Jump to content

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/GamerGate

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

Case clerks: Ks0stm (Talk) & Sphilbrick (Talk) Drafting arbitrators: Roger Davies (Talk) & Beeblebrox (Talk) & David Fuchs (Talk)

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

Case opened on 22:00, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

Case closed on 00:38, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Case amended by motion on 00:52, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

Case amended by motion on 03:02, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

Case amended by motion on 00:13, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

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

Case information

[edit]

Involved parties

[edit]

Prior dispute resolution

[edit]

Preliminary statements

[edit]

Statement by The Devil's Advocate

[edit]

This dispute has eluded resolution through other means ranging from raising concerns at conduct noticeboards and attempts at mediation regarding content. While editors with fewer contributions, as far as I know only those who are or are seen as favorable to the GamerGate side, have been routinely sanctioned or blocked, the established editors who are unfavorable to the GamerGate side and are the source of a lot of the conflict continue unimpeded. This is at least partly due to the fact that they have a sufficient number of sympathizers to prevent any consensus from being reached regarding their conduct. Another problem in this situation is that there are admins who are either WP:INVOLVED on the subject taking action against their opponents while giving them a pass or admins whose actions are otherwise dubious. Some of these admins have a history of questionable use of their admin tools on other topics. I can elaborate further on those details, though some of it is evidenced in the discussions linked above. Even though general sanctions have been imposed in the topic area and there are BLP discretionary sanctions covering some of these details, it has done nothing to stop this behavior from continuing and escalating as it has over the past week. A thorough review of all administrative conduct on this topic area, ranging from rev-deletions and suppressions to blocks and topic-bans, is requested in addition to reviewing the general conduct of editors.--The Devil's Advocate tlk. cntrb. 00:41, 10 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: I have trimmed my statement and removed my replies to comply with the restrictions on statements. An abbreviated version of my listing of admin concerns:

Other admins are named more due to questions of judgment regarding specific actions, especially when citing BLP. ArmyLine's topic ban is one such case, as is PhilKnight's use of oversight tools regarding a link to Medium blog post. Not every admin action is being questioned, nor is every admin who has taken action on this topic named as a party. This is about certain admins or certain admin actions.--The Devil's Advocate tlk. cntrb. 21:20, 15 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Red Pen's claim of improvement seems to be motivated purely by the fact that the enforcement page has to this point exclusively favored his side of the debate. It is no coincidence that the people creating it, using it, and promoting it, are all of the same mind on the subject matter itself. However, one request contains a comment that illustrates perfectly why certain "uninvolved" admins should not be acting as administrators in the topic area. Dealing with all the bad behavior on this topic would require a large number of enforcement requests, each being subject to review by admins who have made questionable decisions or are far too opinionated on the issue for their actions to be trusted.--The Devil's Advocate tlk. cntrb. 20:39, 23 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Gamaliel, the last sentence is of particular significance.--The Devil's Advocate tlk. cntrb. 23:55, 23 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Eyes on this case, Arbs.--The Devil's Advocate tlk. cntrb. 07:11, 24 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by NorthBySouthBaranof

[edit]

I'm not quite sure what this request is asking. It presents no diffs of identifiable issues, it does not present a case that any policies have been violated, nor does it meaningfully demonstrate that the community sanctions have been unsuccessful. A quick look at WP:BLPLOG finds no blocks and only a handful of topic bans implemented under the sanctions, and absolutely none have been imposed for the last two weeks. This suggests the sanctions have had the intended effect of directing the discussions in a constructive, if sometimes combative, direction. Rather, this request appears to be a statement that TDA isn't happy with the way discussions have gone on pages related to GamerGate and wishes ArbCom to enforce his preferred POV about the movement and people who have been targeted by it. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 00:50, 10 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I can see why you don't want to spell out your arguments re: the above discussions — it's because you don't actually have any. You're just hoping that a big pile of ANI links will create the appearance that something's wrong with my behavior. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 01:17, 10 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

From my perspective, here is the issue. There is no way to put this delicately, so I'll just say it. Gamergate is demonstrably a fringe POV. While their supporters are very vocal on a few Internet social media forums (most of them entirely anonymous) their actual numbers are small and their claims have garnered no mainstream credibility — to the contrary, in mainstream sources their claims have either been widely refuted or widely dismissed as nothingburgers. The weight of mainstream reliable sources is simply indisputable at this point, and so many Gamergate supporters have retreated into a conspiracy-theory realm where all sources are biased against them, except for those which agree with them. (A self-fulfilling prophecy.)

I am neither a "gamer" nor a "social justice warrior" — I first took interest in this issue when the community was made aware on a noticeboard that Wikipedia pages were being used to spread unfounded claims about living people and, as became obvious, further a campaign of vile harassment against them. Rather than acknowledge the movement's foundation in specious slut-shaming trolling, Gamergate is now attempting to whitewash the past and portray itself as a noble crusade for "journalism ethics," despite the fact that reliable sources all but universally view it as a purveyor of misogynistic harassment and retrograde culture warring. It is difficult to collaborate to build an article when there is insistence on portraying a group not as the overwhelming weight of reliable sources portray it, but as it wishes to be portrayed for public relations purposes. This we simply cannot do. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 22:15, 13 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Ryulong

[edit]

Sanctions are working as intended. There's no new big problems here other than a third attempt at bringing this to ArbCom in what appears to be a (vain) attempt to remove editors that TDA disagrees with. And this is still a content dispute masquerading as a user behavior inquest. Several threads closed that did not result in sanctions of any type against the people TDA has brought up (and his constant attempts to use diffs he's pulled from the article as an excuse to ban me at the present ANI thread [3], [4], [5], [6], [7]) should not mean anything in the long run other than a content dispute that will not end at any point in the future due to the nature of the real world dispute it concerns.

Several editors' statements in this request are also full of problems. Loganmac's statement contains polemic statements and comparisons that have been banned from the article's talk page. Titanium Dragon, who is still technically banned from Gamergate broadly construed, continues to accuse me of using a term in a derrogatory manner despite multiple attempts at informing him that it is just the term used ([8], [9], [10], [11]). Retartist suddenly thinks that because an extremely biased journalist writes something that mentions my screenname that I now possess a conflict of interest, and David Auerbach (Auerbachkeller) appearing on Wikipedia to put me to blame for something no one else had any issue with is suddenly leading to Jimbo asking I step away. And that IP address is making up conclusions that are not based on the article and making claims that someone is protected by BLP when every statement about that person used on the article and in talk spaces are either non-existant or supported by reliable sources.

The Arbitration Committee should reject this case, again. This is forum shopping, plain and simple. There was zero chance given to the community-created general sanctions. The Devil's Advocate could have reported myself, NorthBySouthBaranof, Tarc, etc. for arbitration enforcement or whatever proper venue to report people for this but he didn't. He came to ArbCom like ArmyLine did last month and Skrelk did two weeks ago, as well as Retartist's constant attempts to go to MedCom or DRN to split the difference. This have all been acts by people who favor the Gamergate movement browbeating people who don't. I shouldn't have made that list of users on WP:AN and I took it back before it turned into constant bickering that resulted in the general sanctions page. If ArbCom does feel the need to take the case, it should still make note of all of the throwaway accounts people are using rather than the established editors they're fighting.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 22:32, 16 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I am now going to step away from the page as any further edits I make to the article or its talk page may be construed as a conflict of interest and I would rather that not cause problems any more.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 09:12, 19 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Loganmac's accusation is ridiculous and pointed. I have opened up a crowd funding account for personal reasons and because of the current situation and as I can never tell who is and is not contributing to the fund I will not be editing the Gamergate page from this point forward. Or until some time after I've been able to get my stuff back from my friend overseas.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 20:44, 19 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@MarkBernstein: Two out of the three I make public already though.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 21:17, 19 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Obsidi: FFS it was made to mock and harass me.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 22:09, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by TheRedPenOfDoom

[edit]

The previous request was dismissed as "too soon" to to see if the existing community processes could handle the situation. I am not aware that there has been any attempt to utilize the existing community processes since that time that have shown them to be ineffective. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 03:32, 10 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I would also like to point out that many of the statement appear to have the same issues as the gamergate talk page of rambling on and on and far exceeding the "Without exception, statements (including responses to other statements) must be shorter than 500 words" limit without actually being able to articulate or identify any specific issues. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 16:10, 10 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Given the recent close of the ANI [12] and the subsequent edit war over its implementation and the locking of the article [13] , there may now be evidence that "existing processes" are not working. Or they may show that existing process do work as intended. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 13:38, 12 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
With the re-opening of the closed ANI [14], it is probably evidence of "not working" right now, or not yet working. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 16:37, 12 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Carcharoth: In between the closing of the last case and the opening of this, I am not aware of anything different happening. Since this case was filed, there was a discussion about whether to remove the NPOV tag and a request at ANI to review and close. This led to an edit war both at the article and at closing the ANI request which resulted in the article being locked (see some diffs in my statements above). A new page was opened to focus on the general sanctions for GG, which has had 2 events discussed Wikipedia:General sanctions/Gamergate/Requests for enforcement. A working draft copy of the article was created Draft:Gamergate controversy, and there appears to be progress on at least two fronts. Talk:Gamergate_controversy#Intel_returns_to_Gamasutra.2C_now_with_a_source and Talk:Gamergate_controversy#Proposed_rewording . -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 14:15, 15 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Externally, Jimbo suggested that Gamergaters create what they thought would be an appropriate article, and GGers without a real strong grasp of Arb Com launched another "operation" [15] -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 14:34, 15 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Also externally, one of the big cheerleaders and figureheads Milo Yiannopoulos has come out full bore against net neutrality and the one major "success" in Intel has been reversed it seems that waiting a month or two more to see if it burns out of its own accord is a better proposition than spending a month or 6 here fanning the flames. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 20:40, 16 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think that the recent applications of the community sanctions are now starting to have an effect and , while messy, will be far less messy and probably at least as effective as anything that will come from this case. I urge those who noted their acceptance as "grudging " at best to reconsider if this matter is actually at the state of last resort. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 05:06, 23 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Tutelary

[edit]

I acknowledge that this is somewhat premature and probably will be rejected, but I'll post my statement in any case.

One of the main examples that I think should be looked into regarding conduct with administrators is the closing of Ryulong's edit warring report (that of 15RR) as stale simply 15 hours after the fact by administrator Dreadstar. It can be seen in this report; https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/3RRArchive261#User:Ryulong_reported_by_User:Tutelary_.28Result:_Stale.29

As evidenced by that report, it is plainly obvious that Ryulong was at 15 reverts particularly within that article, and had no qualifying 3RR exception. Within 24 hours (15 hours), it was rejected as 'stale'. I don't particularly know of Dreadstar's standard for qualifying a report as 'stale', but when I inquired to User_talk:Dreadstar/Archive_11#Closure_of_3RRN_noticeboard_report their talk page about this, they said verbatim basically '3RR or Edit Warring blocks are preventative, not punitive per Wikipedia:Blocking_policy#Purpose_and_goals. There were no reverts in over 12 hours, so it was stale. I was also assured in a discussion on the article talk page that there would be no continuation of the edit warring. If you wish to pursue the edit warring instance further, then I'd suggest and WP:RFC/U and not the AN3 noticeboard.'. This was plainly a case where Ryulong was 'backed' by administrator Dreadstar that he plainly got out of a block that probably would have indeffed another user because after 12 hours it was 'stale'. I doubt that entirely.

The next bit is the premature closing of both the sanction discussion regarding it which only achieved 23.5 hours of discussion (that which was still ongoing) before being closed and the sanctions being enacted. That's simply out of practice and needs to be looked into. Because there was definitely some opposing points which were not addressed before it was so soundly closed and enacted. 23.5 hours is NOT enough discussion which will ultimately give administrators even more power and discretion when already, there was enough since BLP discretionary sanctions applied. There was obviously something going on in the background because I have never, ever in my entire life on Wikipedia seen sanctions' discussions closed so rapidly and quickly and still be considered valid. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Archive265#Proposed_Gamergate_solution_by_Hasteur

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Archive265#Nip_Gamergate_in_the_bud In this discussion, Ryulong proposed that all of these 'SPAs' be topic banned, but 70% of them were not SPAs and he even implicated an admin as being one of them. There was a counterproposal to topic ban him, but it was closed by Future citing 'no possibility of consensus'--which is a !supervote, closing a discussion so no sanction or rejection of sanction will come out of it. That is unacceptable administrator conduct and I believe that a desysopping or serious sanction should occur for this happening.

This is just a glimpse of what has occurred in simply sketchy circumstances regarding administrators not fulfilling their role as an administrator, and as simply out of practice in terms of all decency of conduct or policy or guideline. Thanks. Tutelary (talk) 02:22, 10 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Loganmac

[edit]

The problems with the article is the extreme uncivility, problems with WP:OWN (25% of edits are made by the same two people). There's constant reverts of good faith edits, before these editors even read them as has happened to me. There's been witch hunts accusing people of being SPAs, this witch hunt included admins and people that have been here for years in a clear attempt to white wash the article. The article right now seems like a parody to outsiders, not supoporters of the movement, I've asked two people that said the neutrality dispute is well placed. Controversial movements should, even if they're supposed to be the most evil movement in history, supposed to be given a historical and uninvolved tone. Articles on Hitler, Scientology, ISIS, the KKK, Al Qaeda show this, and of course we shouldn't give examples to other articles, but when the article on a racist genocidal dictator has a more neutral tone than an Internet controversy you got a problem. All movements no matter how they've been criticized by media, should first state what RS consider this movement advocates for, and then give all the criticism, with due weight, and taking into account that this movement is targeting media, so it's imperative to take every source with a grein of salt. There's been ethical code changes on several sites including Kotaku, Polygon, The Escapist, etc. So it's illogical to say it's a front for harassment when these very same sites have changed their policy and have been disclosing their conflicts of interest, and retroactively correcting other articles in admissions of problems to correct. Aside from this, there's been outside wiki behaviour like people contacting me on my personal twitter and reddit accounts, this very same people show an EXTREME bias to the subject. And their edits show it. The article as well is currently filled with extensive quotes, sources from involved parties (Zoe Quinn currently has quotes on almost every section). People have been in contact with Zoe Quinn to change her picture in the article, because she was drinking and this supposedly was bad even if she's an adult, disregarding that she was at a game event, the picture is of a really high definition and showed her naturally smiling, instead was replaced by a self-taken picture of her making faces (making it hard to really identify her) is of extreme low quality (probably taken by a cellphone) and doesn't show her at a gaming event like the previous one used, the industry by which she's known for. This is just a small example of an attempt to control the narrative that's been going for months. There's been involved admins like Dreadstar who seem to be protecting editors like Ryulong for even a hint of "commenting about them", when this very same editor has been doing the same, on the sight of admins on ANI, on their personal talk pages and the article talk page, and nothing has happened.

Update Beware that, although editor Ryulong has announced quitting the article, if he (I'm pretty sure he will) comes back, he seems to be involved in paid editing now http://www.reddit.com/r/GamerGhazi/comments/2mra6i/after_a_discussion_with_ryulong_weve_both_decided/ https://archive.today/PEKH2 Loganmac (talk) 15:19, 19 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Masem

[edit]

(Trimmed versiom, original content here User:Masem/GGArbCom Statement 2). Per a comment I asked on the ArbCom talk page, this request might be too soon, however, I agree in principle that while there are sanctions in place, they are not able to address the fact that there is experienced editors that have, even unintentionally, working in a manner that creates ownership of the article, dismissing any SPA attempts to contribute (and in fact, claims that they have to work actively against them), and refused to participate in any attempt to reach consensus - specifically but not limited to Ryulong, NorthBySouthBaranof, TheRedPenOfDoom, and TaraInDC.

Part of this is the story - it is one that is extremely decisive, and the mainstream press has clearly picked a side, voicing an extremely strong negative opinion that the Gamergate movement is misogynistic. This is unavoidable and necessary to include per NPOV/WEIGHT. However, I believe that the above editors are editing partially blinded by strong feelings they share with the press, wanting to treat the proGG without the necessary fairness/impartial nature that NPOV also demands. Efforts to include impartialness are reverted by those in this group and then they swamp the discussion, going on clearly showing which side of the debate they want pushed hard. I also believe that the focus this group has on "SPAs are the problem" is misguided. Per edits like this and Ryulong's infamous "list of people I want banned" from ANI, the people above as well as others are trying to effectively engage in censorship of the article or more importantly in the talk page. The suggestion of outright removing SPAs from the picture - while sometimes necessary to minimize disruption - is not acceptable behavior for anyone on WP.

There is a content issue here (in how WP should cover topics that are near-universially treated with negative opinions by mainstream reliable sources), but it is tied in closely with behavior that refuse to want to work on consensus in that manner. I'll also defer to comments I left in the previous case [16]. --MASEM (t) 01:14, 10 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@DungeonSiegeAddict510 : Apology accepted. --MASEM (t) 05:40, 10 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@DD2K: Diffs please for how I "aide and abet" SPAs. --MASEM (t) 03:58, 11 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@DD2K: I strongly contest to that claim.--MASEM (t) 19:55, 11 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Carcharoth: (trimming) The offsite push has been documented, but there still remains issues with ownership by a small # of editors (per above) since the last case. --MASEM (t) 16:14, 15 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Tarc

[edit]

Hmm, I'm really not seeing why this filing is being, er, filed. Discussion at Talk:Gamergate controversy is always going to be slightly sharp, as discussions tend to be in hot-button topic areas, but there has really been nothing untoward of late and the filer has provided no diffs of what he believes has changed since the last time. If one looks through the list of ANI links, one will see several WP:BOOMERANG whacks of SPAs, e.g. the one filed against yours truly that resulted in ArmyLine's removal from the topic area. Also, with WP:GS/GG is in place, admins have done a good job of late in steering editors away from commenting on each other and towards commenting on the subject matter.

I will put forth the notion that why we're really here is not that The Devil's Advocate sees an intractable dispute that must be Arbitrated, but rather that he refuses to accept that the tide is turning against him, that the "pro-Gamergate" point-of-view is slipping into a minority/fringe position akin to Obama's birth certificate birthers. Please take note of this post to admin Dreadstar's talk page, which contains the line "Clearly, you do not even understand the fucking policies you cite. You seriously need to be desysopped. Obviously, all that power has gone to your head.", along with "You probably know this on some level, but simply do not give a shit because my comments go against your own opinion on the issue of GamerGate." from here. What TDA is doing here is casting aspersions against one of the admins who has attempted to keep the peace in the GG article, but is getting increasingly shrill because action is (rightly, IMO) taken primarily against the disruptive single-purpose accounts. This reminds me of the Stevertigo 2 case, where an editor was so aggressive and so believing in his own rightness...or righteousness...that any failure to achieve consensus for his preferred edits must mean either collusion or malfeasance on the part of admins and other editors.

The edit-warring of the past month has largely subsided in the wake of reliable sources cementing the foundation of GG being primarily about the misogynist harassment of women in the gaming industry. This is like a football (real football, not that footy stuff) being tied up at halftime, but by the end of the 3rd quarter, one team has pulled far ahead due to a strong foundation. All in all, what this is is a case of TDA not accepting the way GG is trending. Tarc (talk) 01:42, 10 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  1. Everyone else here; STOP sniping back and forth on the article talk page. If you have a problem with someone, then go file a complaint at the above page and let others handle it. Go ahead, file something on me, or Ryulong, or Tuletary, or Masem...rather than everyone endlessly saying why they think other editors are problematic or obstructionist. This is "put up or shut up" time, because, trust me; most people that get dragged to an Arbcom case do not emerge unscathed, no matter how confident you are going in that you're in the right and the other guy's a rube. Give what we have a try before this goes to the Court of Last Resort. Tarc (talk) 00:20, 13 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Bilby

[edit]

I'm a bit confused about what has changed to warrant revisiting this issue so soon. The last ArbCom request closed less than a week ago, and all of the discussions linked to above are from September and October, before the request closed. As far as I am aware there have been no significant events on the GamerGate article - the only protection was by me to return semi after it was removed when the previous full protection expired. The talk page remains open, and there has been no revdel since the last request closed. There has been some minor edit warring and heated discussion continues unabated, but mostly we're looking at content issues. I wouldn't be surprised to see this end up here eventually, but I am surprised to see it here now. - Bilby (talk) 01:15, 10 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Given that The Devil's Advocate has included me in the list of admins above, even if mostly in passing, I should make a statement. As The Devil's Advocate points out, I am involved in the GamerGate article, although I am aware of this and believe that I'm acting accordingly. Originally I chose to try and remain uninvolved, but during the process I realised that I would be more useful as an editor rather than as an admin. Since then I have chosen to make no input into potentially contentious admin decision, including blocks and topic bans. I have only made a very small number of admin actions, and per WP:Involved, they were extremely straightforward, or both straightforward and urgent (BLP violations). Until now, as far as I am aware the only concerns raised were about a revdel which contained libel, [17], and now the diff raised by TDA [18] which I stand by. I am not aware of any other action which has been previously raised as a concern, but then due to the decision to act as an editor I have had to leave all heavy lifting to others. - Bilby (talk) 08:40, 15 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Fut.Perf.

[edit]

Just a procedural note: there's the old question of whether the mere fact that an admin has been listed by some other editor as a "party" to a case request will ipso facto consitute a form of "involvement" that will bar that administrator from taking further administrative actions in the field while the case is pending. Since the filer has chosen to list pretty much every admin as a party who has ever dared to take action in the field, if we're now all suddenly "involved" because he says so, that means there'd be basically no more uninvolved admin eyes on the article, making the discretionary sanctions inoperable for days or even weeks to come.

Since this obviously can't be allowed to happen, I'll state it here outright: I personally do not consider myself a "party" in this, and therefore I will continue to be available for taking action if necessary – except and until at least one arbitrator tells me explicitly that my own previous administrative actions are a matter of concern for him/her and he/she thinks they should be scrutinized as part of a case.

@Seraphimblade: what, there are "too many people involved and too much talking past one another", and that's a reason for taking the case? Are you serious? Arbcom is the worst possible venue for situations like this. This case has all the makings for another procedural disaster like the infamous "Macedonia 2", where hordes of people motivated by external political agendas were given free rein to drown the procedure in their drivel for weeks, until clerks and arbs started randomly and erraticly hitting out with blocks against established participants who had cracked under the constant provocation and lost their temper. Arbcom is notoriously incapable of keeping situations like this under control, and I pity all the poor souls who will have to go through this. Heck, you guys are already now failing to keep order here (what with Titanium Dragon's breach of his topic ban here under your very noses, the administrative treatment of which has promptly stalled in Arbcom-procedural limbo?) – And then, what kinds of remedies would you be passing down, given the structural asymmetry of the case? There are a handful of established editors on the one side, and an army of quickly replaceable single- or narrow-purpose accounts and newbies on the other. Sure, you could sanction those on the one side if you find them at fault, and I have no doubt people will heap up massive amounts of "evidence" (valid or not) against them, but do you really expect that others should submit actionable evidence regarding each and every one of the pro-GG POV army? And even if they did and you acted upon it and banned the worst ones, what good would it do, if they are replaced with new SPAs the next day? Fut.Perf. ☼ 11:55, 11 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Everybody always complains about Arbcom being slow in its proceedings, but really the worst thing is its irresponsible slowness in deciding case requests. This case here has now been sitting around for eighteen. fucking. days, triggering tens of thousands of words of drivel and no end of fighting and fresh bad blood on this page alone. Did it ever occur to you, arbs, that by letting this happen you are actually creating and stoking the conflicts you are meant to solve? Shame on you, arbs. Any arb who can't make up their mind about a request like this within a reasonable timeframe of 7 days is a failure in his job and ought to at least recuse, if not resign. Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:37, 27 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Gamaliel

[edit]

The Devil's Advocate has a long history of bringing frivolous or outright fabricated charges to noticeboards, of fomenting drama on and off Wikipedia, and of excusing, downplaying, or ignoring noxious, disruptive, and policy-violating behavior of those he perceives to be on his side. The Committee should ban this user from all noticeboards for at least one year. In relation to GamerGate, his charges have been rejected on the noticeboards and he was so disruptive there that he was blocked. This is simply forum shopping. My comments he cites fallen under this policy: "Warnings, calm and reasonable discussion and explanation of those warnings, advice about community norms, and suggestions on possible wordings and approaches do not make an administrator 'involved'." I am stunningly indifferent to GamerGate and gaming culture, so I'm really curious what TDA thinks my stake is.

TDA's complaint misrepresents or ignores serious wrongdoing by those he defends. He claims I was "feuding with" Tabascoman77, a serious misrepresentation. Tabascoman77, in what was my only interaction with him, posted an unsolicited attack on myself and others at ANI and threatened to write an "expose", something that could be considered blackmail. He posted serious allegations against Zoe Quinn, I warned him, he did it again, and I blocked him. Even if Tabascoman's threats made it inappropriate for me to take actions against him, WP:GRAPEVINE still applies. TDA also has no interest in BLP enforcement, complaining that it is "absurd" for me to redact the usage of a slur against Quinn and that TD's topic ban is "tyrannical behavior" despite TD's behavior outlined below. TDA's viewpoint appears to be editors should be able to do whatever they want, regardless of the consequences, while administrators should be restricted from acting in almost every case, and any check on editorial behavior by administrators is a "tyrannical" abuse of power.

As for Titanium Dragon, I topic banned him after the second time he used Wikipedia to air unsubstantiated allegations of serious wrongdoing against Quinn. (The ban was overturned only because of my procedural error; efforts to overturn the ban on the merits were dismissed at ANI.) Titanium Dragon was quickly banned again by a different administrator. An ArbCom case is about conduct, policy, and procedure, but Titanium Dragon devotes the bulk of his comments (prior to condensing to 500 words) to his views of the facts of GamerGate, including his claim that Quinn's harassment was a fabrication, as well as comments that darkly hint at her involvement in something, a matter that when he explicitly leveled those charges against Quinn got him banned. Since he cannot sufficiently restrain himself after being banned twice, Titanium Dragon is unable to edit Wikipedia with the sensitivity and thoughtfulness required for dealing with BLPs. The Committee should indefinitely ban him from all BLPs.

@TDA, I have no idea how this comment of mine "illustrates perfectly" my supposed involvement, or is any indication of involvement at all.

@TDA How so? Do you think there can be a consensus to disregard WP:RS on a particular article? Gamaliel (talk) 01:56, 24 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Titanium Dragon

[edit]

I became involved in this because I was worried that the article was going to be defaced by angry gamers; instead, it was being defaced by angry culture warriors. I sought to make the article more neutral, and include sourced information. Subsequently, I was doxxed by Wikipediocracy in September, along with another user, Tutelary, in an obvious intimidation attempt. user:Tarc, a former associate of Wikipediocracy, made approving noises, while user:Gamaliel noted that he wanted to ban users such as ourselves. He subsequently did so at the request of user:NorthBySouthBaranof shortly after North found out that I was working on an ANI against him and other disruptive users, and immediately after I removed a section of material from the Zoe Quinn article he had added from Cracked magazine, a parody website. He had previously been warned by other users it was inappropriate to include in the article.

The ban was later reversed. Some time later, while I was helping a new editor properly file a 3RR dispute against user:NorthBySouthBaranof and user:Ryulong, who had been reverting his comments on the talk page (and trying to shut down discussion), user:NorthBySouthBaranof sought bans against both myself and the other user involved in the dispute, which user:Future_Perfect_at_Sunrise granted within a half hour.

Why?

Numerous claims of criminal activity have been made by both sides, and while some (Sarkeesian’s death threats, various website hacks) are well attested, others lack independent verification and appear not to have been reported to law enforcement. One individual making these claims has had reliability issues in the past about similar events, resulting in The Escapist apologizing for repeating their unverified claims, and another works for Breitbart, a right-wing publication. In the past, unverified claims of harassment have lead to harassment of others. Per WP:CRIME, claims of criminal activity need to be well-verified. I advocated for caution. North both lied about what I said (claiming I only advocated for scrutiny of the claims of one side, when I specifically noted both) and claimed that he knew what I meant.

North previously had been warned in an ANI about precisely this behavior, falsely claiming that other people have said things that they had not said and casting aspersions on others. user:Future_Perfect_at_Sunrise was uninterested in reviewing this fact.

Ryulong and North have been seeking bans on people who disagree with them and who pursue action against them. Ryulong has a history of seeking blocks against users who disagree with him, something which was noted when he was de-sysopped many years ago; his behavior does not appear to have changed.

Tarc, Ryulong, and North have falsely claimed consensus and improperly excluded material while shutting down discussion and insulting other users, referring to them as misogynists, /v/irgins, and otherwise casting aspersions reminiscent of that used in off-Wiki harassment. They have rejected and insulted mediation. GamerGate is a massive fight with both the “GamerGaters” and the so-called “SJWs” attacking each other and third parties who simply report on the events in a way they don’t like, including Wikipedia editors. Titanium Dragon (talk) 06:46, 11 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

(Trimmed to 500 words; original statement here)

Statement by DungeonSiegeAddict510

[edit]

Archived statements at User:DungeonSiegeAddict510/ArbCom Temp

Clerks of the Wikipedia Arbitration Committee, I urge you to take this case and heavily review ALL logs of the pages related to Gamergate, and others, such as Adland. 5 editors, Ryulong, TheRedPenOfDoom, Tarc, TaraInDC, and NorthBySouthBaranof have WP:TAGTEAM'd the article for until it was locked, after removal of the NPOV tag by TheRedPenofDoom. It is not just these 5 editors in on this, a few notable admins have been defending these 5. Dreadstar, Future Perfect by Sunrise, and Gamaliel. First the 5, they have not only WP:TAGTEAM'd multiple times, but, also violate WP:BLP on articles and talkpages. For example, they have slandered Christina Hoff Sommers, a feminist, and a REGISTERED democrat, as a right wing antifeminist. They also labeled Milo Yiannopoulos, as a "fickle opportunist". They are clearly pushing a POV, for a topic which has very few actual sources. To further this, they've also subtly, or sometimes not (with the case of Adland) changed other articles to make their POV sound better. Many sources are subpar, and have done little to no research on the matter. Whatever sources included, had obvious bias. Gawker Media is a target, Vox Media is a target, Gamasutra is a target, etc. MANY neutral sources have been proposed, many neutral revisions proposed. But in the name of WP:RS, BLOGS AND TABLOIDS, have been given preference over publications like Forbes, or nationally syndicated shows like The David Pakman Show. WP:FRINGE violation: Vivian. Baseless claims say, Vivian's hoodie alludes to dead meme about supposed rape. Not only is the aforementioned highly illogical, and non-notable, it is barely masked POV pushing. Many times, both sides, BOTH sides, have condemmed the harassment. Yet, only the anti-gamergate side is mentioned for this in length. POV pushing is rampant in this article, and many others related to it. How have publications such as The Verge, now known for inciting harassment of a scientist, given the server space or clicks on Wikipedia? This is disgusting on many levels, and will leave a black streak on Wikipedia's reputation if this blatant POV pushing continues. I am not done yet. These 5 have successfully pushed the POV for over a few months now, hounding the article and providing for a majority of edits, yet labeling other editors as SPAs, including an admin. But I digress; these editors have been given free reign, and admin powers via proxy. The editors pushing for a neutral article are policed by Dreadstar, Future Perfect, and some others, but when NorthBySouthBarnof, for example, went over the 3RR rule by, oh, 9, it was swept under the rug by Dreadstar, who hid the diffs. Titanium Dragon, a non SPA, who has been doxxed, no less, got topic banned by Gamaliel (Who insists that it isn't them, since someone else put it back on). I should note, Ryulong has been known in the past to collude with admins off the wiki. Now, the recent discovery of an operation by GamerGate about Wikipedia I found this. [19]. In essence, it asks GamerGate supporters to find diffs and logs that seem suspicious. To make it a secret to everyone, yes, I did register an account there, but have decided to not use it. I implore the ArbCom clerks to take this case, and look through histories thoroughly. It saddens me people defend Gawker and co as RS. --DSA510 Pls No H8 01:33, 17 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I recently have been doxxed on IRC, which is the real reason for my temporary absence. I sincerely hope I don't have to look into this further. --DSA510 Pls No H8 05:06, 19 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@MarkBernstein: @Hustlecat: Excuse me? I know you'll probably use the following to paint me as something I'm not (pro-gg), but WHAT ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT? Read the wiki link in my statement. Collecting wikidiffs. A proposal was made, to, in essence, collect wikidiffs. Now I'm sure you're all glossing over/happy that I've gotten doxxed for minimal involvement, and now have some IP trying to get me banned, but i fail to see how, COLLECTING PUBLIC WIKIDIFFS = DOXXING. I COULD POTENTIALLY DIE IF I GET SWATTED, AND YOU COMPLAIN ABOUT WIKIDIFFS? There are serious double standards here, clerks of ArbCom, and this should not be allowed to stand. --DSA510 Pls No H8 22:51, 19 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@MarkBernstein: I am expressing my increasing exasperation with how "doxxing" is being thrown around so easily. Especially since EVERYTHING I SAW ONLY CALLED FOR WIKIDIFF COLLECTION. --DSA510 Pls No H8 23:45, 19 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I see people are twisting my words as usual. I did not deny off-wiki collaboration. I did not deny people on both sides have been harassed (from Zoe Quinn, to Milo Yianoupolis). I'm saying I find it hard to believe how Wikidiffs = doxxing other editors. Haven't i already proclaimed my disgust at the trolls and harassers? And furthermore, I'd like to stop being indirectly called a misogynist. I firmly believe society should be egalitarian and meritocratic, in that people are solely judged by their actions/contribution, in relation to ability. But I digress. As for the last part, I have nothing wrong with people promoting diversity, but am dubious of tokenism. --DSA510 Pls No H8 00:18, 20 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Also, I'M NOT PRO-GAMERGATE. Can't one be a neutral observer these days? --DSA510 Pls No H8 00:20, 20 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

They're now sending meatpuppets to forum shop me. The little kangaroo court their cronies pulled seemed to work. Butbutbut muh not involvrd!!!!111!. Well, after interfering with quite a few AN discussions and that kangaroo court, are they really not involved anymore? --DSA510 Pls No H8 21:25, 23 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by lurker Retartist

[edit]

I haven't been heavily involved in this but i have been watching all the time. I dont post much because mostly I don't have much time and i don't like to write long posts. I started the failed dispute resolution and mediation requests. I think several users have been VERY uncivil and have gotten away with it per other users comments. I think it is 100% wrong that people are labelling this movement as Factually misogynistic and that popular opinion constitutes fact. Personally i used to be 100% pro-gg but recently have become more cynical as some people in the movement have shut their minds 100% or can't decide whether to be angels or just wreck shit (hi 8 chan). I know that the page can't paint GG as saints but what the page at this time is a smear campaign that assumes the press is 100% right. Also by request Here is the 8chan thread Retartist (talk) 07:01, 10 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to act as a proxy for 8chan, Here is a page where I/they will copy notable posts that summarizes their arguments: User:Retartist/8chanstuff and they want us to look at this page re: claims of doxing from them Fallacy of quoting out of context Retartist (talk) 10:16, 10 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Blanked page and redirecting users to collect evidence off wikiRetartist (talk) 21:59, 10 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I want to make it clear that the actions of myself in relation to the 8chan users is purely for the purpose of collecting diffs that they have that relate to the behaviour of editors for the purpose of this arb-com case. Retartist (talk) 23:06, 10 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A quick question, since news sites have mentioned several wikipedians in relation to the controversy, does that make them too involved in the page and therefore have a WP:COI? Retartist (talk) 04:46, 15 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I must note that I have attempted in the past to start mediation and Dispute resolution. Other editors have called it forum shopping but those threads were started after each other due to editors declining to participate, i only started new ones as was recommended to me. Retartist (talk) 01:46, 17 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Willhesucceed

[edit]

This topic has entirely exhausted me. TRPoD, Ryulong, Tarc, and to a lesser extent Tara and Baranof's harassment, belligerence, and unwillingness to cooperate with others on the Gamergate topic make the possibility of a good article materialising exceedingly small. I'm not going to bother tracking down all the swearing, arbitrary shutting down of discussions, mocking, double standards with regards to sources, edit warring, and other such behaviour that's marred the editing there, because the last time I did it didn't make any difference, even after Ryulong went on a witch hunt.

When I was still new here, multiple persons engaged in an edit war with me, and nobody did anything about it. As soon as people with whom The Five (above) disagreed did it, they submitted them for admin action. There are plenty of other such incidences evident to anyone who's been following the topic. Again, I have no faith that the admins are interested in executing their duties here, so I'm not going to bother tracking it all down. If the admins are actually finally interested in performing their responsibilities, they can be the ones to waste their own time.

While The Five, or at least TRPoD, Ryulong, and Tarc are still allowed anywhere near the topic, leave me out of this. I want as little as possible to do with them or with wilfully blind and biased administrators. Wikipedia has turned into a joke. Willhesucceed (talk) 08:10, 10 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I will add that there seems to be over-reliance on "strong" but biased/political sources over more neutral/factual but "middling" or "weak" sources, which reliance is leading to an article that is prima facie objective but that is actually inaccurate, in that information is being excluded simply because it doesn't serve The Five's agenda. Digitimes, for example, is a respectable tech news outlet in Taiwan (you know, one of the places that make products for the video games industry), and yet it's not included anywhere on the page. Why? Because people are pushing political agendas instead of working together to create a proper, factual article on the topic. Here, have a look at them: http://www.digitimes.com/news/a20141027VL200.html and http://www.digitimes.com/news/a20140906VL200.html?chid=8 Perfectly reasonable perspective removed from the politics of the issues (unlike NYT, etc.), and yet they're being ignored. BBC Business Matters also covered the topic more neutrally, as have a few other sources. They're not included, either. More neutral and factual articles are being passed over for human interest pieces and politics. Welcome to the New Wikipedia. Willhesucceed (talk) 12:32, 10 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Ramba Ral

[edit]

May I state, first off, that ArbCom should absolutely take this case.

I am not an active contributor to this article for obvious reasons, but I have been involved in this article from the beginning.

This article is subject to numerous problems, many of which have already been listed in statements by previous contributors to which I will add the following:

Firstly, there are next to no reliable NPOV secondary sources with which to support this article. The article concerns corruption in the media. Anyone with a modicum of common sense or ability to think critically will come to the realisation that the media is therefore not a reliable source on its own corruption. Nevertheless the article cites blogs and websites such as Cracked, Buzzfeed and indeed, Kotaku as reliable sources. In the case of Kotaku, user Ryulong said, in this talk page that it is not a reliable source. Kotaku is listed as a source for this article at least five times. What makes Kotaku an unreliable source for a tribute game and reliable on its own corruption?

Secondly, the article has been described by Wikipedia founder Jimmy Wales as a 'badly written battleground'. As Loganmac mentioned more contentious topics such as Adolf Hitler have received far more neutral articles. Why should a controversy over reporting in Games' media be treated any differently? The article has a problem with neutral language and perspective. I edited the article exactly once, to make the language more neutral. My edit was immediately reverted by an editor who claimed my edit was a WP:BLP transgression. This is WP:GAME and there are many instances of this happening. The article which is mainly being edited by the same four editors, user Ryulong in particular, in what is a textbook case of WP:OWN.

This brings me to my third and final point.

I am absolutely disgusted by the behaviour of Ryulong in particular. Ryulong has often proven himself to be uncivil, uninterested in civil discussion and solely concerned with narrative pushing in violation of Wikipedia policy. Keep in mind that this editor was de-sysopped for narrative pushing, harassment and ‘doxxing’ people who disagreed with him.

Numerous evidence exists of Ryulong engaging in WP: TAGTEAM ([20]), WP:DE and violation of WP:NPOV (admitted to bias [21] and [22] as well as a violation of WP:CIVIL). In addition he tried to lead a witch-hunt against editors who do not share his views [23], some of which were prominent administrators.

This is not the first time that Ryulong has engaged in such behaviour. Nor will it be the last, unless Arbitrators do something about him. Ryulong has already been de-sysopped for similar behaviour and is frequently the target of requests for arbitration and other such requests. I believe that he represents the worst that Wikipedia has to offer, a text book case of WP:BITE amongst other things, and letting him go on unpunished would be an affront to the integrity of Wikipedia as a whole.

Thank you for reading. Ramba Ral (talk) 11:53, 10 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Cuchullain

[edit]

I haven't been involved as an admin at the Gamergate article for several weeks, so it's possible I'm missing something, but I don't believe an ARBCOM case would accomplish anything new. The true problem with the article (and the other affected articles) has always been primarily from one direction: the slew of SPAs and narrow-focus accounts coming here with an agenda, and the established editors who support or enable them. The community sanctions are having a positive effect on the articles, though not as widely as they could be to crack down on pervasive disruption. This option should be explored more fully before asking ARBCOM to weigh in.--Cúchullain t/c 16:23, 10 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Future Perfect at Sunrise makes an important point that if we regard all the admins listed as parties here to be "involved" in the future, there will be no uninvolved admins left to handle the ongoing disruption. The current admins have too much on their plate as it is. I suggest the case be declined and the filer be sanctioned for a disruptive filing.--Cúchullain t/c 21:10, 10 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by TaraInDC

[edit]

We have been far too indulgent of a squadron of obvious SPAs and POV pushers who have been filling the talk page with rambling, evidence-free arguments (very similar to the ones filling up this page) and stalling every damned discussion with unsupported claims of "bias!!!!" All we're doing is encouraging them by making them think that they might actually be able to shout down WP policy if they're tenacious enough, and the result is the off-wiki campaign we're seeing here. Dreadstar (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) was for a time acting as an uninvolved peacekeeper on the article, primarily warning editors against commenting on other contributors rather than focusing on content, but seems to have been inactive for a couple of days, and at any rate that should not be any one person's problem. We need more oversight and stricter enforcement of policy on that page. This might also alleviate the apparent perception that Dreadstar is 'biased' because the editors warned, blocked or topic banned under the page sanctions all tend to come from one 'camp;' as with the article topic itself, these editors appear to have confused parity with neutrality. I can't help but wonder if naming Dreadstar as a party here will have the effect of removing the admin most active in enforcing the page sanctions by rendering said admin 'involved.' As before, I don't know if arbcom is the correct solution to this problem, but I do hope that if something productive comes out of this it will be a concrete suggestion of how to see that the page sanctions are enforced quickly and uniformly.

The unsupported accusations against other editors on this page are completely inappropriate, and it seems that editors are using this request as a means to vent the types of personal attacks that would in theory lead to a topic ban if voiced on the article talk page. No more narrative epics, please and thanks: give us some proof that the problem is with the 'anti-GG' editors ("The Five," as the very prolific SPA Willhesucceed melodramatically names us) or stop whining already. Don't just tell us we're being naughty: show us. -- TaraInDC (talk) 17:44, 10 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: I didn't mean to suggest that there are no other uninvolved admins acting to enforce page sanctions, only that Dreadstar has been particularly active in warning editors off of behavior that's likely to result in a topic ban. -- TaraInDC (talk) 18:15, 11 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Black Kite

[edit]

"Another problem in this situation is that there are admins who are either WP:INVOLVED on the subject taking action against their opponents while giving them a pass or admins whose actions are otherwise dubious. Some of these admins have a history of questionable use of their admin tools on other topics." Well, I am an admin, and I am named here. So do you want to actually show diffs here, or are you simply making stuff up? Oh I forgot, there aren't any diffs are there? Meanwhile, this appears to be an attempt for ArbCom to enable an off-wiki campaign to disrupt this article through the use of SPAs and previously dormant account. Frivolous filing, and the filer should be sanctioned. Although perhaps it wouldn't be a bad thing if it was taken, because if it was, I foresee a rotating weapon often used by Aboriginal peoples coming back and hitting a number of people above. Oh, and as per FPAS above, I do not consider myself involved here, and reserve my right to take admin action on this subject (although I haven't for a long time). Black Kite (talk) 18:43, 10 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • @The Devil's Advocate: so the fact I posted a note about an articles Zoe Quinn and Depression Quest (which were badly afflicted by misogynist editing at the time) to the Gender Gap page, is unusual? However, I did not mention the page involved in this ArbCom request (which, incidentally, looked like this at the time). You're struggling badly here - no, hang on, I'll rephrase it - you're making shit up. Stop it. Stretching someone's involvement to a couple of related pages when the page being discussed here wasn't even controversial is ridiculous. As I said above, feel free to remove me as a party. Black Kite (talk) 19:35, 11 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Acroterion

[edit]

As Fut.Perf. stated, listing uninvolved administrators who have acted to enforce discretionary sanctions as "involved parties" has the potential effect of neutralizing the discretionary sanctions process. As far as I'm concerned, I'm not involved until I hear otherwise from ArbCom. My initial reaction to all of this was that DS are working, more or less, that there is no indication that any POV is being suppressed on the talkpage by their application, and that the rate of BLP violations in GamerGate and related articles (my chief concern) has declined dramatically. Given that, I was inclined to recommend that ArbCom reject this request, but given the off-wiki activity campaign and the number of SPAs who keep appearing, there may be merit in accepting, particularly given the parallels with the Scientology arbitration. Acroterion (talk) 22:28, 10 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by PhilKnight

[edit]

In terms of what can be achieved by taking this case, I'd suggest the following.

  1. Topic bans as necessary for editors who are unable or unwilling to assume good faith, write with a neutral point of view, remain civil, and use reliable sources. Also topic bans for those who use the talk page to espouse their viewpoint, as opposed to discuss how to improve the article.
  2. A determination of whether the uninvolved admins (including myself) are interpreting the Biographies of Living Persons policy correctly. From the above, I gather that The Devil's Advocate and Cla68 consider that the uninvolved admins are being one sided and bitey, while as far as I'm concerned the admins are just enforcing the Biographies of Living Persons policy.
  3. Also, similar to the above, guidance as to whether the editors are interpreting the Biographies of Living Persons policy correctly. I gather that Willhesucceed considers there is an over reliance on 'strong but biased' sources, and Masem has similar concerns.

However, that said, in my humble opinion, the case as currently framed has too many parties, and is too wide in scope. I would suggest that if ArbCom is going to accept a Gamergate controversy case, then it should be more focused, otherwise the case would be unnecessarily time consuming. PhilKnight (talk) 22:58, 10 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Dreadstar

[edit]

I consider myself uninvolved in this matter as I have only acted in an administrative capacity on GamerGate related articles. This appears to be yet another attempt by Devil's Advocate to disenfranchise admins who remain neutral and enforce policy as well as editors who do not side with DA. DA has persistently attacked admins enforcing the GamerGate Discretionary sanctions or other policy violations on editors who seem to share DA's POV; here are but a few examples: [24], [25] [26], [27]. There are more, and if this case is accepted, I'll provide more examples. In this case, I suggest WP:BOOMERANG on the filer, DA should be indefinitely banned from GamerGate related articles. Dreadstar ☥ 16:53, 11 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by (somewhat involved) Remorseless Angel

[edit]

I'm a semi-involved editor in this case, in that I've attempted to make one minor edit to the article and was turned off from any further contribution. I added myself as a party because I wanted to share with ArbCom my experiences from a mostly outside editor, though please do keep in mind that my involvement is brief and that I do not have full information on what is happening in this article.

The main issues that I see with the topic is the battleground mentality that editors on both sides seem to have devolved into. After making my edit (an nPoV issue that would have been a no-brainer on any other article), I became involved in an argument with RPoD where he - and later Ryulong - made subtle accusations against me. I didn't comment further in the discussion because it was resolved in a manner that I did not need to contest, but the general assumption of "you're either with us or against us" left a pretty nasty taste in my mouth.

I could definitely understand it from the point of the aforementioned five members. I have been on both 4chan and Reddit for long enough to know how asinine they can get when they unite for some reason, and I'm sure the article was filled with people trying to push an agenda without actual regard for neutrality. Nonetheless, this type of mentality is damaging since it quickly pushes away new editors, so ultimately the page becomes effectively owned by the same group of pro-GG and anti-GG Wikipedians with most other people watching from the sidelines, at best.

I don't really want to take sides in this issue since I disagree with both sides, but I do want to summarize a few of my own observations:

  • This issue is not just "Ryulong and co." vs "neutral Wikipedians", or "Neutrality defenders" vs "pro-GG pushers from 8chan". While there are definitely agenda pushing on both sides, there are many Wikipedians on both sides that are well-intentioned and just getting a bit too heated.
  • Many experienced wikipedians are viewing the article as a battleground, with people being categorized on the fly as "PoV-pushing anti-gg" or "pro-gg fringe-pushing misogynist" and editors judging others by a hastily-assigned label rather than on merits.
  • I can't see any benefit from blindly banning users from either side, and doing so is effectively taking sides in an issue.
  • Rather than acting on users, the best way to resolve this is to make a definitive ruling on how to handle bias on sources. This might have implications on other articles, but would eliminate a greater part of this entire debate and allow the admins to effectively act as arbitrators.

That is just my opinions as a mostly uninvolved editor. Keep in mind that my experience with the article is limited, though, so please do take what I say with a massive grain of salt. I am also more than willing to retract my statements if proven wrong.

↢ RemorA ↣ 16:47, 17 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Preliminary decision

[edit]

Clerk notes Gamergate

[edit]
This area is used for notes by the clerks (including clerk recusals).
  • I'm not a clerk and have no desire to be, but I'll borrow this area because I have no comment to make on the case request. I'm just noting that Titanium Dragon is topic-banned from the GamerGate area and a complaint was filed at AE to the effect that TD's comment here violated the topic ban. Since the alleged violation took place on a case request, I'll leave it to ArbCom or clerks to determine whether the ban was violated and whether any action is necessary. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 22:54, 10 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

GamerGate: Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter <7/3/1/0>

[edit]

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

  • Recuse. GorillaWarfare (talk) 02:19, 10 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • First of all, a procedural request: a lot of people have already commented on this case request and even more will probably do as well; so, to avoid making this page an unreadable wall of text, I'm asking everyone to please stick to the rules and be careful not to use more than 500 words in their statements. If you have used more, please shorten your statement in a reasonable amount of time, or it will have to be removed in its entirety.

    Another thing, please do not make accusations unless you can provide diffs supporting them. Accusations without evidence are disruptive and repeatedly casting aspersions on other users may lead to sanctions.

    On the merits, I haven't made up my mind yet whether to accept this case or not. I admit that I'm starting to think the circumstance we have received, in less than a month, three different case requests on the same issue, each submitted by a different person, might seem to point to the fact that the community cannot successfully deal with this dispute and that it would probably be a good idea for ArbCom to step in. At the same time, I don't want to give the impression that by failing to drop a stick, someone can force us to take a case which, technically, would not be ripe for arbitration yet. So, as I said, I'm still on the fence. Salvio Let's talk about it! 18:52, 10 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    • Accept. Salvio Let's talk about it! 14:24, 12 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • @Tarc: again I will point out that we have discretionary sanctions in place that have barely been tried, I know and that's why I was on the fence. The problem is that I see this dispute expanding and expanding and, quite frankly, it does not appear that the discretionary sanctions are helping much.

        I do encourage more admins to get involved, hoping that a case can be avoided, but as things are right now, I'm afraid our intervention seems inevitable. Also, re. your suggestion that arbs place the GamerGate noticeboard on our watchlist, personally I'd rather not do that, because then I would be prevented from hearing a hypothetical case.

        Finally, for the admins who have asked: in my opinion, if you were uninvolved before, you continue to be even though you have been added as parties to this request, which means that you can continue enforcing the community sanctions. If we accept the case, we'll probably have to prune the list of parties anyway... Salvio Let's talk about it! 13:28, 13 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • I tend to agree with Salvio. At this point, though, I think there may be too many people involved and too much talking past one another for anything short of arbitration to have a good chance of resolution. I do echo Salvio's insistence that allegations of misconduct be backed with evidence in the form of diffs, or be redacted. Slinging accusations without backing them with evidence is itself a form of misconduct. Seraphimblade Talk to me 23:04, 10 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Decline. The entire situation surrounding this article and the off-wiki controversies underlying it is certainly unhealthy, but I perceive little basis for criticizing any administrator actions relating to it, and still see no reason to believe that an arbitration case would yield more useful results than applying the existing community-originated general sanctions. I'll add that if, contrary to my vote, we were to take a case, it should be handled in a highly expedited manner to avoid its becoming a complete circus. Newyorkbrad (talk) 00:11, 13 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Grudgingly Accept. I've kept quiet on this topic and done a lot of reading. We've got so many factors at play here that I think we need a case. I'm especially concerned about the off-wiki co-ordination. I'm not sure what Arbcom can do to improve the situation, but I agree with an expedited case, and firmly holding to deadlines and word limits. WormTT(talk) 10:08, 14 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Accept I do not like the "keep asking till you get you want" feeling I get from these repeated requests, but at the end of the day it does appear these problems are spiraling out of control. I think this may be a situation where a temporary injunction at the start of the case may be in order, and I fully agree that a firm hand and an accelerated timeline would also be helpful. Beeblebrox (talk) 05:48, 15 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - am not decided yet and wary of accepting a case so soon after we declined the previous request to give time for community sanctions to work or not. I might have accepted if a month had gone by and the same problems were occurring, but this is too soon. I will vote whether to accept or not after the weekend. Can someone provide a brief summary of how things have gone in the 5 days or so since this new request was filed. Carcharoth (talk) 06:58, 15 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Decline per Newyorkbrad. And advance notice that if a case is accepted, I will ask to be marked inactive on it as my remaining time on the committee is likely to be best spent on the other three cases that are currently open. Carcharoth (talk) 00:15, 24 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • This dispute is clearly damaging the encyclopedia. Accept, to examine user conduct. AGK [•] 20:54, 16 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • This seems quite inevitable, but I'm unsure what actions we can take, except for discretionary sanctions, which due to the type of issue at play may have mixed success. NativeForeigner Talk 04:57, 17 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak (is that a thing?) decline Pretty huge case here. I'm not sure that General sanctions are adequate, but on the other hand this case as framed is huge and in my mind is liable to, at the end of the day, accomplish little directly. It looks like this will be accepted, and I'll probably try to help shape it if it does, but I'm not convinced taking it is the best course of action. NativeForeigner Talk 19:00, 19 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]


Temporary injunction (none)

[edit]

Final decision

[edit]

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

Principles

[edit]

Purpose of Wikipedia

[edit]

1) The purpose of Wikipedia is to create a high-quality, free-content encyclopedia in an atmosphere of camaraderie and mutual respect among contributors. Use of the site for other purposes, such as advocacy or propaganda or furtherance of outside conflicts, is prohibited. Contributors whose actions are detrimental to the objectives of Wikipedia may be asked to refrain from them, even when these actions are undertaken in good faith.

Passed 14 to 0 at 00:38, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Battlefield conduct

[edit]

2) Wikipedia is a reference work, not a battlefield. Each and every user is expected to interact with others civilly, calmly, and in a spirit of cooperation. Borderline personal attacks and edit-warring are incompatible with this spirit. Use of the site to pursue feuds and quarrels is extremely disruptive, flies directly in the face of our key policies and goals, and is prohibited. Editors who are unable to resolve their personal or ideological differences are expected to keep mutual contact to a minimum. If battling editors fail to disengage, they may be compelled to do so through the imposition of restrictions.

Passed 14 to 0 at 00:38, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Biographical content

[edit]

3) The Biographies of living persons ("BLP") policy applies not only to biographical articles but to all edits about living people in all pages within the encyclopedia. All such edits must be written conservatively, responsibly, cautiously, and in a dispassionate and neutral tone. Edits should be backed by reliable sources, avoiding self-published material. Poorly sourced or unsourced controversial material must be removed immediately, and may not be reinserted without appropriate sourcing. Biographical articles should not be used as coatracks to describe events or circumstances in which the subject is peripherally or slightly involved, nor to give undue weight to events or circumstances relevant to the subject. The policy permits "some leeway ... to allow the handling of administrative issues by the community", though administrators may delete defamatory material or personal attacks. Failure to adhere to the BLP policy may result in deletion of material, editing restrictions, blocks or even bans.

Passed 14 to 0 at 00:38, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Administrators and BLPs

[edit]

4) The Biographies of Living People policy authorises administrators to "enforce the removal of clear BLP violations with page protection or by blocking the violator(s), even if they have been editing the article themselves or are in some other way involved. In less clear cases they should request the attention of an uninvolved administrator at Wikipedia:Administrators Noticeboard/Incidents."

Absent objective standards of what is clear and what is less clear, the "Not perfect" provision in the administrator policy is relevant: Administrators are expected to follow Wikipedia policies and to perform their duties to the best of their abilities. Occasional mistakes are entirely compatible with adminship; administrators are not expected to be perfect. However, sustained or serious disruption of Wikipedia is incompatible with the status of administrator, and consistently or egregiously poor judgment may result in the removal of administrator status.

Passed 14 to 0 at 00:38, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Accuracy of sources

[edit]

5) The contents of source materials must be presented accurately and fairly. By quoting from or citing to a source, an editor represents that the quoted or cited material fairly and accurately reflects or summarizes the contents and meaning of the original source, and that it is not being misleadingly or unfairly excerpted out of context. Failure to accurately reflect sources, whether by accident or design, is a serious matter as it undermines the integrity of the encyclopedia. Repeated failures to represent sources accurately may result in sanctions.

Passed 14 to 0 at 00:38, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Administrators and 'involvement'

[edit]

6) The "Involved admins" section of the Adminstrators policy states that an administrator who has interacted with an editor or topic area purely in an administrative role, or whose prior involvements are minor or obvious edits which do not speak to bias, is not involved and is not prevented from acting in an administrative capacity in relation to that editor or topic area. This is because one of the roles of administrators is precisely to deal with such matters, at length if necessary. Warnings, calm and reasonable discussion and explanation of those warnings, advice about community norms, and suggestions on possible wordings and approaches do not make an administrator 'involved'.

Passed 14 to 0 at 00:38, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Single purpose accounts

[edit]

7) Single purpose accounts and editors who hold a strong personal viewpoint on a particular topic covered within Wikipedia are expected to contribute neutrally instead of following their own agenda. In particular, they should take care to avoid creating the impression that their focus on one topic is non-neutral, which could strongly suggest that their editing is not compatible with the goals of this project.

Passed 13 to 1 at 00:38, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Decorum

[edit]

8) Wikipedia users are expected to behave reasonably, calmly, and courteously in their interactions with other users. Unseemly conduct, such as personal attacks, incivility, assumptions of bad faith, harassment, disruptive point-making, and gaming the system, is prohibited. Making unsupported accusations of such misconduct by other editors, particularly where this is done repeatedly or in a bad-faith attempt to gain an advantage in a content dispute, is also unacceptable.

Passed 14 to 0 at 00:38, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Conduct during arbitration cases

[edit]

9) Policy states: "Editors are expected to conduct themselves with appropriate decorum during arbitration cases, and may face sanctions if they fail to do so". 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. While grievances must often be aired during such a case, it is expected that editors will do so without being unnecessarily rude or hostile, and will respond calmly to allegations against them. Accusations of misbehaviour must be backed with clear evidence or not made at all. Editors who conduct themselves inappropriately during a case may be sanctioned by arbitrators or clerks including by warnings, blocks, or bans from further participation in the case. Behaviour during a case may be considered as part of an editor's overall conduct in the matter at hand.

Passed 14 to 0 at 00:38, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Recidivism

[edit]

10) Users who have been sanctioned for improper conduct are expected to avoid repeating it should they continue to participate in the project. Failure to do so may lead to the imposition of increasingly severe sanctions.

Passed 14 to 0 at 00:38, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Enough is enough

[edit]

11) When the community's extensive and reasonable attempts to control the spread of disruption arising from long-term disputes have failed, the Committee may, as a last resort, be compelled to adopt robust measures to prevent further damage to the encyclopedia, disruption to the editing environment and to the community.

Passed 14 to 0 at 00:38, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Neutral point of view

[edit]

12) All Wikipedia articles must be written from a neutral point of view, with all relevant points of view represented in reasonable proportion to their importance and relevance to the subject-matter of the article. Undue weight should not be given to aspects that are peripheral to the topic. Original research and synthesized claims are prohibited. Use of a Wikipedia article for advocacy or promotion, either in favor of or against an individual, institution, or idea that is the subject of the article, is prohibited.

Passed 12 to 0 at 00:38, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Harassment

[edit]

13) Harassment is a pattern of offensive behavior that appears to a reasonable observer to have the purpose of adversely affecting one or more targeted persons, usually (but not always) for the purpose of threatening or intimidating them. The intended outcome may be to make editing Wikipedia unpleasant for targeted persons, to undermine them, to frighten them, or to discourage them from editing entirely.

Passed 10 to 0 at 00:38, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Limitations of arbitration

[edit]

14) Despite superficial similarities, Wikipedia Arbitration is not, and does not purport to be, a legal system comparable to courts or regulatory agencies. While the Committee strives for fairness, the system has limitations. Evidence is generally limited to what can be found and presented online. The disclosure of information cannot be compelled and witnesses cannot be cross-examined. Furthermore, only issues directly affecting the English Wikipedia can be considered and resolved. Arbitration decisions should be read with these limitations in mind and should not be used, or misused, by any side in connection with any off-wiki controversy, dispute, allegation, or proceeding.

Passed 12 to 0 at 00:38, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Findings of fact

[edit]

Locus of the dispute

[edit]

1) This dispute is focused on the Gamergate controversy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) and related articles, including biographies of those related to the topic.

Passed 14 to 0 at 00:38, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

History of the dispute

[edit]

2) The article on the Gamergate controversy was created in early September 2014; since then, the dispute has included dozens of peripheral articles and biographies and scores of editors. Attempts to resolve it in various fora have been disrupted by torrents of wide-ranging allegations and counter-allegations, by the importation of off-wiki feuds, and by the arrival of IP editors and people using throwaway accounts. The dispute has included attempted outings and harassment (examples: [28], [29], [30], [31]), as well as accusations of collusion, off-wiki canvassing, POV-pushing, non-neutral tone, and BLP violations. Administrators working to resolve the issues have become the focus of attacks on their integrity. The topic has been under general sanctions since late October 2014.

Passed 14 to 0 at 00:38, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

DungeonSiegeAddict510

[edit]

3) DungeonSiegeAddict510 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has engaged in soapboxing on talk pages (e.g., [32][33][34]) battleground conduct ([35][36]), broken their topic ban twice (block log), and has provided inappropriate commentary during the case ([37][38]).

Passed 13 to 0 at 00:38, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

NorthBySouthBaranof

[edit]

5) NorthBySouthBaranof (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has engaged in edit warring (e.g., [39][40][41][42][43][44]), improper use of sources (e.g., [45] [46] [47]), and battleground conduct (e.g., [48][49]). They have made about 500 edits to the Gamergate controversy article and over 2300 to its talk page.

Passed 11 to 2, with 1 abstentions, at 00:38, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Ryulong (alternate)

[edit]

6.1) Ryulong (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has engaged in edit warring (e.g., [50][51][52]) and battleground conduct ([53][54][55][56][57][58][59]). This editor has been extensively sanctioned in the past (2009, Block log).

Passed 12 to 0, with 2 abstentions, at 00:38, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Tarc

[edit]

7) Tarc (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has engaged in edit warring (e.g., [60][61][62][63]) and battleground conduct (e.g., [64], [65], [66], [67]). Tarc has already been sanctioned in three previous cases (Feb 2012, Oct 2013, Oct 2014 Oct 2014).

Passed 11 to 1, with 2 abstentions, at 00:38, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

The Devil's Advocate

[edit]

8) The Devil's Advocate (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has engaged in edit warring ([68][69][70][71][72]), battleground conduct ([73][74][75][76]), and BLP violations ([Private evidence]). The Devil's Advocate has previously been sanctioned for his conduct in controversial areas (1st t-ban Nov 2011, 1st t-ban vio block Dec 2011, 2nd t-ban Apr 2012, 2nd t-ban vio block Sep 12, I-ban Oct 2012).

Passed 14 to 0 at 00:38, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

TheRedPenOfDoom

[edit]

9) TheRedPenOfDoom (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has engaged in battleground conduct ([77][78][79][80][81][82][83]) and has been sanctioned for edit warring and creating a hostile editing environment ([84]).

Passed 12 to 0, with 1 abstentions, at 00:38, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Titanium Dragon

[edit]

10) Titanium Dragon (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has repeatedly engaged in combative behavior and BLP violations ([85], [86], [87], [88], [89]). They were topic banned under BLP enforcement ([90]).

Passed 13 to 0 at 00:38, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Tutelary

[edit]

11) Tutelary (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has repeatedly engaged in battleground conduct by edit-warring to re-open threads in GamerGate dispute resolution ([91], [92], [93], [94], [95], [96], [97], [98]) and has reinstated BLP-violating content ([99]).

Passed 13 to 0 at 00:38, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

TaraInDC

[edit]

12) TaraInDC (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has engaged in battleground conduct (e.g. [100][101][102][103][104][105])

Passed 12 to 1 at 00:38, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Parties topic-banned by the community

[edit]

13) The following parties to this case have been topic banned by the community under the Gamergate general sanctions:

Passed 14 to 0 at 00:38, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Loganmac

[edit]

14) Loganmac (talk · contribs) is a single-purpose account, whose edits to the project have been largely limited to the Gamergate controversy ([106]). Loganmac has engaged in battleground conduct (e.g. [107], [108], [109], [110], [111]).

Passed 14 to 0 at 00:38, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Willhesucceed

[edit]

15) Willhesucceed (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has engaged in edit warring ([112], [113], [114]). battleground behaviour ([115], [116], [117], [118], [119], [120]), and point making behaviour ([121], [122]).

Passed 13 to 0 at 00:38, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Remedies

[edit]

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

Discretionary sanctions

[edit]

1.1) 

(i) The community Gamergate general sanctions are hereby rescinded and are replaced by standard discretionary sanctions, which are authorized for all edits about, and all pages related to, (a) GamerGate, (b) any gender-related dispute or controversy, (c) people associated with (a) or (b), all broadly construed.

(ii) All sanctions in force when this remedy is enacted are endorsed and will become standard discretionary sanctions governed by the standard procedure from the moment of enactment.

(iii) Notifications issued under Gamergate general sanctions become alerts for twelve months from the date of enactment of this remedy, then expire. The log of notifications will remain on the Gamergate general sanction page.

(iv) All existing and past sanctions and restrictions placed under Gamergate general sanctions will be transcribed by the arbitration clerks in the central discretionary sanctions log.

(v) Any requests for enforcement that may be open when this remedy is enacted shall proceed, but any remedy that is enacted should be enacted as a discretionary sanction.

(vi) Administrators who have enforced the Gamergate general sanctions are thanked for their work and asked to continue providing administrative assistance enforcing discretionary sanctions and at Arbitration enforcement.

Passed 14 to 0 at 00:38, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
Rescinded by motion at 00:13, 23 February 2021 (UTC).

Sanctions available

[edit]

1.2)

Uninvolved administrators are encouraged to monitor the articles covered by discretionary sanctions in this case to ensure compliance. To assist in this, administrators are reminded that:

(i) Accounts with a clear shared agenda may be blocked if they violate the sockpuppetry policy or other applicable policy;

(ii) Accounts whose primary purpose is disruption, violating the policy on biographies of living persons, or making personal attacks may be blocked indefinitely;

(iii) There are special provisions in place to deal with editors who violate the BLP policy;

(iv) The default position for BLPs, particularly for individuals whose noteworthiness is limited to a particular event or topic, is the presumption of privacy for personal matters;

(v) Editors who spread or further publicize existing BLP violations may be blocked;

(vi) Administrators may act on clear BLP violations with page protections, blocks, or warnings even if they have edited the article themselves or are otherwise involved;

(vii) Discretionary sanctions permit full protection and semi-protection of pages, including use of pending changes where warranted, and – once an editor has become aware of sanctions for the topic – any other appropriate remedy may be issued without further warning.

The Arbitration Committee thanks those administrators who have been helping to enforce the community general sanctions, and thanks, once again, in advance those who help enforce the remedies adopted in this case.

Passed 12 to 0 at 00:38, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Scope of standard topic ban (I)

[edit]

2.1) Any editor subject to a topic-ban in this decision is indefinitely prohibited from making any edit about, and from editing any page relating to, (a) Gamergate, (b) any gender-related dispute or controversy, (c) people associated with (a) or (b), all broadly construed. These restrictions may be appealed to the Committee only after 12 months have elapsed from the closing of this case.

Passed 13 to 0 at 00:38, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

NorthBySouthBaranof topic-banned

[edit]

4.1) NorthBySouthBaranof (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is indefinitely restricted per the standard topic ban.

Passed 9 to 3, with 2 abstentions, at 00:38, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
Superseded by motion at 03:02, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

Ryulong topic-banned

[edit]

5.1) Ryulong (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is indefinitely restricted per the standard topic ban.

Passed 9 to 0, with 1 abstentions, at 00:38, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Ryulong banned

[edit]

5.3) Ryulong (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is indefinitely banned from the English Language Wikipedia. They may request reconsideration of the ban twelve months after the enactment of this remedy, and every twelve months thereafter.

Passed 8 to 4, with 1 abstentions, at 00:38, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

TaraInDC admonished

[edit]

6.2) TaraInDC (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is admonished for treating Wikipedia as if it were a battleground and advised to better conduct themselves.

Passed 11 to 2 at 00:38, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Tarc topic-banned

[edit]

7.2) Tarc (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is indefinitely restricted per the standard topic ban.

Passed 11 to 2, with 1 abstentions, at 00:38, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Tarc warned

[edit]

7.3) Tarc (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is strongly warned that should future misconduct occur in any topic area, he may be banned from the English Wikipedia by motion of the Arbitration Committee.

Passed 8 to 2, with 2 abstentions, at 00:38, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

The Devil's Advocate topic-banned

[edit]

8.2) The Devil's Advocate (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is indefinitely restricted per the standard topic ban.

Passed 13 to 0 at 00:38, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

The Devil's Advocate: 1RR

[edit]

8.3) Subject to the usual exceptions, The Devil's Advocate (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is prohibited from making any more than one revert on any one page in any 48-hour period. This applies for all pages on the English Wikipedia, except The Devil's Advocate's own user space. This restriction may be appealed to the Committee only after 12 months have elapsed from the closing of this case.

Passed 10 to 1 at 00:38, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

The Devil's Advocate: Noticeboards

[edit]

8.4) Subject to the usual exceptions, The Devil's Advocate (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is indefinitely prohibited from editing any administrative or conduct noticeboard (including, but not limited to; AN, AN/I, AN/EW, and AE), except for threads regarding situations that he was directly involved in when they were started. This restriction may be appealed to the Committee only after 12 months have elapsed from the closing of this case.

Passed 10 to 1 at 00:38, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

The Devil's Advocate warned

[edit]

8.5) The Devil's Advocate (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is strongly warned that should future misconduct occur in any topic area, he may be banned from the English Wikipedia by motion of the Arbitration Committee. Further, the committee strongly suggests that The Devil's Advocate refrains from editing contentious topic areas in the future.

Passed 8 to 3, with 1 abstentions, at 00:38, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

TheRedPenOfDoom admonished

[edit]

9) TheRedPenOfDoom (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is admonished for treating Wikipedia as if it were a battleground and advised to better conduct themselves.

Passed 10 to 4 at 00:38, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Tutelary topic-banned

[edit]

10.1) The Arbitration Committee endorses the community-imposed topic ban preventing Tutelary (talk · contribs) from editing under the Gamergate general sanctions. This ban is converted to an Arbitration Committee-imposed ban. Tutelary (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is indefinitely restricted per the standard topic ban.

Passed 13 to 0 at 00:38, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

ArmyLine, DungeonSiegeAddict510, and Xander756 topic-banned

[edit]

12) The Arbitration Committee endorses the community-imposed topic bans preventing ArmyLine (talk · contribs), DungeonSiegeAddict510 (talk · contribs), and Xander756 (talk · contribs) from editing under the Gamergate general sanctions. The topic bans for these three editors are converted to indefinite restrictions per the standard topic ban.

Passed 12 to 0 at 00:38, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Titanium Dragon topic-banned

[edit]

13) The Arbitration Committee endorses the community-imposed topic ban preventing Titanium Dragon (talk · contribs) from editing under BLP enforcement. This ban is converted to an Arbitration Committee-imposed ban. Titanium Dragon is indefinitely restricted per the standard topic ban.

Passed 12 to 0 at 00:38, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Loganmac topic-banned

[edit]

14.1) Loganmac (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is indefinitely restricted per the standard topic ban.

Passed 12 to 0 at 00:38, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Willhesucceed topic banned

[edit]

15) Willhesucceed (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is indefinitely restricted per the standard topic ban.

Passed 11 to 0, with 1 abstentions, at 00:38, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Review of articles urged

[edit]

18) The Arbitration Committee urges that knowledgeable and non-conflicted users not previously involved in editing GamerGate-related articles, especially GamerGate-related biographies of living people, should carefully review them for adherence to Wikipedia policies and address any perceived or discovered deficiencies. This is not a finding that the articles are or are not satisfactory in their present form, but an urging that independent members of the community examine the matter in light of the case.

Passed 12 to 0, with 2 abstentions, at 00:38, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Enforcement

[edit]

Enforcement of restrictions

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

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

Appeals and modifications

0) Appeals and modifications

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

Appeals by sanctioned editors

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Important notes:

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

Amendments

[edit]

Motion regarding Talk:Gamergate controversy

[edit]

In May 2015 administrator Zad68 imposed extended confirmed protection of Talk:Gamergate controversy as a discretionary sanction in response to this AE request. The Arbitration Committee notes that Zad68 is currently inactive so the sanction cannot be modified without consensus or Committee action. Therefore the Committee lifts the discretionary sanction on Talk:Gamergate controversy (not the article) to allow the community to modify the protection level in accordance with the Wikipedia:Protection policy.

Passed 7 to 0 with 1 abstention by motion at 00:52, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

Motion: NorthBySouthBaranof (February 2017)

[edit]

The topic-ban placed on NorthBySouthBaranof in the GamerGate case is terminated. Discretionary sanctions remain authorized to address any user misconduct in the relevant topic-area.

Passed 9 to 0 by motion at 03:02, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

Motion: Remedy transfer to Gender and sexuality shell case (February 2021)

[edit]

In order to promote consistency and reduce confusion, the arbitration clerks are directed to create a new arbitration case page under the name Gender and sexuality, with the following sole remedy: "Standard discretionary sanctions are authorized for all edits about, and all pages related to, any gender-related dispute or controversy and associated people." For the avoidance of doubt, GamerGate is considered a gender-related dispute or controversy for the purposes of this remedy.

Clause (i) of Remedy 1.1 of the GamerGate case ("Discretionary sanctions") is rescinded. Sanctions previously issued in accordance with Remedy 1.1 of the GamerGate case will from this time on be considered Gender and sexuality sanctions. This motion does not invalidate any action previously taken under the GamerGate discretionary sanctions authorization.

In order to preserve previous clarifications about the scope of these discretionary sanctions:

  1. Gender and sexuality discretionary sanctions apply to any dispute regarding the proper article title, pronoun usage, or other manner of referring to any individual known to be or self-identifying as transgender.
  2. Gender and sexuality discretionary sanctions apply to any discussion regarding systemic bias faced by female editors or article subjects on Wikipedia, including any discussion involving the Gender Gap Task Force.
  3. Remedy 15 of the Manning naming dispute case ("Discretionary sanctions applicable"), as amended, is rescinded.
  4. The final clause of the February 2019 Manning naming dispute motion (adding an amendment to the Interactions at GGTF case) is rescinded.

The index of topics with an active discretionary sanctions provision will be updated with the new title, but previous references to GamerGate need not be updated. The arbitration enforcement log, however, should be updated for the current year. For prior years, the new name should be noted along with the old one. The arbitration clerks are also directed to update templates and documentation pages with the new name as appropriate. This motion should be recorded on the case pages of the GamerGate case, the new Gender and sexuality case, the Manning naming dispute case, and the Interactions at GGTF case.

Passed 11 to 0 by motion at 23:36, 22 February 2021 (UTC)


Enforcement log

[edit]

Any block, restriction, ban, or sanction performed under the authorisation of a remedy (except discretionary sanctions) for this case must be logged in this section. Please specify the administrator, date and time, nature of sanction, and basis or context. All sanctions issued pursuant to a discretionary sanctions remedy must be logged at Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions/Log.

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/GamerGate&oldid=1086373685"