergate or its Talk page (in an editorial, not admin capacity): Me, DHeyward, Ryk72, Liz, Masem, Starke Hathaway, Mark Bernstein (apologies if I have missed anyone). Of them, only three even urged acceptance of this case, while the rest urged "decline". Another, Arkon has edited Christina Hoff Sommers (who is related to Gamergate, though she is independently notable). They started the ANI section but haven't indicated what they prefer out of this ArbCom case and have asked Gamaliel to clarify his remarks about Gamergate. Clearly, the claim is hyperbolic.

If Gamaliel sees Gamergate in every shadow, it may be time for him to step away for a bit. Risker had hinted, not-so-subtly, about this to Gamaliel a few months ago.

I am unsure on what basis DHeyward has been added as a party. It seems that ArbCom is trying all avenues to make this case not about Gamaliel. First, it was about BLP, now DHeyward has been added as a party. Please correct this travesty. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 15:02, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Your year old, out-of-scope diff of a Gamaliel revert highlights part of his problem. I argue that the sex life of the female game developer doesn't belong in the article and my talk page edit is suppressed. But he left the entire account and allegation in the article because the narrative, while being a BLP violation, fit the world view of editors he protected. This is not dissimilar to the more recent "talk page redaction" that was instigated by email regarding a former Nintendo employee. Fortunately I learned since then to boldly remove the BLP violations in the article first. Predictably, the people that wanted to exploit the women involved objected to my talk page comments that argued against the inclusion of BLP violating material while they added it to the article to highlight the sex lives of female tech employees. Sorry that I do not agree that women in tech should be portrayed as sexual tropes because that's the narrative some wish to portray. Luckily Gamaliel stepped aside and all of it was removed despite the argument that the sex life was covered in the Washington Post. --DHeyward (talk) 07:42, 5 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"Beyond the Scope" Sorry that I already said my commentary is limited by the IBAN and the scope cut back that I listed - tough to discover everything I was told about scope was tossed overboard on the last day. I can support 10 years of bis political bias (and his mischaracterization). I can show all his GamerGate AE input on how various editors should be let off while others sanctioned. But I did not because the scope was being enforced to April 1 and beyond, Gamaliel's post April 1 misconduct and specifically removed Gamergate as being beyond the scope. Please remove all his evidence unrelated to Signpost on Wikipedia. This looks like clerks might be unwilling to remove an ArbCom's proxy post from another ArbCom (it's unclear why Gamaliel needed proxy support but there is an "appeal to authority" issue as if it's been vetted to be within scope. ArbCom should not have posted it). --DHeyward (talk) 02:50, 7 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Gamaliel created a BLP-violating past-dated hoax page in support of a Signpost April Fool's Day joke, and on April 2—after April Fool's Day—removed the CSD tag himself: [50]; on April 6, he reverted blanking on BLP grounds, with an edit summary that it was used on the Signpost: [51]. (He put the Signpost above BLP concerns also at AN/I the same day: [52].) On April 7, he repeated the BLP violation itself at AN/I as a sneer: [53] and also created a userbox linking to an article explaining the BLP violation, and after an IP blanked it, full protected it, an abuse of administrative tools: [54]. A reasonable solution for the purposes of the Signpost joke article itself—although Wikipedia custom and the one-day nature of April Fool's Day made this far too late—was finally implemented on April 8th by faking a sidebar, making the hoax page unnecessary (and this is what would have been expected to comply with policy, rather than defying policy repeatedly because the Signpost supposedly needed the hoax page). I cannot tell from Andreas' statements whether Gamaliel participated in the belated fix: [55].

Gamaliel misused "vandalize": [56], accused an editor of libel (later struck): [57], cast aspersions: [58], insinuated that those criticizing his actions must be mostly Gamergaters: [59], [60], and particularly [61], and edit warred to reclose the AN/I about him (alluded to as improper in Drmies' close: [62]).

The committee is right to restrict the scope of this case to Gamaliel's recent actions. The issue of April Fool's in general is a red herring IMO. The hoax page was first nominated for speedy deletion on April 2, starting the train of events at issue here. Moreover, these are not trivial policy violations. WP:BLP is vital; if we allow the encyclopedia to be used to insult living persons, we undermine our entire mission. If administrators lack respect for WP:NPOV and WP:CIV, they show disrespect for those who have worked and are working on the encyclopedia. These are the issues, not humor, the Signpost, or Gamaliel's past.

By defining the case as also examining other editors' conduct, the committee undercuts the community's ability to decide most matters not involving the conduct of administrators and dilutes the concern that the community decided at AN/I should be brought to ArbCom, the conduct of an administrator (and arbitrator): [63]. A motion to censure a non-admin over this matter failed [64]. Of the other editors now added, only JzG is an administrator. This close and the dismissiveness that followed, e.g.: [65], [66], are IMO conduct unbecoming of an administrator, but hardly worth broadening the case, and the community has handled the rest (including deletion of the BLP violations).

I shortened it by collapsing a section. Please re-evaluate this and remove this note when a clerk has a chance. ~ Rob^Talk 01:09, 3 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Above, Jayen466 wrote "On the Signpost's relationship to Wikipedia policy, it's readily apparent that much of the Signpost's reporting "violates" multiple Wikipedia policies: BLP sourcing (bold mine), original research, "Wikipedia is not a newspaper", and so forth. You cannot write a newspaper in Wikipedia without those "violations"." The Committee should wholeheartedly reject that claim. It is extremely possible to comply with BLP sourcing at The Signpost. When it comes to reporting on living individuals, especially when they're unconnected to Wikipedia and especially when reporting on them in an unfavorable light, it is possible and necessary to follow WP:BLP. If The Signpost doesn't do this, it's opening the project up to real liabilities, full stop. ~ Rob^Talk 22:41, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

When you start focusing on people rather than ideas, especially when dealing with people unrelated to the project, you brush up against WP:BLP. In the specific example of a BLP violation that prompted this case, we had an attack on a public figure based on their physical appearance. I'm reacting against the idea that The Signpost can just throw their hands up and say "We can't be a newspaper and follow BLP!" in response to that incident. That's simply not true. ~ Rob^Talk 01:12, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Editorializing about ideas vs. editorializing about a person's appearance are clearly different, and the "factual assertion" bit doesn't matter when you're mocking someone's appearance. In my first paragraph above, I was addressing the link you provided me with, not comparing it to the situation here. ~ Rob^Talk 03:56, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

WP:BLPRESTORE supports the blanking and non-restoration of the content until consensus is obtained. If the Signpost Editorial Board doesn't wish their publication to be "disrupted" in the future, it would be wise to consider BLP concerns before the "articles" go live. The BLP concern isn't the reference to an ongoing pop culture phenomenon, as you're attempting to reduce it to. It's the reference to a real living person filing a lawsuit against Wikipedia and a reference to that living person's physical appearance.

As a side note, I have to express some serious disbelief that holding back this evidence until the last moment wasn't intentional. I'm sure OR posted it when she could, and don't think she's at fault, but the decision to not ask the Committee to post this until this late in the evidence period is obviously strategic and that should be considered by the Committee. In particular, editors should be allowed to make responses to it if they desire. ~ Rob^Talk 00:09, 7 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The essence of BLP violation is not in being contentious, but in being poorly sourced. Considering that the arbitration request was able to cite CNN and the Wall Street Journal to explain the joke, any non-compliance could have been "readily rectified."

Based on past statements,[67][68] I don't think NE Ent is personally troubled. On the other hand, various Gender Gappers who generally profess to care about such things have responded in this case with phrases in the vein of "It's just a joke", "don't be so sensitive," "crocodile tears", and "weaponized policy" - which under other circumstances they would paint as revanchist woman-hating. Overall, the gender issue seems to be a red herring in this case, though one the gappers would do well to meditate on.

On-wiki at least this has not been a particularly personalized dispute. Some have suggested the locus of the problem is the interactions between Gamaliel and DHeyward, but they are both performing to the room. This article at SlateStarCodex[69] is the most illuminating thing you can read about this Arb case and the whole associated network of American politics, Gamergate, and Gender Gap-ism that extends on and off wiki.

Concerns raised in the case request, for example by Hammersoft[70], deserve consideration.

It has been proposed that Gamaliel was baited or that he was under stress caused by off-site discussions. I can corroborate that Gamaliel's admin actions are often criticized off-site, but that is not exculpatory. It is not a workable doctrine that admin actions are acceptable in proportion to how criticized they are. Of course, that's not what's being proposed. The central premise is that Gamaliel is one of Us while those criticizing him are Them.[71] MontanaBW says it best themselves: all you need to know is the Gap has been impugned. What is being argued for is simply Blue Tribe solidarity.

Mostly copied my initial opening statement with some additions/changes. Given that Short-fingered vulgarian was in the process of being deleted (in part due to a number of delete voters expressing BLP concerns) at the same time as this kerfuffle, it should have been clear to anyone that there was a BLP discussion that was *required* as per WP:BLP. It should also be clear to anyone that a well-sourced encyclopedia article (despite being about an overly negative insult) is very different to a non-article piece of political smearing. I actually argued for keeping the above linked article as it was well sourced and has had lasting notability.

Article space is reliably sourced and the intent is to inform the reader. Talkpages for articles are also (when discussing contentious BLP issues) required to be sourced and relevant to the inclusion of negative material in an article. The signpost exists to provide a place for its writers to air their opinions (see editorials from the last few months). What made this a BLP violation was not the content specifically, it could be sourced as per the above article. The BLP issue is that it was from the start intended to demean and disparage a living person for no purpose other than entertainment of its author/s. It was not 'reporting' on wikipedia news (allegedly the goal of Signpost). It was a completely fabricated attack page disguised as a 'joke'. That is absolutely a BLP violation by any standard. The BLP policy applies everywhere, and Signpost does not have any exemptions. Only in death does duty end (talk) 09:28, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• In reply to Montanabw's comments below on political satire and protected speech. There is no 'protected speech' on wikipedia - as a private (albeit open-access) project it can impose any restrictions it wants on speech. The BLP policy extends everywhere and has no exemptions for 'political satire' in article or non-article space. Such a basic misunderstanding of the BLP policy is clearly not limited to just Gamaliel at the signpost, so it is clear that its a culture problem with the editorial staff there and at this point I would think the entire group needs to be topic banned from BLPs. Only in death does duty end (talk) 08:56, 20 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Suffice to say Montana's reply is amazingly bad and bears no resemblence to reality in how privately owned websites are run and their legal obligations to their users under the law. Only in death does duty end (talk) 09:04, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not going to present a lot of diffs at this point, as I think the issue is more philosophical than a simple question of whether Gamaliel did [insert offense here] or not. So my two cents on this issue are below. Montanabw^(talk) 08:37, 20 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Full disclosure: I was one of the three named co-authors on the April Fools' Trump/Wales article and did the spoof logo. It was a group project and I will absolutely defend the right of the Signpost to run it. I most certainly think that Gamaliel does not need to be dragged over the coals for it:

The Signpost is a newsletter, not an encyclopedia article. As such it needs to follow journalistic not encyclopedic writing standards. It has long carried editorials, BIO1E stories, and things not generally covered within article space. An April Fool's article is well within a tradition of satire in newspapers, and this year, targeting Trump was done by, among other outlets, The Boston Globe.

Also, no one seems to note, or care, that we were also poking fun at Jimbo. Political satire here is not a BLP violation, it falls well within the realm of protected speech, at least under First Amendment principles. The Signpost is in respected company. Montanabw^(talk) 08:37, 20 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Gamaliel can be on ArbCom while also being Editor in Chief of the Signpost. If the editor in chief of The New York Times wanted to be on ArbCom, would it be disqualifying? No. There is an idea that people on ArbCom should have no personal views or opinions. That is sheer nonsense; everyone has opinions and biases. What matters is if an ArbCom member can be neutral when they are asked to rule on an issue. Given the substantial number of recusals on this case, it's clear that people recognize this distinction. Montanabw^(talk) 08:37, 20 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

As far as the actions he took with admin tools and his actions at the various ANI attacks, I think that the peripheral issues do need to be considered. There was a dogpile by people who have been after Gamaliel due to his actions on other issues. The tone alone is telling. References by others here on this page to the Gender Gap project, or making false analogies to women's issues in general pretty much make the case. Montanabw^(talk) 08:37, 20 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

1. To the extent that Gamaliel used admin tools where he should not have, I hope ArbCom discusses measured sanctions, not a wholesale "off with his head" approach that has, too often, been characteristic of some on-Wikipedia justice. The pitchforks-and-torches crowd should not be allowed to dictate mob rule to ArbCom. Montanabw^(talk) 08:37, 20 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
2. The issue of a) fake "archive" articles b) the main April Fools' satire piece, and c) Gamiel's use of the toolkit are three separate things. ArbCom needs to focus on user actions in this case, and to keep in mind who ALL the players were, including those who took the Signpost content to ANI and to ArbCom. No question that WP:BAITing was involved. Montanabw^(talk) 18:40, 20 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Per my comment just posted above (Apr 20, #2) and comments from other users here, I invite everyone to peruse the excellent discussion about free speech and satire that took place on Commons about deleting the fake logo file (and the logo has been kept there, FWIW). It was a comprehensive discussion of the role of law. Constitutional rights are not "shed at the schoolhouse gate" or on Wikipedia. (see, e.g. Tinker v. Des Moines) In the real world, there are clear limits to "free speech", particularly certain forms of hate speech and such, but satire in journalism is clearly well-protected. Here, the BLP policy is clear for article space and I wholeheartedly support it there. I also fully support NPOV and all of the other pillars, posts, guidelines and common sense in article space. But the Signpost is JOURNALISM, which is different (though there were still many inline citations to specific statements and IMHO, no BLP violation there anyway). (Edited for length with one new sentence added) Montanabw^(talk) 22:05, 23 April 2016 (UTC) [reply]

I've been pinged a couple times, Townlake most recently but we have length limits here, so where to reply in depth? In short, do not misunderstand my position: I do not believe the ‘’Signpost’’ article was a BLP violation; it was satire. Satire, as a general rule, is protected speech in general, but subject to reasonable limits: it is not OK in article space per NPOV, WP:V, WP:RS, etc., but I would argue that it is acceptable in a news forum, particularly where it also accepts op-ed pieces (which are also not appropriate for mainspace per NPOV, etc.). The BLP policy is basically to prevent inclusion of material that is, essentially, libelous. I agree that sort of thing is never OK, and though seldom prosecuted, libel generally does not fall under First Amendment protections. Satire is not libel; it’s comedy. There is a difference. Montanabw^(talk) 08:15, 6 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• 3 April: removes CSD tag from page he created[72]
• 6 April: 3* recloses ANI section about him (closed with very dubious rationale by JzG)[73][74][75]. First revert has ironic edit summary "Reverting revert of closure by involved party.", apparently not realising that he is an involved party here. Next ones warn against edit warring and 3RR (again, ironic)
• 7 April: [76] first of multiple posts by User:Milowent (e.g. [77], [78]) mocking the issue and casting aspersions on editors perceiving a BLP problem.
• 7 April: protection of page Gamaliel created after being blanked as WP:POINT violation[79]. Then deleted by Gamaliel 2 minutes after MfD was initiated.
• User:JzG closed section as not needing admin attention with a potshot at some perceived 3RR violation by OP but without comment on Gamaliels actions[80]. I reopened it[81] explaining why the close was wrong: JzG did not answer to this (posts elsewhere showed his bias clearly[82]). I did not yet know that JzG had closed the discussion a day earlier, sniping at the OP and repeating the BLP "joke".

• [83] User:MarkBernstein starts with personal attacks ("right-wing extremists"?) and is the first to link to Gamergate.
• Gamaliel adds fuel to the fire, spurred along by Milowent.[84]
• Adds fake 2016 page to 2010 Signpost index [85], then adds a testpage[86]. I remove these redlinks[87], get reverted[88] with "stop messing with our templates please" WP:OWN. User:Mr Ernie again removes the redlinks, gets reverted by User:MontanaBW[89] (co-author of Signpost page) with "please do not edit-war".

First User:Jayen466 (cocreator of Signpost page)[90] and then Gamaliel[91] change the link to deleted page on Signpost "joke" page, but with another target in a rather blatant WP:POINT violation.

A week later, Gamaliel misuses his position as editor-in-chief of Signpost creating Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2016-04-14/Gallery; No link to Wikipedia, a selection of political cartoons preferencing US presidents and elections; it is only meaningful for people aware of this case. A blatant abuse of a position of trust and WP:POINT violation.

On 13 April, Gamaliel rev-del'ed an edit by User:Ryk72 with two links to reddit discussions.[92] I examined the first of these links and noted that the main subject of that discussion is Gamaliel. This is a clear WP:INVOLVED breach. Gamaliel denies that his conduct is the subject of that link.

6/7 april, Gamaliel violated 3RR on Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Gamaliel and others/Evidence/Wikipedia Signpost/2010-03-17/News and notes:

• 6 April, 22.02[93]
• 6 April 22.15[94]
• 6 April 22.31[95]
• 7 April 12.15[96]

My first ANI statement was about the removal of the CSD tag from a page Gamaliel created[97]. No reaction followed.

I then noted the involved protection by Gamaliel[98]. To this he swiftly responded (good), bringing up harassment as the reason[99]. Not the last time that argument would be used to defend unrelated actions and admin tool misuse. I replied[100], but he still claims that the protection of that page at that moment was a "perfectly routine, acceptable" action[101].

In 2 posts[102] I added further problematic actions by Gamaliel. He did not respond to those posts.

I added other problematic actions[103][104]. No reaction followed.

He finally replied, when I raised adminacct specifically, on 14 April[105]. "Seriously? It's a violation of WP:ADMINACCT because I didn't respond to aggressive questioning quickly and sufficiently? " Not replying for a week to e.g. a claim of policy-violation when removing a CSD tag is a violation of AdminAcct.

Gamaliel claimed discussion was partly by "the editors who came here from the offsite canvassing at Gamergate forums"[106], without here (or later) providing any evidence for this or indicating who these editors were. This was remarked upon by User:Sitush[107].

He repeated the claims, coupled with other PAs, here. All editors (bar JzG) who dared to criticize him are apparently either not "serious members of the community who express real concerns in a civil manner ", or members of the groups "people who perceive me to be their ideological opponent", "Gamergate editors stirred up by a thread on reddit", "editors who call me a Nazi or who use their userpage to attack living people", and can thus be ignored completely.

MarkBernstein reinforced this[108], discussing the "Gamergate crowd" and later the "whole Gamergate mob"[109]

Gamaliel then tries to outdo him, and states[110] "This is very much about Gamergate, it's why 90% of the participants are here and it's exploded out of control, just like anything involving Gamergate." Perhaps Gamaliel can indicate in his "evidence" section how he calculated the 90%? He should be able to indicate which of the participants were there because of Gamergate. I'll help with a first name: MarkBernstein.

(removed because probably outside of scope here)

(short, as my section is too long already): "But I think you'd expect Signpost staff to back you up if an editor came out of the blue and insisted on changing your content without discussion." No one was changing content, the discussion was about keeping or deleting content. If my post to the Signpost would have been unacceptable (BLP, POINT, whatever), I would expect people to blank it, nominate it for deletion, ... Fram (talk) 08:42, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is supposed to be an encyclopedia. We're not supposed to be a blog or a platform for political satire. Is that clear enough for everyone to understand? — Ched :  ?  09:40, 20 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost article was effective as a joke because it raised the very plausible scenario that Wikipedia would publish an image related to one politician's attack on another, and that the victim of the attack might sue Wikipedia.

The Signpost joke implied that someone had uploaded an attack image (very plausible), and that legal action had been threatened (very plausible given recent headlines: Feb 15, Mar 28, Mar 30). The joke was not a rehash of the hands issue.

By contrast, this 15 May 2015 Gamergate comment is clearly a BLP violation because, while well intentioned, it was a gratuitous discourse regarding two named people and whether they traded sex for material benefit. Saying "No one investigated whether X traded sex for anything because no one cares" draws attention to a known-to-be-false claim regarding a BLP. Gamaliel was the second editor to redact that (diff).

A really egregious BLP violation was the highlighting of an attack at the top of Donald Trump with two procedural edits by others: 03:10 3 April 2016 and 21:55 3 April 2016. That was quickly removed, but these incidents show that many editors do not have a good grasp of BLP principles, so the fact that a group declared the Signpost article to be an attack should not be taken as the last word. Of course Signpost is not immune from BLP concerns, and it was appropriate for the page to be removed after a due time, but it was not the BLP crisis that has been claimed.

Signpost has a lot of readers and any clear-cut problem would be quickly fixed. I cannot find any discussion suggesting there might have been an issue before a speedy-delete tag was added at 06:21, 3 April 2016, 38 hours after the page was created. Things got out of hand, but under the circumstances, it was reasonable for Gamaliel to defend the live Signpost article—at least a dozen admins would have seen the page and could have deleted it immediately if they felt it warranted. Johnuniq (talk) 05:21, 5 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I have never participated in ARBCOM before but I assumed the Supreme Court of Wikipedia deals with weighty issues. And surely they do, but this case is only about petty bickering. At User:Milowent/sandbox4 I painstakingly created a timeline for posterity which goes far beyond 500 words, so here are my key points of evidence:

• Gamaliel created a silly joke on April 1, for April's Fools Day. (Screenshot: [111])
• Silly jokes which theoretically implicate BLP in the strictest sense have existed since 2001 without complaint, see, e.g., WP:Silly things, and Wikipedia:Best_of_BJAODN#From_Dikembe_Mutombo which preserves a renaming of a black basketball player that is arguably as racist as the "small hands" joke is a BLP violation.
• Starting on April 3, a drama war over this headline began which bears no rational relationship in scope to the alleged crime.
• The primary instigators against Gamaliel have been DHeyward and Arkon. DHeyward is just bristly by nature. Arkon is probably half-trolling.
• DHeyward tried to CSD the dummy article[112], goes to the admin noticeboard when that fails[113], changes the dummy page to read 'Small Hands' Gamaliel created this [114], MFD's Gamaliel's "this user small hands" userbox created in frustration[115], and later goes to Jimbo's page to complain about the joke logo.[116] (after trying to get it deleted off Commons[117])
• Arkon starts a blanking war over the dummy page and reverts it three times, e.g., [118], starts an ANI thread over the blanking war and reverts JzG's close of that thread four times, e.g., [119], and tells JzG to "fuck right off" for trying to close the ANI.[120]. He does have a sense of humor, calling Trump "his hairness"[121] (BLP VIOLATION!) and creating User:Arkon/TheSighPost for some venting. (Full disclosure, I created the very silly PsyPost in response to him, because my opinion has always been that this whole thing is stupid and no one really is defending Donald Trump's sacred honor. I courtesy blanked the PsyPost yesterday after DHeyward (of course!) sent it to CSD[122] under an improper rationale.)
• Gamaliel could have laid back and let others do more. No One Man Can Save The Wiki.[123] He certainly was forceful in beating off his opponents, see diffs cites by others. But the whole kerfuffle was a drama war mostly at his expense. He is the EIC of the Signpost, he is also trying to maintain the article, as silly as it is, from outside forces. Though journalistic integrity was not threatened in this case.

--Milowent • ^hasspoken 15:35, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It's plain from the evidence that he acted improperly, such as by removing the CSD template[124]. He ought to know better. I am not familiar with the "gamergate" background of this and I don't think it's relevant. The "first amendment" argument is a red herring. Yes, it was a BLP violation, clearly. The fact that it was a bad "joke" is irrelevant.

While I disagree with his action, as I believe this was not a proper reason to close the ANI discussion, SB_Johnny was correct when he said that no one is going to act against a sitting arbitrator. I think that same general principle applies to administrators, which is that a double standard applies to their behavior as well. The Committee needs to reaffirm that arbitrators and administrators are not to receive favored treatment in the drama boards. It will be useless to reaffirm that, of course. It won't do any good at all, since admins have life tenures. But lip service must be paid.

One of the persons making a big fuss over Gamaliel's behavior, NE Ent, himself thought it was "funny" to close an ANI on joke grounds.[125] It wasn't funny, and it was disruptive.

I notice that some of the participants in this discussion, on both sides, have acted as if there is some kind of "April Fool's Day Exemption" from BLP and the rules against disruption ("It's a joke based on body shaming. It has to go. April 1 is over and it's clearly a BLP violation.") Arbcom should state very clearly that no bad "joke" is justification, on or after 4/1.

All this said, I don't see this case involving anything earth-shattering. Gamaliel acted in accordance with the current Wikipedia climate: double standard for admins, dumb April Fool's Day jokes tolerated. Chopping his head doesn't seem fair. I do think some action is warranted, but I am not sure what. My main concern here is in the general stupidity of 1) April Fool "jokes" and 2) the double standard.

-- Coretheapple (talk) 14:01, 22 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Basically per User:Milowent. Milowent has spoken and you should definitely listen. Of all the ArbCom cases I've looked at this is the silliest. Pretty Kafkaesque, Franz Kafka would have been proud had he written it. A large WP:TROUT is in order to anyone who promoted it.

Honestly what is it about? Well there's a highly productive and good-faithed contributor called Gamaliel, who seems to have has been successful here, but has also dabbled in controversial areas like Gamergate creating a few enemies. There is also a dubious WP:BLP violation. Now we could argue all day whether a BLP violation occurred. But even if it did (which I personally do not accept) it extremely minor in nature, and not deserving of any administrative action. And that's about it, all further complaints merely seem like score settling for past disagreements. The removal of the CSD template [126] is justified as the template was misused.

I would urge ArbCom to reject any action to be taken against Gamaliel. It is all frivolous in nature, and just would encourage these sort of ridiculous cases to be presented.

It looks like any evidence I would provide is already included by others (The MFD, AN/I). Nothing else I can really add to most of the above, as my involvement mostly ended at the end of the AN/I thread, other than a few statements at the case request. If anyone has any questions on my actions, please let me know! Arkon (talk) 12:34, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I suppose it can't hurt to just get this out of the way:

I blanked the page in question as a BLP vio here, here, and [127]. After ed protected it, I opened the AN/I. After JzG closed the AN/I with another BLP vio, not to mention inaccurate summary of the discussion[128], I reverted that here, here, here, and here. I think that pretty much covers it. Arkon (talk) 13:16, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

On the 13th of April, DHeyward called Gamaliel a cancer. [129].

On the 13th of April, DHeyward added the 'democrat' userbox to Gamaliel's user page, with the edit summary of 'removing this seemed odd'. [130]

DHeyward (replying to somebody who informed him that this was inappropriate) asserts that he re-added the user box because he believed vandals had removed it. (This was not the case.) [131]

The userbox had been off the page for ~10 months at the time. PeterTheFourth (talk) 05:40, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

DYK ... that Herbert L. Packer proposed two models for the US criminal justice system, crime control and due process, which became influential in criminal policy debates?

There is evidence that we have already too many words on this page which could have been used for article writing. I support the comments by Jayen466, Milowent and Mrjulesd. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:15, 26 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Gamaliel has extremely liberally thrown Gamergate related accusations towards his critics, discrediting them as participants of some kind of offsite Gamergate campaign against him.
This started in ANI:

• [132] - " to the editors who came here from the offsite canvassing at Gamergate forums "
• [133] - "I do not take Gamergate editors stirred up by a thread on reddit seriously."
• [134] - "This is very much about Gamergate, it's why 90% of the participants are here and it's exploded out of control, just like anything involving Gamergate."

And continued in his opening comment of the case request:

• [135] - "The record will also show that much of the drama here was driven by editors with self-admitted grudges against me personally or were directed here from multiple off-site Gamergate forums."

As far as I can tell, he has not backed up those accusations with any evidence. My own quick check on ANI thread showed that clear majority of editors criticizing "the joke" or Gamaliel's conduct have never even edited Gamergate controversy article or its talk page.--Staberinde (talk) 16:24, 29 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If Signpost editors feel that they need exemptions from policies like BLP, then appropriate course of action is to start a RfC on the issue. Until such exemptions have been agreed by the community, other editors have the right to challenge them on basis of existing policies.--Staberinde (talk) 16:24, 29 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

An arbcom case involving parties in completely different standing on Wikipedia’s informal hierarchy, must take all possible steps to guarantee that parties stand on even ground. In this case the Arbcom has failed to do so. It has been admitted that, unless Gamaliel is removed from the Arbcom, after the case ends he will have access to the email list that includes Arbitrator private discussion regarding the case and the privately submitted evidence [136]. Other parties who are not arbitrators will not have such privilege. This appears especially relevant as there have been already several decisions in this case where preceding on-wiki discussion has been minimal or non-existent. These include: adding DHeyward as party, IBAN between DHeyward and Gamaliel, adding Arkon and JzG as parties, the Arbitration motion restricting Gamaliel. While the Arbcom probably will not be able to fix the issue for this case, the problem should be acknowledged and taken in account for future cases involving sitting arbitrators. Issues like these affect community's perception of the proceedings, case result, and the committee itself.--Staberinde (talk) 13:10, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps, but even if I agree with you on that, it is still just a personal opinion of two editors, that others can disagree with. I wouldn't have edit warred over "the joke", but I can understand reasoning of those who did, and there really isn't any policy establishing that they were wrong due to Signpost's special function.--Staberinde (talk) 17:14, 2 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

In furtherance of Staberinde Signpost and BLP section, I put in evidence that certainly there are "newsletters" on English Wikipedia, see eg. Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/News, that can apparently be made at anytime by anyone. It's not only beyond this committee's jurisdiction and power (see, Wikipedia:Arbitration) to specially shield the newsletters like the Signpost from BLP, but it would be irresponsible. The free speech discussion above is rather irrelevant, except to the extent one looks to aphorism: If it is true that 'free speech exists for ideas one hates', than surely BLP exists for people one hates (this being the internet, and all). Yes, it's easy to fall afoul of BLP by mistake or inadvertence, but when that occurs get out quick. It is just necessary to accept that bald opinions and trifling against living people is going to be problematic on ENWikipedia, calling into disrepute the ENWP project, its pillars and policies, including NOT (so, this ctte should not exempt parts of the project from the raising of BLP issues). Alanscottwalker (talk) 15:57, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Whatever the value of the so-called 11 year-old precedent (since when does a statement by a User amount to a precedent) in Gamaliel's statement, that 11 year old statement says the Signpost is to be treated like a post signed by a User of Wikipedia pursuant to our Wikipedia:Talk guideline, which guideline stresses that WP:BLP policy applies, as does WP:BLPTALK. That statement is not claiming anything about being "independent", which would be and is a nonsensical thing to claim, the Post-Signed being hosted by the enwikipedia community.

Let's be clear, over the years the community and its policies have become less tolerant of crap about living people, and making stuff up about a living person is problematic on Wikipedia, and serves no purpose of Wikipedia. Alanscottwalker (talk) 03:22, 7 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The evidence supplied by MontanaBW is interesting. A Signpost writer is claiming freedom of the press protections for Signpost that cannot reconcile with WP:BLP. The first sentence of that policy makes it very clear BLP policy applies to every page on Wikipedia, not just articles. It is an open question whether Signpost accepts adherence to this policy as a price of having access to distribution through Wikipedia, or whether it needs to.

Of course, BLP shouldn't be an issue here since the community settled the immediate issue. But a Signpost contributor has raised the Signpost's right to BLP latitude here as an umbrella issue, and this shouldn't be ignored. If Arbcom agrees or ignores this argument, and WMF doesn't intervene, I worry it may become open season for any Wikipedian with an axe to grind to post whatever they want about any living person in non-article space, label themselves a journalist and the attack "satire," and have a solid argument to stand behind. I hope that doesn't happen.

Everyone on the Arbitration Committee works shoulder-to-shoulder with the current Signpost editor-in-chief, and some Committee members have volunteered for the Signpost, so asking this group to assess this issue neutrally strikes me as unreasonable. And a legal issue has been raised about the Signpost's rights that is probably outside this Committee's ambit. Therefore, I respectfully request that Arbcom seek WMF guidance on the status and freedoms of the Signpost as part of its work on this case.

In sum: If BLP doesn't apply to Signpost, what Wikipedia policies do apply to Signpost? Any? I think Signpost's status -- and whether the actors should have known that status -- is the core of the case.

"For a press to function it must have some independence from the encyclopedia, the community, the Committee, and the WMF." This perspective is incompatible with WP:OWN, which quite clearly applies to every Wikipedia page. Townlake (talk) 01:51, 7 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

NOTE: Other editors have provided evidence on the involved administrative actions around The Signpost April Fools 2016. I do not repeat, but do endorse, their evidence.

• Editors and administrators understand BLP policy poorly
• Enforcement in practice does not align to policy

• Journalism
• Appropriateness of political satire in Signpost
• US constitutional matters

(Axiomatic from scope)

• involved use of admin tools
• biased administration

(Axiomatic from scope)

• MarkBernstein involved deletes COI discussion at Talk:Brianna Wu [137]
• Gamaliel, in the immediately following edit, applies "500/30" protection to Brianna Wu & Talk:Brianna Wu [138]
• Bilby asks why [139]
• Gamaliel states "Try something new" [140]
• Bilby suggests issue seems to be established editors, not covered by "500/30" [141]
• DHeyward states "500/30" only affects one editor; asks if complaint was received [142]
• Gamaliel states I received no complaint. I saw a discussion about this page on Reddit. [143]
• At the time that the "500/30" restriction was applied, only 2 reddit threads discuss the page. Links to those threads in revdeleted diff [144] Both threads, at that time, focused solely & wholly on MarkBernstein's deletion of the COI discussion.
• DHeyward: Not sure what we do about admins that enact sanctions and restrictions based on some offsite discussion they disliked even though onsite discussion was much more egregious. [145]
• Rhoark: As a general modus operandi, a page should not be protected on the mere basis of being discussed innocently elsewhere. [146]
• Gamaliel represents the issue as off-site coordination targeting the article of a BLP in a topic area where there has been frequent off-site coordination from the very same forums" and suggests "at least two disruptive editors from the talk page ... were prevented from editing the article. [147]
• When questioned on these reasons, Gamaliel fails to respond substantively (WP:ADMINACCT), and redacts links to the evidentiary Reddit threads. [148] [149]
• Gamaliel later closes the remnants of the COI discussion. [150]

It is clear that the statements by Gamaliel are inconsistent; at least one is a misrepresentation of the intent behind the protection. It is also clear, on examination, that the stated reasons do not hold water, and that the intent was to protect an editor from questions about a conflict of interest. - Ryk72 ^'c.s.n.s.' 09:12, 6 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The following evidence has been communicated to the committee to be submitted as part of this case. That it is being posted at the last minute before the formal deadline is my fault; this is when I had the time today. Opabinia regalis (talk) 23:57, 6 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Despite the claims of some, nothing in the April Fool's article was politically motivated nor was it intended to be political satire. To me, political satire does not mean merely "jokes about politics", it makes a political point. If we were writing actual political satire about Trump, we might write a story about Trump banning all Muslim editors from Wikipedia. The Signpost story was intended to be broad non-political Saturday Night Live style comedy whose target was Jimbo, Jimbo's celebrity hobnobbing, and Wikipedia, not Trump, as part of a long tradition of Wikipedia April Fool's jokes dating back to at least 2004: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:April_Fools/April_Fools%27_Day_2004 This was a group effort by 8-12 people from four countries, not a solo effort with an agenda regarding American politics. I can produce upon request and with permission of all the participants the complete chat logs of our internal discussion that show that the idea to use Trump was not mine and we were not intending to make any political point.

I do not believe that a mild topical reference that has been regularly heard on American television for months, that has been referenced in a televised political debate by the candidate himself, and has been mentioned dozens of times during this case represents a violation of BLP. I do believe that a number of people have expressed legitimate concerns about its use and it is valid to discuss those concerns, but that is not quite the same thing as claiming it is a blatant violation demanding immediate intervention - otherwise why have these people not removed it or ask that it be removed from the case page? - or claiming that it was intended as a deliberate politically-motivated slur, a claim for which there is no evidence.

Several people have raised concerns about me simultaneously holding positions on the Signpost and the Arbitration Committee. These are valid points to make (as long as they are not motivated by personal animus) and they represent a significant concern regarding the independence of The Signpost. I think the Committee would agree that the matter of who runs the Signpost is not one that should have influence over. But it may very well end up considering how much independence the Signpost has. For a press to function it must have some independence from the encyclopedia, the community, the Committee, and the WMF. There is an eleven-year precedent that it is not beholden to every policy applied to articles and to the encyclopedia. (See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2005-01-10/From_the_editor) That does not mean that we get to do whatever we want or that the community cannot exercise a reasonable amount of control regarding policy matters. For example, we adhere to the community's prohibition against fair use images in Wikipedia space despite the fact that this prohibition is time consuming and fair use could be easily justified by our journalistic mission. And when the community in general raised objections to the standalone dummy headline page, we listened and asked for it to be deleted.

But The Signpost cannot function if a single editor can override the consensus of its editorial board indefinitely disrupt the current version of a publication read by thousands in the community, as happened in this case. The MFD allowed the community's voice to be heard; the blanking was disruptive, unnecessary, unjustified, frivolous, and retaliatory (the editor blanked it after participating in the MFD discussion for a significant amount of time, so clearly they did not genuinely feel the blanking was necessary otherwise they would have done so immediately). If we go down this road, a single editor could CRYBLP because they personally object to news reports about, say, Turkish President (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2014-09-17/In_the_media) Recep Tayyip Erdogan, or our original reporting on outgoing WMF president Lila Tretikov. If you think this is unlikely, look elsewhere in this case, where at least two editors have objected to a Signpost article by me and want the Committee to act against me because they personally object to its content. Or look here (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:TParis&diff=717599660&oldid=717508116) where an editor suggests that the Signpost be overseen by a censorship board allowing only approved "political/social/cultural viewpoints".

We already have a board overseeing the Signpost. The editorial board is open to anyone who wants to do the work. We don't vet you for political viewpoints. (I don't even know the political viewpoints of most of the current members of the editorial board. They might be Trump voters for all I know.) And this editorial board can't do its job if single editors with an agenda or a censorship board are allowed to disrupt its coverage and eliminate its journalistic independence.

I feel I did my best to address his numerous comments so I'm sorry Fram is not satisfied by my attempts, but there was a lot of very heated discussion from numerous parties in that ANI thread, and I was unable to respond to every point from every person. This is not a violation of ADMINACCT, this is simply normal human limitations. Perhaps Fram would consider a polite talk page reminder in the future when people have not responded to him in the manner he finds appropriate or sufficient.

The "This user has small hands" user box: Protection policy states "User pages and subpages can be protected upon a simple request from the user, as long as a need exists". The need clearly existed as the subpage was vandalized. There was no legitimate need for anyone else to edit it as the only living person the user box referenced was myself, so there was no potential to violate BLP. If Fram had a genuine concern about the content of my userbox he could have brought it to MFD, as another user did, or discussed the content, instead of attempting to play 'gotcha' with policy. The userbox may have been stupid, snarky, and unwise, but there is no policy against those things.

Fram objects to my revision deletion of a link to a Reddit discussion which contains a graphic and offensive sexual discussion regarding myself and two other living individuals who are also the subjects of Wikipedia articles. He then reposted the content of a revision deleted BLP violation, an egregiously irresponsible act for an administrator. Fram has been repeatedly dismissive of the BLP-violating content of the link and has attempted to justify it on the grounds that it allegedly contains allegations of a conduct violation on my part. Instead of reposting the link, the responsible approach would have been to post the substance of this conduct violation without including the link. Fram insists that the allegations of conduct violation exist somewhere in that discussion but has yet to identify exactly what those allegations are.

Evidence of his long-standing grudge against me, stemming from articles I barely remember:

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Arbitration/Requests&diff=prev&oldid=715801176&unhide=1 "I've been victimized by Gamaliel since my start here", calls me his "tormenter for years".

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Gamaliel_and_others#Statement_by_DHeyward "Gamaliel has a long history of inserting his POV in American Politics", does not substantiate that statement with a single diff, and refers to articles I edited in 2004-2006.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive919#Civility_of_Arkon "We have butted heads for 10 years"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive919#Civility_of_Arkon "every political BLP violation involves you. I just pointed out how far back the problem goes"

"I lived under his yoke" https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Arbitration/Requests&diff=prev&oldid=715808919&unhide=1

April 13

Within 24 hours he is chastised by three administrators on two project for his behavior towards me. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:DHeyward&diff=715151771&oldid=715090202 https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:DHeyward&diff=715065887&oldid=714844454 https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:DHeyward&diff=193133637&oldid=173401877

This behavior includes vandalizing my user page by adding a user box he feels should be there: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Gamaliel&diff=715035329&oldid=714985819 with the edit summary "removing this seemed odd"

When called on on it, he claims "Vandals must have removed it" https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:DHeyward&diff=715086066&oldid=715065887

His very next edit is to write "He's a cancer and has been for years." https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case&diff=prev&oldid=715040230

On Commons he writes "Gamaliel is a dick" https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Wikipedia_logo_Trump.png&diff=prev&oldid=193133571

He later connects the userbox to his often repeated, unsubstantiated claim of inappropriate political bias in my editing. His strong feelings about the userbox cast doubt on his claim that he was merely restoring it following vandalism: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Gamaliel_and_others/Evidence#Evidence_presented_by_DHeyward

He also incorrectly claimed that I "recently removed" the userbox, when he knew that the removal occurred almost a year ago, because this was pointed out to him after his vandalism of my user page: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:DHeyward&diff=715088704&oldid=715086066 He also attempts to connect its removal to my appointment to the board of WMDC in December, falsely implying that the removal was more recent that it is.

More offensive comments

At Wikipedia_talk:Arbitration/Requests#Harassment he repeatedly compares me to an alleged serial sex offender while repeatedly denying he is doing so. In response, an arbitrator writes "I am asking for the most basic amount of adherence to WP:NPA"

Interference with the Signpost

Refers to me as the "Minister of Propaganda", Goebbels' title was "Reich Minister of Propaganda". https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Gamaliel_and_others#Statement_by_DHeyward

Claims the "small hands" reference is "body shaming" and a "blatant BLP violation" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive919#Blatant_BLP_violation_and_subsequent_protection_by_involved_Admin yet a day later uses the phrase "Small Handed Admins" in reference to me: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive919#Civility_of_Arkon Vandalizes a Signpost page use the "small hands" phrase that he claims is a BLP violation in reference to me: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Gamaliel_and_others/Evidence/Wikipedia_Signpost/2010-03-17/News_and_notes&oldid=714053675 I'm not offended by these remarks, but it his initial claim that it is an egregious BLP violation is correct, he is either insulting me, or trolling, or both.

The 90% number was clearly hyperbole and I'm surprised to see people quoting it here as if it were a real statistic. Here are some actual statistics regarding their most edited articles and talk pages from X!'s tools. (No items were removed from these list, I merely cut these lists off following the last entry of relevance)

So this is where we are at? What's the scope exactly again? I seem to remember evidence in regards to Gamergate being removed for being out of scope. I don't think anymore evidence (within the purported scope) need be presented outside of what Fram and Yngvadottir already have done to show some extremely bad judgement from an admin, let alone an Arb, but somehow we're back at Gamergate being the primary driver of another set of evidence. Is that going to be removed? Is Dennis Brown's evidence going to be reinstated? Capeo (talk) 03:23, 7 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The case is about the behavior of User:Gamaliel from 'After the Fools Day' till now. Pretending to be a 'Journalist' and asking for 'the protection due to Journalists' when questioned about his duties as an Administrator, and as an Arbitrator, is a significant part of this behavior. Don't presenting himself his own evidences here is another part of this behavior. It can be discussed if such a behavior is the best possible for a Journalist. But the point here is to decide if this behavior fits the duties of an Arbitrator. Pldx1 (talk) 10:26, 7 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]