Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 15:37, 1 December 2014

Main case page (Talk) — Evidence (Talk) — Workshop (Talk) — Proposed decision (Talk)

Case clerk: TBD Drafting arbitrator: TBD

Purpose of the workshop: The case Workshop exists so that parties to the case, other interested members of the community, and members of the Arbitration Committee can post possible components of the final decision for review and comment by others. Components proposed here may be general principles of site policy and procedure, findings of fact about the dispute, remedies to resolve the dispute, and arrangements for remedy enforcement. These are the four types of proposals that can be included in committee final decisions. There are also sections for analysis of /Evidence, and for general discussion of the case. Any user may edit this workshop page; please sign all posts and proposals. Arbitrators will place components they wish to propose be adopted into the final decision on the /Proposed decision page. Only Arbitrators and clerks may edit that page, for voting, clarification as well as implementation purposes.

Behaviour on this page: Arbitration case pages exist to assist the Arbitration Committee in arriving at fair, well-informed decisions. You are required to act with appropriate decorum during this case. While grievances must often be aired during a case, you are expected to air them without being unnecessarily rude or hostile, and to respond calmly to allegations against you. Accusations of misbehaviour posted in this case must be proven with clear evidence (and otherwise not made at all). Editors who conduct themselves inappropriately during a case may be sanctioned by an arbitrator or clerk, without further warning, by being banned from further participation in the case, or being blocked altogether. Behavior during a case may be considered by the committee in arriving at a final decision.

Motions and requests by the parties

Restrict participation to established editors

1) Semi-protect Evidence & Workshop, strike current contributions from IP editors

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Arbitration is to be about resolving intractable disputes betwixt editors, not editors and outside special interests. This is doubly important wrt Gamergate, as the very nature of one "side" of the discussion is rooted in anonymous harassment. There are several single-purpose accounts partaking in these proceedings, but at least they, over the course of several months, becoming established and identifiable individuals. Allowing evidence submissions via anonymous IP jeopardizes the authenticity and trustworthiness of this entire proceeding. This is why IPs ar not allowed to participate in RfAs, to (IIRC) vote in Arb elections, and whose input is generally ignored in XfDs. Tarc (talk) 15:20, 1 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That seems awfully scare-mongering. IPs are first not ignored in XfDs unless they start appearing in droves, but a single IP editor in an AFD making a well-versed policy argument has the same privilege to speak their mind as any other editor, that's the nature of an open wiki; the RFAs and Arbs Elections are simply past processes that, unlike other consensus discussions, are vote counts, and thus prone to IP manipulation. ArbCom cases remain consensus-driven (to the point where Arbs mull over the information provided) to make their statement. There is absolutely no reason to prevent IPs from participating as long as they are participating within the proper decorum of ArbCom, Wikipedia in general, and with observation of the current general sanctions. I would assume that if we suddenly have an influx of IP editors without any content to their complaints, that would be different (something that ArbCom might instruct the clerks to deal with), but we are definitely not at that point yet. --15:37, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Template

2)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

3)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed temporary injunctions

Proposed Reprieve of Gamergate Related Sanctions Within This Case

1) For the duration of this case, any topic ban on GamerGate is lifted within this case for any involved party or any request to become an involved party unless ~~by a vote of the arbitration committee~~ they are banned by any arbitration committee member or clerk. --Obsidi (talk) 00:43, 28 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

My concern with this proposal, made plain by the contents of Titanium Dragon's full statement, is that certain users will attempt to relitigate and rehash the numerous BLP issues which directly led to their topic bans being imposed. ArbCom should not be effectively putting three living people who are significantly affected by our articles — Zoe Quinn, Anita Sarkeesian and Brianna Wu — on trial here. This proceeding should not become a platform for fringe allegations and insinuations about people which certain Gamergate supporters cling to, but which have been widely and thoroughly rejected by reliable sources. Obviously, any party must be allowed to participate in the proceeding, but I believe both committee members and clerks need to be extremely cautious about the contributions of users with a demonstrated disregard for how policy dictates we discuss three people who have been victimized by internationally-reported harassment campaigns. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 01:14, 28 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I believe that everyone Should have a chance to speak at this case if it affects them. Although if they have a topic ban; everything said by them must remain on topic Retartist (talk) 01:32, 28 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

They should be allowed to participate but be very aware that they can only participate here and can be blocked if their behavior deviates from expected for a ArbCom case. --MASEM (t) 04:56, 28 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I would be OK with people who are topic banned being able to respond to any evidence that is presented against them on the evidence page, but not to initiate or discuss any other topics. The topic bans are in place because they have shown that they cannot be appropriately productive editors on the subject. This is going to be enough of a cluster that opening it up to known disruptors is just insane. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 06:04, 28 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If they believe their blocks/bans were in place due to problems with how the GG sanctions have been handled, they should be allowed to bring up their case here. (Please note, I'm not saying there have been any issues on that line, just that this is where they should have their fair due). --MASEM (t) 06:11, 28 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

if they wish to appeal their ban, they can go to => Wikipedia:Arbitration_Committee/Ban_Appeals_Subcommittee#Procedure which is set up for you know hearing ban appeals. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 07:26, 28 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I support the reprieve of sanctions, particularly because of this, Armyline will have less time to gather diffs, participate in discussion, and the like. Tobascoman777 also expressed interest in dealing with this ArbCom case but lamented they could not because of their block. Tutelary (talk) 19:52, 30 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

There was some question at the request stage as it applies to Titanium Dragon topic ban (DungeonSiegeAddict510 is also topic banned on gamergate), other individuals may also be topic banned under general sanctions while this case is open. I think they should be able to continue to make their arguments in this case (unless they become disruptive enough in this case that the arbitration committee decides to act). --Obsidi (talk) 00:43, 28 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@NorthBySouthBaranof:How do you expect them to appeal their ban without making any arguments? Except for an appeal for clemency, Isn’t almost any appeal of a ban one which “relitigate and rehash” of the rational for the ban? They should be able to present evidence that their ban was improper abuse of administrative power. If they go off topic or if they start attacking living persons without being able to back up any claim with a RS, I am confident that the ArbCom can decide an appropriate remedy. --Obsidi (talk) 02:09, 28 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@TheRedPenOfDoom: The Ban Appeals Subcommittee is only for sitebans. "BASC does not hear appeals of topic bans...". --Obsidi (talk) 12:54, 28 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I made the topic ban easier to re-impose if the editors get out of control and so that it better aligns with usual ArbCom procedure. Hopefully this will mitigate some of the problems that above editors complained of. --Obsidi (talk) 03:14, 30 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I am of the opinion that any editors banned from the topic should be allowed access to comment on this case, mostly in regards to the topics of their bans, at the discretion of the arbitrators. Weedwacker (talk) 22:05, 28 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There are more troubling actions: this discretionary sanction enacted after ArbCom took the case [1]. Both editor and admin are named as parties in the above case. It is overreach for a named admin in this case to sanction another editor regarding the topic before the committee. Patrolling content as an admin is one thing, closing an ANI [2] and invoking discretionary sanctions while involved in the ArbCom dispute resolution process is another. Sanctions against named parties should be handled by arbcom and named parties are "involved" and cannot avoid the appearance of impropriety by using the tools to sanction parties in the same dispute. --DHeyward (talk) 19:43, 30 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That is as per the statement of arbitrator Salvio in the opinion to accept the case, who stated 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. No arbitrator has stated anything to the contrary. Given that TDA named virtually every single administrator who has ever enforced the community sanctions, this is just so — to treat these admins as guilty until proven innocent would vitiate the community sanctions process. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 19:48, 30 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That was the case before they took it up. After they took it, this becomes the forum for sanctions/dispute resolution. ArbCom has the ability to enact sanctions such that we don't have named parties using the tools against other named parties. This is common sense that the people ArbCom kept as named parties are involved in the dispute. This wasn't content, the administrator closed an ANI discussion where there are literally hundreds of admins not named in this case. Note also that when an editor tried to bring admin tool misuse regarding that topic ban, this is also the forum, not ANI.--DHeyward (talk) 20:04, 30 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The opening of an arbitration case does not supersede and render moot all other community functions, and I doubt that ArbCom wants to add to its job list the duties of enforcing community sanctions. But maybe I'm wrong. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 20:09, 30 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If this proposed preliminary injunction is approved it wont matter (they can make the case here that the ban was improper assuming it was, and if it wasn't there is no reason to complain). If this preliminary injunction is not approved, that would mean one party has just silenced another party in this ArbCom dispute which wouldn't be good. (creates a horrible incentive to ban those you disagree with so they cant present evidence of your misbehavior) --Obsidi (talk) 20:15, 30 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hatting by Involved Parties

2) Involved Parties are not allowed to hat ongoing discussion on the GamerGate talkpage Avono (talk) 09:28, 28 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

see WP:GGE#In_regards_to_involved_editors_closing.2Fhatting_discussions Avono (talk) 09:28, 28 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

I would agree with this and suggest it be extended to articles' talk pages directly linked to the Gamergate article (involved persons/sites). Weedwacker (talk) 07:29, 29 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Exemptions for and enforcement otherwise of WP:OUTING

3) i) Involved editors who have previously admitted, or otherwise been proven to use a specific account off-wiki (especially with the same or a substantially similar username), where their off-wiki activities are held to be relevant to the case, shall be listed in one place (I suggest the Evidence Talk page) for convenience. This should not be an official finding of fact.

ii) In the interest of civility and avoiding obstruction, said editors shall cease and desist from any claim or implication that it "might not be them".

iii) In cases where off-wiki activities are not held to be relevant to the case, all parties shall cease and desist from any mention of these connections.

iv) No further allegation of an editor being a specific user on another site shall be made without immediate presentation of clear evidence, even if the username is identical, nor shall such an inference be relied upon when presenting evidence.

76.64.35.209 (talk) 23:12, 28 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

I would no problem with this if its what ArbCom wants to do. But it would require a lot of up front evaluation of the evidence of which WP users are which reddit users. Also this is a suspension of the standard WP:OUTING policy, normally such information is just emailed. Although in this case, if ArbCom wishes to have the users challenge the allegations of off-wiki activity, allowing it to be on-wiki (even though it does technically violate WP:OUTING) seems reasonable. --Obsidi (talk) 01:48, 29 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Clearly something has to be done, because the Evidence page is currently full of links to off-site activity that, per Evidence page talk discussion, is well below Arbcom's threshold of concern (essentially boiling down to "editors said mean/supportive things about each other elsewhere, demonstrating what 'side' they're on"). 76.64.35.209 (talk) 02:04, 29 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, something must be done about the preponderance of off-site linking. Either all of it should be considered off-limits per WP:OUTING unless it has been proven/admitted previously, it should be discarded entirely, or it should be specified that it is allowed, which would be a circumvention of normal rules. Weedwacker (talk) 07:00, 29 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Another possibility I see, implied by the talk page discussion, is that it's allowed only to support specific types of claims (which had probably better be enumerated in advance). 76.64.35.209 (talk) 19:18, 29 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Everyone should read this statement by an arbitrator on the evidence talk page that clears up a few things with regard to WP:OUTING and off-site evidence. Weedwacker (talk) 22:02, 29 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Template

4)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Questions to the parties

Arbitrators may ask questions of the parties in this section.

Proposed final decision

Proposals by User:TheRedPenOfDoom

Proposed principles

Template

1) {text of Proposed principle}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

2) {text of Proposed principle}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed findings of fact

Proposed findings regarding targeting by external entities

1) Gamergate articles and the editors who work on them have been the subject of offsite coordination by a group known for vicious harassment, death threats and doxxing. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 08:15, 28 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Arbitrators:

No proposals on this page please unless they are fully supported by evidence, Roger Davies ^talk 12:42, 28 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

There is no evidence that members of the group that engaged in the reported GG harassment are the same as those that are trying to affect the WP article. This is not to excuse the latter group from any type of improper groupthink tactics that we can track easily like me at puppetry which is still a problem, but it is not appropriate for us to presume these two groups are one and the same when it comes to dealing with their interaction on WP. --MASEM (t)

No true Scotsman eh? Its only all of those OTHER anonymous editors gathering at 4chan and 8chan and reddit under the name gamergate that are doing X. WE anonymous editors gathering at 4chan and 8chan and reddit under the name gamergate are doing something completely unrelated except that it also involves scouring the web to dig up details about people we dont like. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 17:22, 28 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I never said that there might be some members of the group trying to influence WP that were also involved in the harassment, but there is no evidence to tell us this; it is a violation of AGF to assume that these two groups are one and the same w/o evidence. There are problems with the 4chan/8chan/reddit general mindset, influence by being the loudest, that is an issue here that we can certainly track. --MASEM (t) 17:52, 28 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Avono: Have you looked at the evidence page where there are several editors who have provided links to the offsite coordination on reddit and 4 chan? -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 17:41, 28 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Roger Davies: Yes, there is evidence supporting that disruption and harassment has been coordinated off-site. Whether or not the parties of this case are involved is a different story.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 21:05, 28 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There is certainly evidence of off-site coordination, and whether some editors are involved in that may be considered disruptive is an issue to explore w/ evidence. But we have to separate anyone involved in that off-site coordinate from the group of people that directly participated in the GG harassment/threats/doxxing, the implication of this "finding". --MASEM (t) 22:31, 28 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Are you accusing certain editors for being participant in doxxing, death threats and harassment? This is sickening and it should be dealt with a warning Loganmac (talk) 20:58, 28 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There are a lot of problems with this.

We don't name the group in question, which makes it a worthlessly vague statement.
The group most prominently involved with doxxing users here, Wikipediocracy, is responsible for doxxing and inciting harassment, but probably has not engaged in "vicious harassment", and to the best of my knowledge, has not issued any death threats against anyone.
While it may be true that so-called "Social Justice Warriors" are responsible for "vicious harassment, death threats and doxxing", I'm not sure if you can really call them "a group".
More problematically, to the best of my knowledge, we have no idea who has sent any of the death threats to anyone involved in any of these - there have been no criminal charges laid, to the best of my knowledge, nor have the culprits been publicly identified by law enforcement authorities, unless I missed something (I admittedly haven't been paying much attention of late, so someone correct me if charges have been laid or someone behind this stuff has been identified).
Off-wiki coordination is only problematic if it involves inappropriate behavior; gathering information, sussing out habitually problematic users, trying to gather information to improve articles, source/data collation, ect. is not really inappropriate behavior; on the other hand, canvassing, harassment of users, ect. is inappropriate behavior. We should specify the behavior or behaviors in question.
While Wikipediocracy and various people involved doxxed and provided links to doxx of Wikipedia users in order to try and intimidate people editing these articles is obviously problematic, as far as I know, everyone involved in that incident has been banned, unless they were secretly involved without our knowledge. Thus, I'm not sure if "off-site coordination" is even meaningful in that case, as everyone involved in that debacle is not a Wikipedia user.

Titanium Dragon (talk) 00:30, 29 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

@TheRedPenOfDoom: well in that case provide said evidence where these people have been coordinating off site. Otherwise What can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence Avono (talk) 17:38, 28 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@TheRedPenOfDoom: And? Even if there were evidence that people talked about this offsite that still wouldn't meet the claim of "group known for vicious harassment, death threats and doxxing". The only true statement you can make is that "Gamergate articles and the editors who work on them have been doxxed by Third Parties (User:Tutelary,User:DungeonSiegeAddict510,User:Titanium Dragon)" Avono (talk) 17:45, 28 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid I missed the doxxing of DungeonSiegeAddict; is there an ANI about it I can read? Titanium Dragon (talk) 00:31, 29 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@TheRedPenOfDoom: The evidence provided does not connect editors with engagement in off-site "harassment, death threats, and doxxing". You cannot use this argument to disregard the evidence and opinions of other editors. You also can't just say that posters on an imageboard where some harassment may take place are all harassers, just as you couldn't say that all posters on reddit are racist just because racist posts exist. Weedwacker (talk) 17:59, 28 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@TheRedPenOfDoom: What "group" are we even talking about here? What are the specific qualifications for membership within the group? And by what standard are they "known for vicious harassment, death threats and doxxing"? If you are talking about "-chan sites" (imageboards), it makes no more sense to describe them that way than to describe Reddit, Twitter, Facebook, etc. that way. Essentially anyone can participate on an imageboard, by design - they're even more open than Wikipedia, in that there's generally not even a way to create an account except for a tiny selection of official staff, and practically nothing in the way of arbitration/mediation/ban appeal structure. If multiple Wikipedians could be shown to have engaged in "vicious harassment, death threats and doxxing", would you then be okay with the characterization of WP as such a "group"? 76.64.35.209 (talk) 22:25, 28 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. If this is supposed to be about GamerGate folks, then it is even more problematic because it isn't really a group in any meaningful sense; there isn't much organization, nor are they capable of taking official action or whatever. And again, we don't even know who sent any of the death threats, unless the police have identified someone/laid charges against them or whatever, which hasn't happened to the best of my knowledge. Titanium Dragon (talk) 00:40, 29 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

And even if all of these gaps in the reasoning could be filled, IMO it still smacks of guilt by association to bring it up as significant. 76.64.35.209 (talk) 19:21, 29 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Template

2) {text of proposed finding of fact}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Template

1) {text of proposed enforcement}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

2) {text of proposed enforcement}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposals by User:NorthBySouthBaranof

Proposed principles

Wikipedia is not a platform for advocacy

1) Wikipedia is not a place to advocate particular claims, nor is it a place for scandal-mongering or gossiping, particularly sensitive matters regarding the personal lives of living people. Rather, its articles should reflect what is published in mainstream reliable sources with viewpoints weighted in proportion to their prominence in those reliable sources.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

As per What Wikipedia is not. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 07:31, 29 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

WP is also a soapbox for speaking ill of others in WP's voice or the like even if the court of public opinion would paint it that way. The policy here swings both ways. --MASEM (t) 06:59, 1 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

BLP does not protect articles from negative statements that are reliably sourced.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 07:18, 1 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Administrators who impose sanctions are not involved

2) Administrators who are not substantially involved in editorial disputes in a topic area may impose community sanctions-based remedies, and do not become involved merely because one side of the dispute or the other disagrees with their administrative actions.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

As per WP:INVOLVED: One important caveat is 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. 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'. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 07:29, 29 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Administrators should be mindful that their actions may be perceived as being involved which creates an appearance of a conflict of interest. Even the appearance of being involved can create an untenable situation where an admin should withdraw. Admins that are so strongly attached to a subject that they cannot step away after multiple accusations of bias including named in multiple ArbCom cases may be seen as having, a conflict of interest in disputes they have been a party to or have strong feelings about. Admins that have become emotional about their role or interactions with editors can no longer claim to be uninvolved. The community generally construes "involved" very broadly, not narrowly tailored to "no content edits" and certainly doesn't ignore bitey or language that isn't calm or neutral or patient. --DHeyward (talk) 20:28, 30 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

In your universe, it appears that "accusations of bias" and "being named in multiple ArbCom cases" constitute proof of something, rather than untested accusations. Repetition does not make something true. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 20:49, 30 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The existence of a disagreement is not evidence, much less proof, that the disagreement is well-founded or productive. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 22:17, 29 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Climate of fear created by GamerGate supporters

3) Many editors who support GamerGate have attempted to create a climate of fear around the GamerGate controversy article and related articles, through on- and off-wiki campaigns of harassment, threats, brigading, insinuations and personal attacks aimed at discrediting or intimidating any Wikipedia editor who they view as opposed to their viewpoint. This violates core principles of Wikipedia and threatens the foundation of the project, which encourages editors to collaborate in good faith to write an Internet encyclopedia. Good-faith collaboration cannot take place in an atmosphere of intimidation.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

As per evidence, particularly Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/GamerGate/Evidence#Events_of_30_November_exemplify_Gamergate_editors.27_bad_faith. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 19:23, 30 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Template

2) {text of proposed finding of fact}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed remedies

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

User:Titanium Dragon topic-banned indefinitely

1) For persistent violations of the Biographies of living persons policy on related pages, the Gamergate-related topic ban previously imposed on User:Titanium Dragon by an uninvolved administrator is endorsed and extended indefinitely. The user may appeal for a relief of this sanction through the usual means after a period of 6 months.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Per evidence already submitted and forthcoming. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 21:28, 28 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

What is his ban presently again?—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 21:50, 28 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Disagree on ban, and if he gets banned he should be able to appeal on day 1, why wouldn't he? Loganmac (talk) 01:17, 29 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Because if the Arbitration Committee approves this proposed remedy, then that's it, the subject is closed. An editor who is indefinitely topic-banned or otherwise restricted from editing in a topic area under an Arbitration Committee decision may request an amendment to lift or modify the restriction after an appropriate time period has elapsed. A reasonable minimum time period for such a request will ordinarily be six months, unless the decision provides for a different time or the Committee subsequently determines otherwise. Editors under active Arbitration Committee sanction may appeal no more often than 6 months, and that's what this allows. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 02:10, 29 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Template

2) {text of proposed remedy}

Proposed principles

Generally argue with arguments

1) Sometimes an editor needs to be discussed, but it should take a much more secondary role, argument should focus on points not people.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

2) {text of Proposed principle}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed findings of fact

NPOV is over dominant

1) This article is of poor quality, discussion of the article is far too focussed on NPOV. I don't think anyone is particularly at fault for this, nor do I think anyone involved (including myself) is free from blame. The dominance of NPOV has caused the other areas to be somewhat neglected.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Arbitration is not a new forum for solving a perceived content dispute.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 03:05, 29 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

While normally yes, establishing what the content/concerns that are disputed is normal practice in ArbCom cases (several of the proposed FoF in Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Tea Party movement for example apply here; add in the inability to engage in consensus building at the talk page or other venues, and that becomes a more important manner to set what content policies apply and if there are problems with content policies that the community needs to review. --MASEM (t) 05:04, 29 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

So we're allowing Gamergaters to turn this into a new forum to make the same complaints over and over again?—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 05:36, 29 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If you can't point to a documented consensus about a given point, then pretty much yes, give or take. And also keep in mind consensus can change too even if that is set (though in the time frame we're talking here, that really doesn't apply). Also, this does not apply if there is a true meatpuppetry-type push to demand change, but if we have independent editors asking about the issues that don't have consensus demonstration, then that's completely fair. --MASEM (t) 05:48, 29 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There's been plenty of consensus-building, it's just that the consensus has consistently gone against Gamergate, and Gamergate supporters have shown a distinct inability to recognize this and drop the WP:STICK. A group doesn't get to re-run disputes until they get the result they want. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 08:52, 29 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No, there actually has not been much consensus building, as evidenced by refusal to participate in dispute resolutions, refusal to discuss suggestions on improvement, closing/hatting of discussions by involved people, and by trying to treat new editors by immediately labeling them as unhelpful SPAs as to be able to nullify their voices. Ownership of the article in such a manner leads to cases just like this. --MASEM (t) 15:36, 29 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If you're going to argue that one side or the other has refused to discuss things, I will present the 14 pages of archives on Talk:Gamergate controversy (compiled in less than 3 months) which are evidence to the contrary. This issue has been discussed more than anything I've ever seen on Wikipedia. The problem is not a lack of discussion. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 18:44, 29 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"Discussion" != "Consensus building". When the bulk of discussions on anything tied to the neutrality of the article is shut down by a handful of long-standing editors "no, gamergate is a fringe movement, we don't have to talk about them at all" or "you're an SPA, we're ignoring your contributions"-type of discussions, that's not consensus building. --MASEM (t) 19:38, 29 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You're basically arguing that because Gamergate supporters haven't gotten what they want, there hasn't been "consensus-building." Wikipedia consensuses don't work that way. The fact that there are fourteen (14) pages of talk archives generated in less than 90 days demonstrates that there have been extensive, repeated, stick-gripping discussions that nobody has "shut down." The problem is that those discussions repeatedly come back around to some subset of "we don't like this article, the sources are biased and you're conspiring against Gamergate." This is a clear attempt to relitigate a content dispute in front of ArbCom. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 19:41, 29 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It's not just people GG supporters, but myself (I'm antiGG) and several other established editors that see the problems. And we've tried engaging in consensus building and the handful of editors just shut it out, refusing to discuss the nuances of policy that apply to this case. The fact these editors have refused dispute resolution also is a sign that no consensus building has been done on this page. And no, I'm not expecting ArbCom to resolve the content, but to be clear that page ownership to push a specific tone of WP's voice and a certain POV is not appropriate behavior for editors, comparable to past ArbCom cases like the Tea Party case. The fact there is 14 pages of discussion, including repeating discussions about how the page does not meet policy, is a possible sign of page ownership and control, where other editors try to break the hold that a small group have on the page. However, I also contest that the fact there are 14 pages is because in three months there was a lot of information generated by GG that we had to sort through, much of it determining how appropriate sources and the like are in there. Irregardless, there is no evidence of any strong form of consensus building (a core principle of WP) and particularly in dispute resolution. --MASEM (t) 19:53, 29 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

And a wide array of other established editors and administrators largely view the article as an appropriate depiction of the movement and its notable actions based upon reliable sources. Your attempt to reduce this to some sort of cabal is offensive. We can go around and around this, but I'll stop here. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 19:58, 29 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please point to a consensus-based discussion that addresses the neutrality based problems of the article that involved more than just the editors on the GG page. I will acknowledge that there was the ANI issue on whether to keep the NPOV tag or not, but as it was determined there by consensus, issues with impartial language is not something to keep the tag there, but did not speak anything to whether the article was appropriately neutral and impartial, or not; as such, that is not the discussion that determined that the article language was appropriate. In fact, comments by uninvolved admins at the GG/GS page on the case raised at me suggest that there are impartial language problems but that a proper RFC would be a venue. I have been very hesitant to open any new RFC on the neutrality/impartiality of the article due to 1) general weariness of dealing with GG across WP (per the latest spat at ANI) that I don't want to bring in any other groups until I'm sure what the way forward is, and 2) the existence of this case which I will wait to see how it is resolved to determine how to properly work the RFC if it remains necessary. Add to this the type of behavior exhibited by the comments above, akin to a "I'm not listening!" attitude that persists on the talk page. This is caustic behavior that absolutely is not helpful or appropriate in light of both the topic (which is strongly decisive and begs for care in dealing with POV/BLP), and the fact that we have people trying to influence the article from outside. CIVIL behavior is a key aspect here and that means participation in appropriate consensus building steps. --MASEM (t) 20:46, 29 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The massively-participated-in request for comment that you opened seems to underscore it appropriately. Is the current Gamergate article too biased in this manner? There are feelings on both sides here, both the article is too biased to the pre and anti sides here, while quite a few people seem to think it is ok. Often, WP:NPOV and WP:UNDUE are hard to distinguish in situations like this, due to the unbalance in sourcing avalible. However, the overall tone is, while there are some issues, there is no overarching bias in the article. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 20:54, 29 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I'm aware of that, and we (or at least myself) have long moved past the fact that we cannot change the predominate viewpoint being against GG (but the conclusions still state that we need to be careful with the approach in the article). But that speaks nothing to the impartialness issue that remains a point of discussion long since that consensus. Bias and impartialness are two separate concepts per WP:NPOV, and rationale attempts to suggest alternative wording that maintain the weight of viewpoints but improve the impartialness have been shut down by editors owning this page. --MASEM (t) 21:08, 29 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

And this is what I mean by not dropping the stick. A month-long RFC with widespread community participation was closed with the conclusion that the article is not biased and, for the most part, accurately reflects the reliable sources available. Rather than accepting that conclusion of the community, you immediately turn to a semantic argument about "bias" and "impartiality." Do you propose to initiate another RFC asking Is the current Gamergate article impartial? How will that generate any different feedback than the previous question? How many times do you propose to re-run the same arguments? NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 21:15, 29 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There is a huge difference between bias/weight of sources (which we can't control), and impartiality of our writing which we have full control of. Two very different facets even outlined at NPOV. And I don't know what the RFC will be if I initiate another yet, but as suggested at the GS page on my case, specific wording instances would be better targeted. --MASEM (t) 17:22, 30 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure where to so this, but I think I may have been misunderstood, I have attempted to word it better.Half Hat 14:27, 29 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

I agree with Ryulong that Arbitration is almost never going to solve a content dispute for you. I would not include this finding of fact like this unless you are going to advocate a remedy like Wikipedia:Blow it up and start over, and claim the current NPOV issues are hopelessly irreparable. --Obsidi (talk) 03:34, 29 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Not to speak for anyone else, but the more I read - from all parties involved - the more I find myself contemplating that remedy. The obvious problem is that of who gets to do the rebuilding. 76.64.35.209 (talk) 19:33, 29 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I simply do not understand how the assertion that "there's been plenty of consensus-building" can be supported here - especially if (as everyone involved seems to be happy to paint the discussion) there are two clear camps consisting of 8chan's so-called "five horsemen" (plus supporting admins) on one side and basically everyone else on the other side. If "Gamergate supporters can't drop the stick", and Gamergate supporters are numerous, then just what definition of "consensus" are we using that allows their concerns to be ignored? Who exactly are the people involved in all of these putative "consensuses"?

As for the talk page, the sheer volume of discussion is not evidence of "willingness to discuss" an issue. That's like saying that a revert war is evidence of rapid progress on an article because "look at how many diffs there are". 76.64.35.209 (talk) 19:31, 29 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Er, um, if you think everyone besides we "five horsemen" are on the side of Gamergate here, you need to actually read those 14 pages of archives, because that's not a particularly good reading of the extensive discussions.

The fact that one side is dissatisfied with the result of those discussions does not mean that there has been a failure of discussion. Sometimes you don't get what you want, no matter how much you argue for it. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 19:37, 29 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Would you care to name names of people you consider to be in agreement with you here, who I might not have considered? 76.64.35.209 (talk) 20:09, 29 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Given that this section is not for the presentation of evidence, no. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 20:17, 29 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Largely unproductive discussion

2) Much of the discussion on Talk:GamerGate covers the same things and often all "sides" walk away with the same view, with the discussion having achieved nothing.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Template

1) {text of proposed enforcement}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

2) {text of proposed enforcement}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposals by User:Ryulong

Comment by others:

Proposed findings of fact

This is a content dispute

1) This case was brought to the arbitration committee as a form of WP:SHOPPING over failure to attain a desired consensus at Gamergate controversy to ignore WP:UNDUE and WP:SYN.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Dispute resolution

2) Prior attempts at solving the content dispute were threads at WP:AN, WP:ANI, WP:MEDCOM, and WP:DRN. Mediation and dispute resolution were never completed due to perceptions of forum shopping by established editors responding to single purpose accounts and returning editors who solely edit the topic area.

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

Template

1) {text of proposed remedy}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

2) {text of proposed remedy}

Proposed principles

WP:CIVIL

1) Editors should remain civil towards one another regardless of their view or purpose on wikipedia.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

NPOV

2) Articles should be written in a neutral manner and not express opinions in wikipedia's voice

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

What is an opinion in regards to this case or subject?—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 00:01, 30 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"Gamergate is pure evil" vs "It has been said that gamergate is pure evil by the sasquach" Retartist (talk) 02:40, 30 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

But what if the Sasquatch happens to be a tenured writer for the LA Times' tech news division?—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 02:50, 30 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Shouldnt matter unless sasquatch has the final say on what is absolutely good and evil in our world. Retartist (talk) 03:02, 30 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

But he would be considered an established name with clout behind him.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 03:49, 30 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That doesn't change the fact that it still has to be described as ""gamergate has been called evil by sasquach/others" not "gamergate is evil" Retartist (talk) 04:27, 30 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

But if Sasquatch, the Lake Champlain Monster, the Loch Ness Monster, the Bunyip, Mokole-mbembe, Cadborosaurus, Trunko, the Zuiyomaru monster, et al happen to be journalists for major publications and they all have similar "opinions" then at what point do those "opinions" cease being "opinions" when they are widely held?—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 04:53, 30 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is that Gamergate is saying that the loch-ness monster is a quack so all his friends are saying that gamergate is evil and that lends doubt to the validity of the sasquatches claims as a fact Retartist (talk) 08:36, 30 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Enough cryptozoological analogy. Gamergate's focus on Kotaku does not mean that every other video game publication decided to go ahead and write anti-gamergate pieces, regardless of any of the shit found in GamesJournoPros. GamesJournoPros was found to be benign outside of the one event that apparently constitutes a BLP violation despite it being suggested to be added on the article's talk page. And it should not matter that several unrelated publications, including several non-video game websites and major news papers, all came up with the same conclusion about Gamergate.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 09:12, 30 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have a better analogy, say a movement (not gg for this situation) starts saying that all the wiki-project games editors are corrupt and bad. Wouldn't you as a wikipedian defend those other wikipedians from that movement? This is what some of gg sees in journalism in general. Retartist (talk) 10:39, 30 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Or "Intel is run by craven idiots." vs "Max Read has written 'Intel is run by craven idiots.'" Retartist (talk) 03:04, 30 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed in principle. The $20 million question, of course, is "What is an opinion and what is a fact?" For example, an allegation that a particular person committed wrongdoing is not an "opinion," it is claiming that a specific set of facts exist. If that claim has been widely rejected by reliable sources as not existing, it is not then an "opinion" to state that the allegation is factually false. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 05:07, 30 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That the allegation was made is fact. That the alleged actions constitute "wrongdoing" is opinion, as wrongdoing is defined subjectively. However, the alleged actions may constitute bribery or slander, both objective legal terms and thus "fact." It may be the overwhelming opinion of Americans that Britney Spears is a talented artist; no matter the majority the presence (or absence) of her talent will always be opinion, not fact. 107.15.41.141 (talk) 05:56, 30 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The "alleged actions" in this case have been shown to factually not have occurred. That is not an opinion, that is fact. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 05:57, 30 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know which point you address specifically, but while the premises on which you base your conclusion that these "alleged actions" have not occurred may be fact the conclusion itself is opinion unless universally held. X shot Y is objective. X shot Y in self defense is subjective unless both X and Y and everyone else agree. 107.15.41.141 (talk) 06:08, 30 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No, we don't require a position to be "universally" held to regard it as factually true. Rather, it's required that there is no serious dispute. See WP:ASSERT. Whether there is a serious dispute is a matter of reviewing what reliable sources say. If there is no serious dispute in reliable sources, then we treat it as factually true.

A good example of this in action is September 11 attacks. In that article, we accurately state as fact that the attacks were committed by al-Qaeda terrorists and were organized by Osama bin Laden. This is notwithstanding the fact that there are numerous fringe and conspiracy theories suggesting that the attacks were actually committed by someone else. This is because none of those theories are taken seriously in reliable sources and there is no serious mainstream dispute about al-Qaeda's involvement. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 06:17, 30 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think your example is illustrative: both victim and attacker agree the attacker was responsible. They disagree on the motivation for the attack and so the wikipedia article does not state as fact that "they hate us for our freedoms." 107.15.41.141 (talk) 06:36, 30 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Being correct with regard to Wikipedia policy is all that matters at arbitration.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 09:15, 30 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Seems fairly straight forward application of WP:NPOV:

Avoid stating opinions as facts. Usually, articles will contain information about the significant opinions that have been expressed about their subjects. However, these opinions should not be stated in Wikipedia's voice. Rather, they should be attributed in the text to particular sources, or where justified, described as widespread views, etc. For example, an article should not state that "genocide is an evil action", but it may state that "genocide has been described by John X as the epitome of human evil."

--Obsidi (talk) 04:00, 30 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The issue here is that the threshhold for what is an opinion and what is a fact has been used to bludgeon the article into one full of lengthy quotes which is one of the major complaints of any reader (biased or otherwise). Things critical of Gamergate get automatically demoted to opinion while things not critical, yet being found in op/ed articles, are treated as fact.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 04:56, 30 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Some things are opinion and some things are facts. They don't get "demoted" from fact to opinion. Can they be verified as objectively true? (Not are they true but can they be verified objectively) You can disagree with the facts (or not know the facts), but they are still facts as to what occurred or not. Now you can claim that they are treating facts as opinions (or opinions as facts), but for that I would need more details of exactly what is claimed. --Obsidi (talk) 15:00, 30 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The thing is that a lot of statements presented not as opinions of writers in the original publications have for the longest time been demoted to the level of opinion or things that must be directly quoted simply because it contains a statement critical of Gamergate. Meanwhile, actual opinion pieces supportive of Gamergate get treated as fact. There was a point where The Devil's Advocate was complaining that NorthBySouthBaranof had turned the references to Cathy Young's pieces as opinions when they had been added as matter of fact statements, just like every other writer mentioned on the article, and this caused a huge complaint thread. I can't pull diffs right now and I don't know if it's in anyone's evidence yet but this has been a problem.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 17:02, 30 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There are very few "facts" from any source about Gamergate. We know it's an online thing, we know some of the facets from the GG as the primary source of what ethics they want, and we know at least three major VG figures have been harassed by people using the "#gamergate" tag, and that's pretty much it that has any traceable evidence. Everything else is hearsay, opinion and analysis. This doesn't mean opinions and analysis from RS are inappropriate but they are just opinions and cannot be said in WP's voice. Similarly opinions supportive of GG should also be treated as opinions; to the best of my knowledge, the current article doesn't treat any proGG opinion (outside of what the movement has said about itself) as fact. --MASEM (t) 17:27, 30 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A preponderence of similar "opinions" across several publications seems to suggest something different. The "analysis" is exactly what Wikipedia should feature because that's what secondary sources do.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 18:37, 30 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Of course we should - we should not ignore that the prevailing opinion about GG in the mainstream media is highly critical and negative. As long as we understand that is their opinion (or that it is a fact that the press have clearly condemned the GG movement) and not stated as a fact in WP's voice. --MASEM (t) 19:04, 30 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I would argue that any claim of a group or individual being "misogynist" requires very compelling supporting evidence to be held up as a formal claim being made by a source rather than an opinion. The reasoning is that there is, generally speaking, no reasonable way that a writer for the RS can start with the premise "X did something bad to a person who happens to be a woman" and logically arrive at the conclusion "X hates women". Not without a few other supporting premises. 76.64.35.209 (talk) 04:13, 30 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

As for the sasquatch example: no amount of authority can turn a subjective judgment into an objective claim of fact. Consensus might (for example, we don't need to specify a range of wavelengths in order to agree that an object appears blue), but we don't call historical figures evil on their pages, even when the opinion is nearly unanimous everywhere. 76.64.35.209 (talk) 04:18, 30 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"Evil" is a unclear term with debated definitions, many of which include a supernatural element. Historical figures are not supernatural. "Misogynistic", on the other hand, simply describes behavior that is hateful toward, or involves the mistreatment of, women. This is right on the money for the only notable activities that have taken place under the aegis of the #GamerGate hashtag, and it about as debatable as saying "Ripe oranges are almost always orange-colored." The reason that a plethora of RSes have used this term to describe the actions taken by people claiming membership in this group is that it is an entirely apt and appropriate term, and it is apt and appropriate for WP as well for this reason. The choice to attack Zoe Quinn instead of Nathan Grayson over the false corruption charges; the doxxing of Felicia Day and not Chris Kluwe; the attacks on Leigh Alexander rather than on the other (male) game writers who released very similar articles about the gamer identity on the same day; the abundant explicit threats to rape and murder Zoe Quinn, Brianna Wu and Anita Sarkeesian and the scarcity of similar threats toward the prominent male figures in this controversy: all these activities show a clear and marked tendency for individuals who claim Gamergate membership to preferentially attack, threaten and mistreat women, not men. Certainly there have been Gamergate-related attacks on men as well, some very vicious (for example, the various attacks on Ryulong), but the preponderance of activity by a large margin is aimed at people who are female. There is no credible way to debate that Gamergate is misogynistic, just as there is no credible way to debate that the Ku Klux Klan is racist.

This "movement" was created to attack a woman, it was christened in a tweet that contained a direct, vicious video attack on a woman, and all of its notable activities, as reported by the most credible and well-regarded RSes, have been directed at terrorizing women and attempting to silence them and drive them out of the game industry via the misappropriation of social media tools. Gamergate can be described as misogynistic in the same way that Hitler and Stalin can be described as mustachioed, because it's right there on their faces in plain view. In addition, Gamergate's only notable activities involve the harassment of women; Gamergate has accomplished literally nothing else worthy of mention in an encyclopedia. Despite ostensibly being about "ethics in game journalism" they have not managed to produce a single result of any significance to anyone but themselves. If it were not for the misogynistic behavior of those operating under this hashtag, Gamergate would in no way be sufficiently notable for Wikipedia because they have done nothing else of note.ReynTime (talk) 09:34, 30 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

[citation needed]. You guys wanna talk about SPAs? Weedwacker (talk) 12:32, 30 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The citations are all in the Gamergate Controversy article, as you well know. 150 of them. (Or in a dictionary, which you can easily access.) I think you misunderstand the issue with SPAs and zombies: it's not that they are disallowed (obviously.) Nearly all editors start as SPAs with a specific interest and then expand their efforts as they get more comfortable. SPAs are not necessarily bad nor are they banned on sight, which is why this issue is crawling with them. The problem is when an SPA is disruptive and makes edits contrary to the purpose of WP. Those SPAs get in trouble, including MarkBernstein who is quite clearly not a Gamergater. No one would be giving the Gamergater SPAs grief if their edits stayed within WP guidelines, but activities such as repeated violations of BLP policy makes them unwelcome. Incidentally I'm actually a returning editor from a few years back, but after a hard drive crash a couple years ago and a move to a new state (with obviously a new IP) I wasn't able to find any information to retrieve my old username, sadly. ReynTime (talk) 15:00, 30 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Even the definition of 'misogny' is highly contested. For example, you've stated that misogyny "describes behavior that... involves the mistreatment of women". This isn't a coherent definition. Misogyny is the internal state of hating women, and is not connected to any specific behavior. e.g A wife-beater may just be a drunk who hates everyone, but not a misogynist. A quiet pacifist may hate women with every fiber of his being and do nothing about it. This is why it is very suspect to claim anyone is 'misogynist' on Wikipedia. The word is a moralistic judgment about internal thought processes. We also don't claim people are 'hateful', 'stupid', 'evil, 'loving', 'kind' or any other such descriptor. We report clearly-observable facts about the physical world; we don't assign moral values or internal thought processes to groups or individuals. Casimirin (talk) 05:11, 1 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If several news organizations describe Gamergate as "misogynistic" then Wikipedia will describe Gamergate as "misogynistic". Just because everyone says it is a subjective determination does not mean it requires Wikipedia take a moral stance.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 05:17, 1 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that it does not "require Wikipedia take a moral stance", and in fact per WP:NPOV I am pretty sure Wikipedia is required not to take a moral stance. The thing is, writing that Gamergate "is misogynistic" in Wikipedia's voice is taking a moral stance, because it's applying a moral judgement. Writing that Gamergate "has been labelled misogynistic by X, Y and Z" is not. Trying to argue that calling someone "misogynist" is somehow not judging their moral character, is extremely disingenuous. This is abundantly clear from even the most cursory study of how the term is used in practice, particularly on the Internet. 76.64.35.209 (talk) 05:26, 1 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I misspoke. We at Wikipedia should not constantly demote any and all statements and analysis by major publications to be "opinions" simply because they happen to be critical of Gamergate or contain subjective viewpoints.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 05:33, 1 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That which is subjective is opinion, full stop. 76.64.35.209 (talk) 06:19, 1 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That's exactly what a viewpoint is - it is a subjective call, and WP does not speak subjectively in its voice for anything. --MASEM (t) 06:22, 1 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The descriptor "misogynist" has nothing to do with a person's internal state of being for the simple and obvious reason that, since mind-reading does not exist and people lie, there is absolutely no way to determine the true state of a person's mind when they choose to commit hateful acts. "Misogynist" refers to the observable pattern of behavior of a person, or in this case, of a group united by a hashtag. All the top RSes have looked at Gamergate's behavior, noted that it is predominantly and overwhelmingly vicious toward women and not men -- a fact that is patently clear when you examine the history of the hashtag as well as its current-day activities -- and correctly labeled it "misogynistic" because it is. At this point, to not use this term would be a serious misrepresentation of the research done by RSes, which is what WP is supposed to be building the article around.WP:DUCK. Individuals operating under the hashtag can claim all day long that they don't feel hatred toward women in their heart of hearts, and they can believe that, but an individual's heart is not a verifiable source for an encyclopedia. Period. As an educational point, I will mention that psychological studies using the Implicit Association Test have shown that not only is it possible to hold harmful prejudices without conscious awareness, it is quite common; therefore, an individual can state without lying that he does not hate women, and he can be wrong about himself. Actions are what the best RSes are looking at here because only they are what tell the true story of Gamergate. ReynTime (talk) 09:29, 1 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Which side recently called for SeedScape to be boycotted? The mainstream media says what people want to hear. The raw facts I've seen tell a different story. I guess I must agree with gamergate on one thing, when money is involved, journalistic integrity makes a swift exit. --DSA510 Pls No Bully 10:32, 1 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, I can't understand how anything in this comment relates to this case. If you have "raw facts" that contradict the reporting from the top RSes (every single one of them!) you should take those facts to a journalist at a reliable source, present your proof, and get them published. They can then be included in the WP article. Of course your facts will have to stand up to editorial scrutiny, which is what makes reliable sources reliable. The Gamergate position, as argued by partisans on the article talk page, appears to be "Any journalistic source that agrees with me has integrity and any source that doesn't agree with me is biased," but this is obviously an unworkable definition of "integrity" for this encyclopedia. ReynTime (talk) 10:43, 1 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm saying that the sources themselves have suspiciously weak sourcing. Wikipedia's sources themselves must be scrutinized heavily. --DSA510 Pls No Bully

They are scrutinized. This is why Breitbart is not used. Guidelines and policies are in WP:RS if you need a refresher. Again, this sounds a lot like you are saying "They don't agree with me, so they are wrong!" I politely suggest that there is another more likely possibility for why they don't agree with you, which is that your understanding of the situation is incomplete and/or incorrect. In any case, once a source has been shown to be reliable, they receive the benefit of the doubt when it comes to trusting their research and reporting methods. Can you provide sources of verifiable factual errors on the part of the top RSes where Gamergate is concerned? Please keep in mind that verifiability is important here; a simple unsourced assertion of "They got this wrong!" will not suffice. You must show proof that the RSes were incorrect in some factual and non-trivial matter before you can call their integrity into question and expect to be taken seriously. ReynTime (talk) 11:13, 1 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@ReynTime: @DungeonSiegeAddict510: Can you guys please argue elsewhere? You are drifting offtopic Avono (talk) 12:00, 1 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed findings of fact

Editors have not adhered to the CIVILity pillar

1) Several editors have Been uncivil to each other due to preconceived notions of their purpose and a battleground mentality

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

2) {text of proposed finding of fact}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed remedies

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

Template

1) {text of proposed remedy}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

2) {text of proposed remedy}

Proposed principles

Regarding WP:RS

i) When a supposedly reliable source makes a statement on a subject that is demonstrated to be false, that is not a reason to treat the statement as if it were true, especially in talk page discussion; it is a reason to call the reliability of the source into question, no matter how reputable. If the Washington Post, New York Times were to publish tomorrow (or in a few months) that 2+2=5, we would surely not begin revising articles on mathematics that include derivations relying on the fact that 2+2=4.

ii) There is, in fact, very good reason to believe that all-around "reliable sources" make incorrect statements (or subjective ones that carry a heavy, masked bias), on many topics, all the time.

iii) It must be remembered that sources often present opinions as facts and that due diligence is required to ensure that this is detected and handled appropriately. Sources should not be cherry-picked; if a very long article is being used to support a single-sentence assertion in the article, that's suspicious.

iv) The reliability of a source is contextual. A website about graphic design, for example, may be considered a reliable source on e.g. colour theory, but should not be considered a reliable source for the purpose of determining the motivations of others - especially not an anonymous, poorly-defined group that they haven't directly interacted with.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

WP:VNT cuts both ways

i) Main pages on Wikipedia are concerned explicitly with Verifiability, Not Truth. The fact that WP feels the need to make this distinction demonstrates that there is in fact a difference. Accordingly, just as the truth of a statement does not qualify it for inclusion in an article, the consensus of reliable sources does not establish an objective fact.

ii) Therefore, while it is appropriate to present such a consensus on a Talk page as proper for inclusion in the article, it is not appropriate to present the consensus view as ipso facto objectively true.

iii) This is especially the case if the consensus view - or more likely, a single source, for a minor point not sourced elsewhere (but which is deemed WP:DUE) - can be demonstrated to be false.

iv) Again, since verifiability is not truth, truth is not verifiability. Demonstrating that a supposedly (see previous proposal) reliable source has stated a falsehood does not require pointing at other RSes; it requires making a logical argument, such as an analysis of the actual primary source about which claims are being made. Before anyone brings up the "but I know the truth" argument: when a secondary source reports on a primary source, it is of course possible to track down the primary source. The question of whether the secondary source is misrepresenting (or outright lying about) the contents of the primary source is generally going to be pretty objective.

v) Lengthy talk page discussion that starts from the assumption of the truth of claims found in reliable sources is not necessarily WP:FORUM, but clearly runs the risk of becoming so. This goes for both those making claims and those rebutting them.

76.64.35.209 (talk) 19:03, 29 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

These proposals (both sections) are highly problematic and not supported by evidence or the like at any stage. Wikipedia is not going to second guess reliable sources just because Gamergate denies the accusations put against them in that source.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 20:07, 29 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

... Pardon? Exactly what "evidence or the like" do you think is necessary for an argument about the interpretation of policy? I reject your framing of the issue wholeheartedly; the point is that a source that makes accusations about "Gamergate" (I assume you mean supporters considered in general) without evidence is doing just that - accusing, not demonstrating. Accordingly, the article needs to say "source X claims GG are Y", not "GG are Y [citation: X]". This is especially true when they are clearly opinion pieces, blogs/guest contributions (which WaPo hosts a lot of) or otherwise just uncritically reporting the accusations of primary sources. That's not "second-guessing"; it's presenting opinion as opinion, like the cited section of policy mandates.

This is also about Gjoni not having actually made claims that are commonly attributed to him. That's not a question of "Gamergate denying it"; that's a question of actually reading what Gjoni wrote and observing that he didn't make the claims. 76.64.35.209 (talk) 20:18, 29 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

We don't second-guess the conclusions of reliable sources on Wikipedia. That would be original research. If the predominant weight of reliable sources adheres to a particular viewpoint, we are required by WP:DUE to present that viewpoint as predominant in our article — whether or not anyone agrees with that viewpoint. Minority viewpoints must be presented as such, and if they are fringe viewpoints not given credence or weight by reliable sources, they may be excluded entirely. A Wikipedia article should not make a fringe theory appear more notable or more widely accepted than it is.

What you appear to be arguing is that Wikipedia should serve as a platform for a certain group to espouse its disagreement with how reliable sources have covered it. Wikipedia is not a platform to right such perceived wrongs. It is an Internet encyclopedia which publishes content that is, by foundational policy, almost entirely based on what has been published in reliable sources. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 20:23, 29 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I am not arguing any such thing and I strain to imagine how you could construe things that way. I am not calling for second-guessing. I explicitly said I was not calling for second-guessing. I demonstrated clearly how what I actually am calling for objectively is not second-guessing. For you to start off with "We don't second-guess...", therefore, is frankly insulting. You also seem to have completely glossed over all the parts that explicitly concern Talk pages and not main article content. 76.64.35.209 (talk) 21:04, 29 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, IP editor who made a statement. Here are the facts at hand:

There is nothing on Gamergate controversy or Draft:Gamergate controversy that attributes any sort of blame on Eron Gjoni that you are accusing Wikipedia of doing. The claim as explicitly sourced and stated in the article is that Eron Gjoni wrote a blog post to attack his ex-girlfriend Zoe Quinn which included a claim that she had begun a relationship with Nathan Grayson while also clarifying that Nathan Grayson worked for Kotaku. At no point has anyone editing the article written on the article that he is the source of the "Zoe Quinn slept with Nathan Grayson to get a good review for Depression Quest" allegation. We explicitly state that everyone advocating #Gamergate jumped to that conclusion themselves and not because it was something Gjoni wrote. Stop falsely accusing that there is a BLP violation regarding this content because it is not found at all on Wikipedia.

Onto your second point, there is no reason to automatically demote every single statement from every single source critical of the goals behind #GamerGate as being the opinion of that single writer. There is no reason to say that people at the BBC, the New York Times, the Washington Post, The Guardian, et al. are all writing opinion pieces on GamerGate rather than objectively reporting on it and finding the actions of the group to be reprehensible according to their morality and finding little to no credence to their claims that they are a consumer movement against corruption in video game journalism. Meanwhile, there have been multiple attempts to get actual opinion pieces that are supportive of #GamerGate put into the article and presented as fact.

All of this is why I tried to tell you via the original case page before everyone had to cut their statements down to reasonable sizes that you do not know what you are talking about, you are accusing people of doing things they haven't done, and you clearly do not know how Wikipedia should be run.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 23:46, 29 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It appears that you're referring to the first version of my case request statement. I will be more than happy to clarify my argument for a BLP violation in the specific incident I cited - but I'll thank you not to assume my Evidence statements for me before I've written them. You emphasize your position that the article has been clear on this point, but I have been repeatedly told that BLP applies everywhere on Wikipedia, and I'm not talking about the article content.

The reason for saying they're writing opinion pieces, in the cases where they are, is that they are. I am not arguing for doing so when they aren't writing opinion pieces. It may or may not happen that I disagree with you about what is or isn't an opinion piece, but again I will thank you not to assume my statements for me. It may or may not happen that I can be bothered to do that deep of an analysis, especially if I am going to be restricted to 500 words on the Evidence page.

I'll let the arbitrators be the judge of that, thank you. And again, please wait until I have actually made statements on the evidence page before you accuse me of false accusations. Incidentally, it's absolutely amazing to me that I'm being accused here of "not knowing what I'm talking about", when I've also had to put up with multiple suggestions that I might be a sock based on my knowing too much about how Wikipedia works. 76.64.35.209 (talk) 00:28, 30 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

BLP is being followed in this case which is referring to allegations that Eron Gjoni has been maligned by editors who are repeating the sentiments found in reliable sources. We have been sure to never state what you are alleging we are saying. BLP does not say "do not write mean things about living people" it says "make sure if you have to write something negative about someone that it is reliably sourced". The "opinion piece" argument is an old meme. And no comment.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 01:59, 30 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Proposed findings of fact

Theories about Vivian James' colour scheme are WP:FRINGE

Retracted. MarkBernstein's actions are also realistically no longer relevant. I will try later to work this into Evidence properly.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

ArbCom does not solve content disputes.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 20:46, 30 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Even I would agree this is far beyond the expected bounds for ArbCom to be involved in to this degree of detail. --MASEM (t) 23:08, 30 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

While the theory is absurd (enough to warrant a parody), I must agree wit Masem, as ArbCom doesn't solve content disputes. However I will agree with the IP that MarkBernstein's actions were quite odd. --DSA510 Pls No Bully 23:21, 30 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Proposals by User:DSA510

Proposed principles

Template

1) {text of Proposed principle}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

2) {text of Proposed principle}

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

Template

1) {text of proposed remedy}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

3) Wikipedia articles should describe disputed issues in a neutral manner, and should not pejoratively judge fringe/minority viewpoints of such disputes, in considering the weight of the reliable sources on the issue. Controverial, non-partial claims must be attributed to sources that make such claims and cannot be made in Wikipedia's voice.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

A key issue on the state of the current article, related to the general Neutral Point of view above. --MASEM (t) 06:40, 1 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia articles should accurately reflect the mainstream viewpoint about a subject as expressed in reliable sources, even if those who support that subject disagree with those reliable sources or believe those sources are biased. Wikipedia is not here to right great wrongs. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 07:19, 1 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

WP articles should not reflect any viewpoint in a disputed topic, it should neutrally report and summarize all viewpoints relative to the weight that reliable sources give those viewpoints. That's what have a neutral POV means. --MASEM (t) 14:21, 1 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Systematic Bias

4) Reliable sources can be subject to systematic bias due to being involved parties in a dispute. This does not render these sources unreliable but care should be taken to identify statements of facts from statements of opinion from these sources in such cases.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

A key issue regarding the sourcing of GG. --MASEM (t) 06:40, 1 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Proposed findings of fact

Gamergate situation

1) The situation around Gamergate, from a standpoint of Wikipedia's role in writing an article about the events/situation/movement, is complicated by many factors, including but not limited to: predominate coverage of one side of the issues from reliable sources and creating a fringe viewpoint of the other side, the normally reliable sources that we would use are part of the actual issue due to Gamergate's attempt to affect these works financially, the nature of BLP that applies to this case, the divisive emotional reactions most have to Gamergate due to harassment of women that was created by the situation, and the techno-literate supporters of Gamergate that are aware and have been tracking Wikipedia's article and their attempts (not always in a malicious manner but has included some inappropriate actions by some) to influence the development of the article. This has a created a unique situation in terms of how Wikipedia should handle the article and its development.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

To identify that much of what GG presents is a unique situation complicated by manner factors. --MASEM (t) 05:04, 1 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This proposed finding fails to separate the few reliable sources that can reasonably be described as "involved" in the dispute, such as Kotaku, Gawker and Gamasutra, from the wide array of reliable sources that cannot reasonably be described as "involved" in the dispute, such as The New York Times, Time, PBS NewsHour, ABC News (Australia), The Guardian, Columbia Journalism Review, The Week, etc. The current article is largely based on the latter sources. To claim that all of the latter sources are "part of the actual issue" stretches the bounds of credulity beyond the breaking point. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 12:17, 1 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, while mainstream source are nowhere near involved as video games/tech sources, Gg supporters are also highly critical of mainstream press in somewhat the same manner, and while they have not turned to writing campaigns like with Gamasutra/gawker, they are looking for weak links in their armor. Consider that we have had one video games journalist from a mainstream source chased out of the industry due to her reporting on GG and the highly negative feedback and response she got. GG is an "attack" of a sort on journalism as a whole. But again, being involved is not equal to becoming unreliable, simply that we need to be more careful in separating fact and opinion in these. --MASEM (t) 14:17, 1 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Template

2) {text of proposed finding of fact}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Template

1) {text of proposed enforcement}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

2) {text of proposed enforcement}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposals by Avono

Proposed principles

On off wiki behaviour

1) Editors are responsible for off wiki conduct and content if they have linked it to their account on wiki

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

No precedent in policy or evidence for this as far as I am aware.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 10:32, 1 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NPA does consider off site attacks by accounts clearly established to WP editors as part of what might be a personal attack (see my GgGs case and action against Mark for example.) --MASEM (t) 14:24, 1 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Off-wiki activity can be considered a mitigating factor if it has to do with a dispute on-wiki, per WP:OWH, but it has to be actual harassment, not just holding/expressing an opinion, even a controversial one. Note that there is somewhat related discussion about this at Wikipedia_talk:Harassment#Other_contact_information right now, where there is some pushback against one Arbs' interpretation of the matter. Tarc (talk) 15:07, 1 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Well then Its about time something is done about that. I cannot believe that comments such as this [3] about other editors should be tolerated by the community. Making such comments offsite avoids scrutiny Avono (talk) 10:45, 1 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Proposals by <User>

Proposed principles

Template

1) {text of Proposed principle}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

2) {text of Proposed principle}

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

Template

1) {text of proposed remedy}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

2) {text of proposed remedy}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

@@ Line 14: / Line 14: @@
 :'''Comment by parties:'''
 ::Arbitration is to be about resolving intractable disputes betwixt editors, not editors and outside special interests.  This is doubly important wrt Gamergate, as the very nature of one "side" of the discussion is rooted in anonymous harassment.  There are several [[WP:SPA|single-purpose accounts]] partaking in these proceedings, but at least they, over the course of several months, becoming established and identifiable individuals.  Allowing evidence submissions via anonymous IP jeopardizes the authenticity and trustworthiness of this entire proceeding.  This is why IPs ar not allowed to participate in RfAs, to (IIRC) vote in Arb elections, and whose input is generally ignored in XfDs. [[User:Tarc|Tarc]] ([[User talk:Tarc|talk]]) 15:20, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
+:::That seems awfully scare-mongering. IPs are first not ignored in XfDs unless they start appearing in droves, but a single IP editor in an AFD making a well-versed policy argument has the same privilege to speak their mind as any other editor, that's the nature of an open wiki; the RFAs and Arbs Elections are simply past processes that, unlike other consensus discussions, are vote counts, and thus prone to IP manipulation. ArbCom cases remain consensus-driven (to the point where Arbs mull over the information provided) to make their statement.  There is absolutely no reason to prevent IPs from participating '''as long as''' they are participating within the proper decorum of ArbCom, Wikipedia in general, and with observation of the current general sanctions.  I would assume that if we suddenly have an influx of IP editors without any content to their complaints, that would be different (something that ArbCom might instruct the clerks to deal with), but we are definitely not at that point yet. --15:37, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
 :'''Comment by others:'''
 ::