Wikipedia talk:Wikipedia Signpost/2016-06-05/Arbitration report

Discuss this story

It's encouraging to see a restrained set of remedies from ArbCom. I expect and hope that these will be sufficient. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 20:17, 5 June 2016 (UTC).[reply]
- If humour is not allowed on Wikipedia, how are we meant to bond into a community that can work together? Are we to give up a tradition dating back to the start of Wikipedia because some people don't like anything but seriousness, and are we seriously going to say that an editor participating in a long-standing tradition should be blasted for it, and hounded off the sit? For shame, Arbcom! For shame! Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 21:03, 5 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  - I like April Fool's humor myself. But the problem here wasn't that Gamaliel engaged in April Fool's humor. It was the fact that when several people expressed concerns that the humor was out of bounds and violated policies, Gamaliel's conduct on hearing that wasn't acceptable. If he'd said "Okay, let's have the community discuss this and see what they think", most of us wouldn't ever even know anything had happened. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 22:12, 5 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    - Yeah, but then side issues came into play. All in all, it wasn't a horrible decision and seems proportionate. Montanabw ^(talk) 01:38, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Well, score one more for the gamergate playbook- get a group of dedicated people to just keep pushing over and over for long enough, and the editors you don't like will eventually snap or push back too hard, and then either get blocked or resign in disgrace. In a way, it's surprising that it took so long for people to figure that one out. --Pres N 03:31, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- @PresN: This didn't involve the gamergate crowd. Gamaliel claimed that it was, but subsequent evidence disproved that claim. Please don't continue to perpetuate a lie. One of the findings of fact against Gamaliel was specifically for this sort of behavior.--v/r - T P 05:59, 13 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Here's a link to the April Fool's RFC: Wikipedia:Requests for comment/April Fools' 2. Spirit of Eagle (talk) 18:42, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Does Arbcom think admonishing JzG will have any effect at all? He's been behaving atrociously for years. DuncanHill (talk) 19:00, 9 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I am deeply saddened by Gamaliel's departure from the project, but Adam Cuerden seems to misunderstand the reasons why. In no way was his April Fool's humor the cause, but rather how Gamaliel responded to those who disagreed with the joke and made the plausible argument that the joke was a BLP violation. Read the evidence. Combative behavior in defense of goofing around is never a good idea. I suspect that Gamaliel understands that now. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:30, 11 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]