Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/GamerGate/Workshop

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)

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. --Masem 15:37, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Sigh. This is, like, exactly one of the things I was talking about in my updated case statement. I've already explained my reasons in detail (this article was a test case for me, and I would have been more than happy to create an account and start editing across Wikipedia, but for the behaviour I witnessed and treatment I received on the GG talk page, which turned me off the community), voluntarily tracked down my own IP history and been fully transparent about it, and put in every good-faith effort to contribute in these proceedings. Evidence is evidence; if someone else were to present the same things I do, they would have the same validity. Haven't I been harassed enough already? 76.64.35.209 (talk) 16:43, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

Forbid Cla68 from participating in the case

2) Cla68 made an evidence section to allow The Devil's Advocate to bypass the length limit and after several days of discussion as to how this was inappropriate he has said he will add evidence soon. He was never a party to this case. He has never been involved with the various content disputes or article content. He only has participated here to disrupt or allow others to disrupt the proceedings. He should not be allowed to present content particularly when he's already announced his participation was to allow others to present content beyond the allowed limit, as it cannot be assumed that it is his evidence or another editor's.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Not necessary. Newyorkbrad (talk) 14:09, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Per his previous "participation" in the case in the diffs provided above. He is not here to do anything but allow others to disrupt.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 02:06, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

@Newyorkbrad: Well he posted his section and now it's full of content entirely unrelated to this case so what now?—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 21:49, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

Well, what cla68 is trying to do is impugn FPaS' integrity as an admin, casting aspersions on his GG activity by looking back at past issues. The first link I looked at was the "In 2013 FPaS's administrative actions were reviewed in a negative manner" one, where it appears that several involved editors piled on FPaS for taking action against an edit with whom they share the same POV (sound familiar?) Also interesting is that the filer was blocked for a week. Also also interesting is a familiar face complaining about WP:INVOLVED and how we should just all run to Arbcom and sort it out. I think the Arbs here will give cla's evidence section the precise amount of weight that they feel it deserves. Tarc (talk) 22:58, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

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)
For the duration of this case, any topic ban on GamerGate is lifted within Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/GamerGate (and talk/subpages) for any involved party or any request to become an involved party unless they are banned by any arbitration committee member or clerk. --Obsidi (talk) 18:17, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

Comment by Arbitrators:

this in essence would ask us to declare that every action taken by any admin who has attempted to calm things down using the existing community sanctions was wrong. I for one will not support any such action. If you want to make a case that certain specific admin actions were flawed, that's one thing, but this goes too far. Beeblebrox (talk) 02:55, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

• 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)

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)

@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)

@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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

It does mean that all disputes between parties (especially use of the tools) should be handled by arbcom. Other community actions can be done by those not a party to the case. They are "involved" when ArbCom took the case and left their name as a party. That was not the case before Arbcom voted to take the case. --DHeyward (talk) 15:40, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

@Beeblebrox: This would not lift or remove any topic ban or other sanction anywhere other then within Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/GamerGate (and subpages). Only "within this case". They would still be topic banned everywhere else even if this proposed injunction were enacted. If this is not allowed we have a lot of people ALREADY violating their topic bans. Just a few of the people: DungeonSiegeAddict510 [3], Tutelary [4], ArmyLine [5]. Now its possible that we could say that the banned people could just "appeal" their ban under WP:BANEX without being blocked. But to the extent that they are putting in evidence and talking about things unrelated to their ban, that would seem to be violating the topic ban (as each of the three people above seems to have done already, at least imo). If that is really want the ArbCom wants (that they should be silenced for putting in evidence and debating proposed sanctions) then fine, but at least make it clear. I would also question if it is fair that people should be potentially sanctioned without being able to even make an argument in their own defense. (after all their own defense to a sanction here, would not be appealing their topic ban) And secondly is it fair to silence one half of a dispute if it is a disagreement between an admin and a non-admin? --Obsidi (talk) 17:52, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

Here let me edit it and maybe make it more clear. --Obsidi (talk) 18:14, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

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)

see Wikipedia:General_sanctions/Gamergate/Requests for enforcement/Archive1#In regards to involved editors closing/hatting discussions Avono (talk) 09:28, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Updated wiki-link due to archiving for Avono. Strongly endorse, given my comments at the link. starship.paint ~ regal 09:58, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

the 15 talk page archives generated in 4 months suggest that there should be more involved parties, uninvolved parties, aliens, cats, worms, apples and cell forms should hatting the non productive talk sections MUCH sooner. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 02:46, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

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)

I would agree and would like to make a suggestion to consider that involved parties are not permitted to remove the comments of others per the discussion cited by Avono. --Super Goku V (talk) 09:26, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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

Proposed principle: Assert

1) Articles should WP:ASSERT content which is not subject to serious dispute or commonly considered to be subjective.

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)

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)

TRPoD: Vague and unparticularised findings are a waste of everyone's time as ArbCom doesn't do them. FOFs need the who did what, when they did and where they did it.  Roger Davies ^talk 11:43, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

ALL: Continue bickering and I'll move this lot to talk.  Roger Davies ^talk

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)

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)

We Assume Good Faith about Wikipedia editors. We have no compunction to assume good faith about off site trolls. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 18:34, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

@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)

@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)

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)

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)

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)

Off site evidence has been e-mailed to the arb com. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 03:50, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

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)

@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)

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)

@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)

@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)

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)

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)

I find it ironic that parties to the case that ridicule conspiracy theories regarding anti-gamergaters would propose, (apparently with a straight face) that there is an internet conspiracy against them. --DHeyward (talk) 23:29, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

Well there's Operation 5 Horsemen for starters, then spend some time over at 8chan and see what they say about us. Tarc (talk) 00:11, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

Naah, I suspect the back-alleys of 8chan can be no worse than all the #gamergate conspirators being called "misogynists" by one of the most popular websites on the internet. They might understandably be upset by that. Certainly more than being called names on 8chan. Did you check with the other 4 before linking (again) to this harassment? Doesn't appear to be causing much anguish. Contrast this with the gamergate supporters that are trying to remove the hate speech about them. "Gamergate is

--DHeyward (talk) 05:11, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

Perhaps they should read the article that doesn't call the whole group "misogynists" but rather that misogynists are in their midsts and their acts as a whole were "misogynistic".—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 05:15, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

"The Gamergate controversy ... concerns misogyny and harassment in video game culture. The overwhelming majority of commentators have said that the movement is rooted in a culture war against women" Can't imagine why they would think the 5 horseman are defending this vast, war like conspiracy theory against women by gamers. Their 8chan backalleyweb page surely must be awful in comparison. --DHeyward (talk) 05:22, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

I see that this discussion will go nowhere.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 05:41, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

But gamergate.me and 8chan are surely not reliable sources... ;) And yes, I do have a point here. Much of the behaviour being complained about by Gamergate supporters is to do with the talk page, application of policy etc. - everything but the article itself. It's one thing to note what the media thinks; it's another to parrot that line in discussion. 76.64.35.209 (talk) 00:19, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

The fact of the matter is that there's explicit proof that people on Gamergate advocacy forums have sought to harass editors of Wikipedia, unlike there being no proof that the video games journalism industry is planning on doing anything against Gamergate.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 00:27, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

No, I'm afraid that just plain doesn't work. First off, this isn't simply about what the industry "is planning on doing against Gamergate"; it's about what they already have done, and more importantly, about the things they've done that Gamergate wishes to expose but that are being covered up. Second, the only sense in which there is "no proof" of those things is the "reliable source" sense. There are no WP:RSes exposing a plot to harass editors of Wikipedia. That's something WP editors are attempting to evidence on their own, using fundamentally the same methods that Gamergate has used to expose corruption and breaches of journalistic ethics. Your argument relies on a deliberate conflation of different standards of evidence which are applicable to different contexts. 76.64.35.209 (talk) 00:59, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

It is a blatant conspiracy theory to say that the various news media all planned on doing anything against Gamergate. Until there's something that Gamergate actually uncovers to find fault with anything then their beliefs are not to be taken seriously. No amount of references to the GameJournoPros mailing list proves anything as they did nothing about Gamergate there. And there does not have to be a reliable source saying that Gamergaters are targetting Wikipedia editors. There is no requirement for such a burden of proof unlike the proof Gamergate advocates need to show that there's been any sort of corruption in video games journalism. We are not writing an article containing this information. Arbitration is here to solve user conduct issues and it is not another forum to proxy war over the content of the Wikipedia article, as it seems that this is what people are using these pages to do. The purpose of this finding is to lay out in simple terms that there is a Gamergate campaign targetting Wikipedia and its users to disrupt the article, rewrite it in their favor, and indimidate any and all editors that get in their way by any means necessary.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 01:08, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

What part of Much of the behaviour being complained about by Gamergate supporters is to do with the talk page, application of policy etc. - everything but the article itself. It's one thing to note what the media thinks; it's another to parrot that line in discussion. don't you understand? I am explicitly not talking about the article content. Therefore, WP:RS is not applicable to your claim that their beliefs are not to be taken seriously. WP:VNT is about how articles are written, not about constructive discussion. 76.64.35.209 (talk) 02:52, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

All of your complaints seem to go back to the article content rather than any user behavior. You are denying the fact that there is off-wiki collusion by Gamergate advocates to disrupt and intimidate. You have said that it is hypocritical that myself and other editors of the article have repeatedly dismissed websites as reliable sources for content of the article when those same websites are being used to point out that there is now a campaign to disrupt Wikipedia and harass and intimidate the very editors that threw out those websites for use on the article. There is no crossover.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 03:18, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

This is the last time I will ask: stop saying that I'm saying things that I've explicitly, repeatedly said are not what I'm saying. I've already given some evidence statements, and it is plain to see that they concern user behaviour. And again, what part of Much of the behaviour being complained about by Gamergate supporters is to do with the talk page, application of policy etc. - everything but the article itself. It's one thing to note what the media thinks; it's another to parrot that line in discussion. don't you understand? 76.64.35.209 (talk) 03:29, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

Yeah! Gamergate totally doxxed me twice. I mean anti-gamergate, because surprise surprise, anti-gg aren't the saints the media makes them out to be. And, under the provisions of No True Scotsman, it cannot be argued it was not anti-gamergate, since in this universe, third parties don't exist. Multiple people have gotten harassed. In addition, I don't find it surprising that the pro-gg people aren't very sympathetic to the anti-gg lot. Its the most basic logic, really. In an already heated environment, suddenly the group you're on is being maligned on a website with VERY high traffic. I'm sure a different set of people would be doing the harassing if the articles was pro-gg. --DSA510 Pls No Bully 01:11, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

I thought you were threatened with swatting because of how some Gamergate IRC you were on didn't like how you weren't successful on the article. And you're part of this harassment no matter how many times you apologize for linking to my shitty teenage website.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 01:13, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

So freenode is le supersekrit gamergate IRC now? --DSA510 Pls No Bully 09:39, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

Assertions of Media Bias are disruptive

2) There is no evidence that the mainstream media has inappropriately colluded in its coverage of gamergate or been inappropriately "emotional". Repeated unsubstantiated claims of such conspiracy theories to the contrary are counter to foundational Wikipedia Policies and highly disruptive.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

I find "but what if" comments to be entirely nonconstructive and distracting. We're dealing here with what is, which is the fact that "the media colluded" claims are only found in sources that are non-compliant with WP:RS.

Comment by others:

Suppose that, in some other situation, everyone involved agreed that the mainstream media had inappropriately colluded. What possible evidence of this could Wikipedia accept, given its RS policy? 76.64.35.209 (talk) 22:35, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

what if elephants chose to fly? what if i got a thousand dollars every time i snapped my fingers? what if it were actually about ethics? -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 07:35, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

Are you going to debate or just whine? --DSA510 Pls No Bully 07:42, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

Oh, you expect people to seriously debate absurd hypotheticals? Well, no, I am not going to do that. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 07:49, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

If everyone agrees on something, then it's pretty certain that some reliable sources are going to report on it. See JournoList and Groundswell group for an actual example of media reporting on possible media bias, even though not remotely "everyone" agreed that those represented anything untoward. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 22:45, 12 December 2014 (UTC

Under Wikipedia policies, nothing. Why else do third parties not exist? Because the media said so. And since third parties don't exist, it was anti-gg who doxxed me. Secondly, why would the media admit they're lazy, incompetent and opportunistic? I mean, obviously CNN was spot on about "The Hacker Known As 4chan". The media refuses to back down on their claims, no matter how little evidence backs them. If anything, gamergate should be happy that this article exists. "The truth will prevail". If pro-gg is right, why would the media say "misogynistic terrorists(?) were right, we're wrong, sorry about that narrative we pushed :(" If the media is right, then there will be no reason to argue otherwise. But I digress, my point is, under Wikipedia policies, the media is never wrong. --DSA510 Pls No Bully 23:00, 12 December 2014 (UTC))

Recognition of courage and perseverance

3) Admins who have had the courage and perseverance to deal with the shitpool of gamergate are deserving of the thanks of the project.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

as per Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/GamerGate/Evidence-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 06:32, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

"SHitpool"? You have got to be kidding. Retartist (talk) 07:10, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

you are correct. shitpool was the least offensive term I found anywhere near appropriate. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 07:39, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

Probably should be refactored for civility's sake, but the general point is sound — those administrators and editors who were targeted by Gamergate supporters for harassment, threats, false accusations and no end of general nonsense because they were unwilling to simply walk away and allow an angry Internet mob to use Wikipedia as a weapon of character assassination against their opponents (in violation of basically every single one of the encyclopedia's content policies) are all deserving of the encyclopedia's thanks. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 07:16, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

While I am not an admin, I appreciate the sentiment. I'm still here after the shitpool of anti-gg terrorists doxxed me and harassed me to the point I'm starting to feel actually unsafe, and have left freenode. And frankly, it takes a lot to unnerve me, especially how the anti-gg terrorists specifically said that they would post my dox on my own userpage/talkpage (hence my request at the time to have my talkpage/userpage protected). I'm sure Tutelary and Titanium Dragon feel the same way about this thing. --DSA510 Pls No Bully 07:27, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

That's, um...yea. How about "Administrators who have helped police the Gamergate topic area are thanked for their assistance in a difficult & contentious topic area? Tarc (talk) 18:54, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

Comment by others:

I agree with Tarc's wording. The title as is now can be interpreted as either the topic area being a "shitpool", or the supporters of the movement being a "shitpool". The latter is troubling but neither are appropriate. Weedwacker (talk) 22:37, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

Denigrating other's edits by calling them "emotional" is disruptive

4) Editors should refrain from attributing "emotional" as the basis for other editors actions as doing so is disruptive and counter to WP:NPA "Comment on content, not on the contributor."

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

5) {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}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed enforcement

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 and WP:FRINGE. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 07:31, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

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)

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

BLP has nothing to do with it. SOAPBOXing to present a group in as negative a light as possible is not allowed. We have the press doing it for us, we cannot engage that any further. --MASEM (t)

I think saying the WP article depicts Gamergate in "as negative a light as possible" is hyperbole. It would certainly be possible to write a more negative article about Gamergate and many sources have done so. The reliable press is taking a completely negative view of Gamergate because Gamergate doesn't have any positive accomplishments to its name at all. In order for there to be a positive slant on Gamergate, it would be necessary to severely distort and misrepresent how this movement began, what its stated goals are, and what actual effects it has had on the world at large that make it notable. They have done nothing notable that is positive, so trying to be positive about them is WP:UNDUE. If a credible RS indicates that Gamergate has actually accomplished anything positive of note then the WP article can present that, but that hasn't happened and at this point doesn't seem likely to happen. What positive things about Gamergate do you think are notable enough to deserve inclusion in the article? WP isn't required to consider this movement positively just because members of it claim to be good guys only concerned about corruption in games journalism, when their notable activities as a group prove otherwise. In short, a positive view of Gamergate is not supported by any RSes so the article must stay negative. This is warranted. I would argue that the only positive that has arisen out of this movement is the way it has called attention to the weaknesses in certain types of social media, particularly Twitter, and in the way the backlash to the movement's activities have resulted in a push for the creation of better on-line anti-harassment tools, which are in the process of being rolled out. But saying "They are positive because their behavior caused positive changes to be made so it could be stopped" isn't an overall positive for the movement. ReynTime (talk) 09:22, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

No true scotsmaaaan~ now THAT'S what I call misogyny. --DSA510 Pls No Bully 09:41, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

Funding a charity is not relevant as it is not verifiable WP:V. Gamergate needs to do something verifiably positive as a group, officially, something related to their supposed mission of ethics in game journalism, for the article on the movement to include this information. For example, both the Ku Klux Klan and the 9/11 Truthers have adopted highways, events which made the news in a small way but which are not mentioned on either of their WP pages because it's simply not what those groups are famous for and it isn't relevant to their stated missions, just as "Gamergate" giving to charity isn't relevant to the Gamergate controversy. Also, you apparently don't understand the No True Scotsman fallacy at all; it doesn't say that no member of a bad group is ever capable of doing something positive. It says that you cannot define a group as having or lacking a particular trait, and then declare that any member of that group who has that trait is not a "real" member. ReynTime (talk) 12:52, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

This is circular reasoning. You are saying that evidence of Gamergate doing something notable doesn't count because the sources didn't report it, while arguing informally from a standpoint that the sources haven't reported them doing anything notable because there's nothing to report. When you say it would be necessary to severely distort and misrepresent how this movement began, what its stated goals are, and what actual effects it has had on the world at large that make it notable., you are relying on the premise that the "reliable media" presents an undistorted view on issues in general. This is absolutely not the case, and everyone knows it. RS policy even explicitly admits that sources can be biased and still reliable. 76.64.35.209 (talk) 20:14, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

Comment by others:

@ IP I don't see how that's 'circular reasoning'. If he's saying: We can't view it as notable because sources haven't reported it and sources haven't reported it because it's not notable, that's essentially just the same statement phrased differently. Doesn't seem 'circular' so much as redundant or tautological. If you had a poor understanding of how circular arguments work, it might seem similar to them? PeterTheFourth (talk) 01:46, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

The general principle is sound. However, great care must be exercised in determining what is or is not a "reliable source" when it comes to matters of contemporary cultural, political, or philosophical dispute. Unpopular opinions or interpretations in relation to such matters are not the analogous to viewpoints that are inconsistent with well-established & robust scientific or scholarly findings. Currently unpopular views on these sorts of disputes cannot, for example, be dismissed as "fringe" by analogy to Creation Science or Holocaust denial. We also need to remember that editorials, op-eds, blog posts, and the like are far from being what we'd normally consider the best sources (except for the fact that their authors hold the opinions expressed therein). On a matter of current controversy and dispute where there is little published scholarship or even "straight" news reporting, there may be little in the way of acceptably reliable sources on contested questions of fact, in which case we need to tread warily in the way we write articles and especially in what we allege in the supposedly neutral voice of the encyclopedia. That's even more so whenever, as editors, we find ourselves politically and/or emotionally provoked by the issues we're writing about. In such cases, we may need to go out of our way to be fair, even to the extent of stepping back from editing particular articles. Metamagician3000 (talk) 06:05, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

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)

@DHeyward: Given that administering the policies has been "perceived as being involved", you are effectively asserting that no administrator may ever take more than one action, quite clearly not a sustainable position for this or any other issue where administrators take action. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 22:02, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

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)

It seems like there's a gap here in opinion over not just what is considered involvement, but over what others "perceive as involvement" vs that other group's self-perception. I don't think any of that honestly matters; what counts as involvement should be a matter of common sense, but ultimately it's up to the arbs to decide (insofar as it relates to the judgement of COI, anyway) and us to convince. 76.64.35.209 (talk) 22:42, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

Role of the Arbitration Committee

3) It is not the role of the Arbitration Committee to settle good-faith content disputes among editors.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

As per precedent at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Tea Party movement#Role of the Arbitration Committee. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 04:25, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Sourcing

4) The verifiability policy is at the heart of one of the five pillars of Wikipedia and must be adhered to, through the use of reliable sources. Different types of sources (e.g. academic sources and news sources), as well as individual sources, need to be evaluated on their own merits. Differentiation between sources that meet the standard (e.g. different academic viewpoints, all of which are peer reviewed) is a matter for consensus among editors. When there is disagreement or uncertainty about the reliability of particular sources, editors are encouraged to use the reliable sources noticeboard to broaden the discussion.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

As per precedent at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Tea Party movement#Sourcing. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 04:31, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Scope of policy on biographies of living persons

5) The policy on biographies of living persons requires that all material concerning living persons in Wikipedia adhere strictly to Wikipedia's three core content policies (verifiability, neutrality, and avoidance of original research).

The policy is written in a deliberately broad fashion, and its application is not limited to unsourced or poorly sourced material. Any material about a living person that fails any of the three core content policies is non-compliant with the policy and is subject to removal as described therein.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

As per precedent at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Manning_naming_dispute#Scope_of_policy_on_biographies_of_living_persons. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 04:31, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Sensitivity towards living persons

6) The policy on biographies of living persons requires that editors act with a high degree of sensitivity and consider the possibility of harm to the subject when adding information about a living person to any Wikipedia page. This requirement is consistent with the Wikimedia Foundation's guidance that human dignity be taken into account when adding information about living persons to Wikimedia projects.

Comment by Arbitrators:

The principle is sound, even if some editors dispute aspects of its application to this case. Newyorkbrad (talk) 23:07, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

As per precedent at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Manning_naming_dispute#Sensitivity toward living persons. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 04:31, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

DHeyward's blanket statement is not in keeping with the plain language of the policy, which states that The extent to which the BLP policy applies to edits about groups is complex and must be judged on a case-by-case basis. A harmful statement about a small group or organization comes closer to being a BLP problem than a similar statement about a larger group; and when the group is very small, it may be impossible to draw a distinction between the group and the individuals that make up the group. When in doubt, make sure you are using high-quality sources. So in some contexts, yes, it can be applied to groups. But I would challenge the suggestion that Gamergate is such a group, given its amorphous, anonymous nature and the fact that it is not, by all estimates, a "very small" group. If a group intentionally designs itself and its actions to avoid individual accountability, reliable sources cannot help but speak of the collective. And we have plenty of indisputable high-quality sources to choose from. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 04:16, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Living persons includes groups of living people as well as individuals. --DHeyward (talk) 03:52, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

But you continue to use circular reasoning that the people engaged in misogyny and harassment is a small group but that gamergaters, as a group, are engaged in misogyny and harassment. The logic keeps changing depending on which policy bucket you are trying to fill. It should be clear that you are referring to a small subset of gamergate supporters for misogyny and harassment (which you admitted in your other statement). But you then go on to conclude gamergate is broadly engaged in misogyny and harassment, ans it's not fringe. This has the appearance that all gamergate supporters are being labeled such as Adam Baldwin, Christina Hoff Sommers, Milo Yannaopoulis, etc, etc. This circular reasoning has the appearance that the label is being applied to everyone that has supported gamergate including identifiable individuals. Which is it? --DHeyward (talk) 04:54, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

Gamergate as a nebulous anonymous group is almost exclusively known for the actions of what it claims to be a vocal minority giving them a bad name, without actually doing anything to address that issue. It is not Wikipedia's fault that what they claim to be a small group representing the larger group paints the whole of the group as under these negative statements.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 05:08, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

But you've had no problem in identifying other editors as Gamergate supporters. Is Adam Baldwin a gamergater? Christine Hoff Sommers? Milo Yannaoupolis? These accusation have been made when serves the purpose of dismissing them as gamergaters but then somehow the group becomes unidentifiable when broad, BLP violating claims are made. It's a circular argument to say it's an amorphous small group of misogynists that becomes this identifiable group of supporters. It's the same argument against fringe. Either it's a fringe group out of the larger gaming community (the argument used to label the small unknown group as misogynists). Or it's a large group of gamers (used to to keep the fringe theory policies off the table). Haw many gamers can dance on the head of a pin? --DHeyward (talk) 23:05, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

That's because the reliable sources I used specifically named them. There's a nebulous group of nobodies and a bunch of big wig names they've chosen to rally behind and that's what reliable sources say.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 00:20, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

And therein lies the heart of the BLP violation. "Gamergate is about misogyny and harassment by gamergate supporters" and "Adam Baldwin is a gamergate supporters." It's a huge NOR/Synth BLP violation. On the one had, there is a source that identifies a fringe element of unknown harassers that have led a grotesque campaign of harassment and on the other there is a source that names specific supporters. It's sloppy and unprofessional BLP synth of sources to mix very distinct elements (the small group of harassers) with mainstream supporters and imply they are all misogynyst gamergaters. When attempts were made to separate the fringe from mainstream, there was opposition because it watered down "misogynist" point-of-view. BLP policy should have prevailed over the desire portray the movement in a certain light. It did not. --DHeyward (talk) 12:08, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

No, it's not a BLP violation. Nowhere do we state that all Gamergate supporters are responsible for misogynistic harassment. But a significant number are, and their actions are responsible for far and away the majority of the mainstream media attention the "movement" has garnered. It is not a "fringe element of unknown harassers," it is quite readily traceable directly to the movement itself, specifically its major "organizing" hubs on 8chan and Reddit. Not everyone who joined Weather Underground acted violently, but they were still a member of a violent organization. Not everyone who identifies with Gamergate harasses people, but they are still identifying as part of a movement which is internationally infamous for its vicious campaigns of misogynistic harassment. Being known by the company you keep is not a violation of BLP, and if someone wants to clearly disassociate themselves from harassment they're free to reject and renounce Gamergate. DHeyward, you still don't seem to understand that as per the reliable sources, Gamergate is about harassment and no matter how much you want the "but ethics" smokescreen to be considered meaningful, reliable sources reject it or simply ignore it. Gamergate supporters don't get to pick and choose how their movement is viewed by external commentators and reliable sources. We don't write with a sympathetic POV. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 12:26, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

NBSB is right. We do not label all of Gamergate as misogynists. We do not even call Adam Baldwin a misogynist. It is only Gamergate advocates who make the jump that because one word describes their actions it must mean that that word describes the entirety of the group and all of its members as individuals. My edit certainly did not say "Adam Baldwin is a misogynist". It included him with Milo Yiannopoulos, Christina Hoff Sommers, and several other people that are apparently protected under BLP as being a bunch ofpersonalities who have become the "Based" people in the movement despite the fact that these individuals have zero background or reputability in discussions of journalistic ethics or video game journalism but simply exist as general anti-progressive voices. That is what was written and none of the stuff you're accusing us of DHeyward.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 20:37, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

who have become the "Based" people in the movement despite the fact that these individuals have zero background or reputability in discussions of journalistic ethics or video game journalism but simply exist as general anti-progressive voices. I think I see a BLP Violation over there. Avono (talk) 22:04, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

There is a reliable source in use on the article that spells out the fact that Milo Yiannopoulos, Christina Hoff Sommers, Adam Baldwin, et al. are anti-progressive conservatives who don't know shit about video game journalism so don't you pull that shit on me.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 22:06, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

Removal of material about living persons

7) The policy on biographies of living persons requires that non-compliant material be removed if the non-compliance cannot readily be rectified. The policy does not impose any limitations on the nature of the material to be removed, provided that the material concerns a living person, and provided that the editor removing it is prepared to explain their rationale for doing so.

Once material about a living person has been removed on the basis of a good-faith assertion that such material is non-compliant, the policy requires that consensus be obtained prior to restoring the material.

Comment by Arbitrators:

The principle is sound, even if some editors dispute aspects of its application to this case. Newyorkbrad (talk) 23:08, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

As per precedent at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Manning_naming_dispute#Removal of material about living persons. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 04:31, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

Comment by others:

It is sound policy. It is not a weapon. It is not a vehicle for shaming. --DHeyward (talk) 12:22, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

can you clarify? -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 16:20, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

Articles must be balanced based on reliable sources

8) Article content must be balanced based on the weight of mainstream reliable sources, striving to treat each aspect of the subject with a weight appropriate to the weight of that aspect in the body of mainstream reliable sources on the subject. The fact that a particular group has attacked the credibility of those reliable sources or views all reliable sources as biased does not alter the weight which is attached to those sources. As WP:FRINGE states, Wikipedia is not a forum ... for countering any systemic bias in institutions such as academia, or for otherwise promoting ideas which have failed to merit attention elsewhere, and this applies equally to any perceived systemic bias in mainstream reliable sources.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

As per reliable sources, NPOV/Bias in sources, NPOV/Balancing aspects and WP:FRINGE.NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 07:48, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

Comment by others:

This is true especially to the extent that it's a current event or news. An event such as gamergate should be very careful about portraying a community such as gamers based on one news event. During 9/11 there was a lot of coverage of the terrorists being Islamic. Overwhelming reliable sources pointed this out. But it's clear that using that coverage to portray an entire community of over a billion people as a culture of terrorists is an NPOV problem no matter what the news percentage of the day is. The GamerGate turns that aspect of balance on its head and portrays gamers as a misogynistic culture that is waging a war on women based mostly upon a small number reacting to learning that a journalist was having an undisclosed relationship with a game developer. The reason why we specifically call out "Recentism" and to be careful with current events is to prevent news from becoming the dominant view. --DHeyward (talk) 05:50, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

If the article does not make clear that "Gamergate" does not represent all gamers (rather, it is a small fringe within the community), then I agree with you that we should make that distinction clearer. However, a significant number of reliable sources have used the misogynistic harassment emanating from Gamergate as a jumping-off point to discuss wider, longer-standing issues of sexism in the gaming community, which have been generally acknowledged to exist in greater or lesser form. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 06:01, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

If we started off with the point that GamerGate misogyny is a fringe position (which I agree with you that it is), we wouldn't conclude in the first paragraph that a fringe position is the dominant cultural view of gaming. To use the Islam analogy, it would be insulting to people of the Islamic faith to be held to answer "why does their religion fosters terrorism?" or even insinuate that it broadly supports it. --DHeyward (talk) 06:44, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

This would be a great discussion to have on the article talk page, if you don't mind moving it there, because I don't think our first paragraph should conclude that a fringe position is the dominant cultural view of gaming. While I don't quite see how you're reading that, I think I see what you're getting at, and if we can make the lede clearer, we should. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 07:41, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

If they are using the harassment "as a jumping-off point", then by definition they're not talking about Gamergate any more, and that's WP:COATRACK. "A significant number of reliable sources", back in 2001 and onward, used the events of 9/11 as a jumping-off point for all sorts of political punditry, yet that plays a minor role on the WP article on the attacks. "Radical" appears twice in the main page text, and there is no mention of editorials warning about radical Islam, even though that's still a notable undercurrent in American political discussion over 13 years later. The article doesn't attempt to blame Islam per se, nor does it dip into the controversy over the phrase "Islam is a religion of peace". By contrast, the Gamergate controversy article has an entire main section on "role of misogyny and antifeminism". 76.64.35.209 (talk) 20:07, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

If they are using the harassment 'as a jumping-off point', then by definition they're not talking about Gamergate" as a small faction of those using the gamergate name would like themselves to be perceived. We dont particularly care about people's attempts to whitewash their image. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 21:42, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia articles should not treat unequal ideas equally

9) While Wikipedia articles must be written with a neutral point of view, this does not require that articles treat all ideas, claims or allegations equally. Rather, such ideas, claims and allegations must be weighted based on their prevalence and acceptance in mainstream reliable sources. Fringe theories, ideas or beliefs which are held by a small minority and which have been rejected, deprecated or ignored by mainstream thinking in the given field should be explained in articles where relevant to the topic, but must be presented in the context of how they are viewed by mainstream reliable sources.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

As per WP:GEVAL, specifically While it is important to account for all significant viewpoints on any topic, Wikipedia policy does not state or imply that every minority view or extraordinary claim needs to be presented along with commonly accepted mainstream scholarship as if they were of equal validity. ... Conspiracy theories, pseudoscience, speculative history, or even plausible, but currently unaccepted, theories should not be legitimized through comparison to accepted academic scholarship. We do not take a stand on these issues as encyclopedia writers, for or against; we merely omit this information where including it would unduly legitimize it, and otherwise describe these ideas in their proper context with respect to established scholarship and the beliefs of the greater world. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 01:33, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

I think there is a big difference between "We do not take a stand on these issues as encyclopedia writers, for or against; we merely omit this information where including it would unduly legitimize it" and "must be presented in the context of how they are viewed by mainstream reliable sources." The policy seems to say that we don't take a stand for or against even crazy fringe stuff, we report consensus facts in WP voice and attribute opinions, and anything crazy/fringe opinions we "merely omit." You seem to be suggesting that we should present our articles as the reliable sources do and suggest/say that the fringe opinions are wrong. --Obsidi (talk) 02:55, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

You incompletely quoted the policy, intentionally omitting the unambiguous statement that where articles mention minority viewpoints making claims unaccepted by the broader mainstream, they must describe these ideas in their proper context with respect to established scholarship and the beliefs of the greater world. That is, if we state a minority viewpoint, we must present the mainstream context in which that idea exists, giving proper weight to the mainstream viewpoint of that idea's validity. To do otherwise presents that minority viewpoint as if it is equally valid as the mainstream viewpoint — and that is precisely what the black letter of the policy says we must not do: Wikipedia policy does not state or imply that every minority view or extraordinary claim needs to be presented along with commonly accepted mainstream scholarship as if they were of equal validity. We are not deciding that the minority view is incorrect, but we are properly presenting the fact that a majority view it as incorrect or not even worthy of discussion, and that majority view is entitled to greater weight in the article as per the principle that we weight viewpoints based on their prevalence in reliable sources. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 03:20, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

This part I agree with: We are not deciding that the minority view is incorrect, but we are properly presenting the fact that a majority view it as incorrect. But in that case we DONT say the opinion is wrong in WP voice. We say that the media or some other person/group views it as wrong, attributing that opinion. How much space is up to the amount of RS's weight, but no matter how much space is given to the majority opinion WP never says an opinion is wrong. (we do say they are wrong on consensus facts) --Obsidi (talk) 03:36, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

Great, we agree, and you have a correct understanding of what this principle calls for. I'm not arguing that we should state, in Wikipedia's voice, that a given viewpoint is incorrect — only that when discussing a minority viewpoint, we must ensure that it is presented in the context of the majority viewpoint. That is to say, in describing something which is regarded as a conspiracy theory, we would write Supporters of X believe Y about Z. This belief is generally dismissed by experts in the field, who view Y as a conspiracy theory. <go on to briefly explain the theory and its rebuttals>. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 03:42, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Proposed findings of fact

Wikipedia has been used as a platform to attack figures targeted by Gamergate

1) Wikipedia articles and talk pages have been used with the intent of publicizing unsupported, false, offensive and defamatory statements and claims about Zoe Quinn, Anita Sarkeesian and Brianna Wu, in violation of a number of policies and guidelines including, but not limited to, the biographies of living persons policy, reliable sourcing, verifiability and neutral point of view.

Comment by Arbitrators:

It is exceedingly unlikely we'd use this as it stands. If you look at a typical case, the FOFs are sorted by editor, make specific statements, and illustrate the statements with diffs.  Roger Davies ^talk 11:13, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

It is undeniable that several article subjects have been badly mistreated both in the underlying off-wiki "controversy" and in on-wiki discussion of the controversy. Newyorkbrad (talk) 23:10, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

As per evidence. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 02:35, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

Refactor as a general statement; I'll enter FoFs for specific editors who may warrant it later. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 13:53, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

Comment by others:

The Wikipedia community has not found the Gamergate controversy article to be biased

2) A Request for Comment with participation from a wide range of involved and uninvolved editors noted that the Gamergate controversy article is imperfect, in need of improvement and limited by the available reliable sources (which some viewed as having some bias), but that "the consensus is that, overall, the article is fairly neutral", and that "while there are some issues, there is no overarching bias in the article".

Comment by Arbitrators:

Again, vague and unparticularised. ArbCom thrives on diffs, Roger Davies ^talk 11:14, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

@NBSB: a diff from the RFC (perhaps closer?) to support the specific allegation you're making would be good.  Roger Davies ^talk 11:46, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

As per evidence, particularly Talk:Gamergate controversy/RFC1. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 21:30, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

If it wasn't biased, as you say, there wouldn't be so much drama over an article. --DSA510 Pls No Bully 21:52, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

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)

That was an RFC two months ago, about the balance of the article, but there are many other facets of NPOV to be considered, and much has changed on the GG story since; attempts to gain further consensus in light of the changes have been flat out refused by owning editors of the article, so this is not a true statement anymore. --MASEM (t) 06:59, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

You opened the RFC on 26 October. That's 38 days ago, not "two months." It was closed only three days ago. How many bites at the apple do you require? NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 07:12, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

@Roger Davies: I'm not sure how to "diff" an entire RFC — would I use the diff of the close? NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 11:33, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

That closure was a contentious non-admin close by an editor who has taken similarly contentious non-admin actions on this topic. Previous incident will be discussed in more detail on the evidence page once I have freed up some space.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 09:48, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

No one appealed the non admin closure, nor it appears even questioned the closer - it could not have been too contentious. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 08:50, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

I hadn't even seen it until now since the RFC was apparently moved to its own page by Tony Sidaway and I have only barely paid attention to the main talk page myself for the past few weeks. Given how much the article changed from when the RFC started, one can hardly take the thing seriously anyway.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 19:03, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

I was curious about this as well, and having reviewed both Mdann52's talk page archives and the WP:AN archives, no user raised so much as a byte of complaint. TDA, can you explain how you characterize the closer's close as "contentious" when no one has ever contested it? Tarc (talk) 19:04, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

He says in a discussion contesting it. Perhaps the reason it was not being "contested" is because it was moved out of sight to where most people did not notice the result. I certainly would have objected given Mdann's previous non-admin actions regarding the topic.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 21:13, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

That RFC was open for over a month before it got shunted into the subpage.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 23:19, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

And the notice of the move was posted on the top of the talk page the whole time and its still there. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 00:08, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

Comment by others:

To borrow from 'Animal Farm', "some reliable sources are more reliable than others." The exclusion for reasons unrelated to the particular reliability of the article have been excluded while dubious sources have been retained. Milo Yiannopoulos is a respected tech journalist. Certainly as reliable as the involved outlets such as Kotaku or Polygon. Excluding his coverage in indefensible. --DHeyward (talk) 06:07, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

Milo Yiannopoulos is only respected by GamerGate. His employer is also known to have fabricated parts of stories to further their goals.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 06:51, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

Your opinion of Yiannopoulos is not relevant (or true). NBC news has also fabricated parts of stories (remember rocket motors on gas taks?) and CBS News (remember the MS-Word memo from 1969?). Yet journalists from both sources are viewed on their merits. Being ideologically biased regarding sources when it suits your purpose is not NPOV or compliant with RS policy. --DHeyward (talk) 05:00, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

Breitbart is almost exclusively known for its far right lean and the fact that it manipulated footage it released and caused several organizations to be shut down and people get fired because of the falsified footage. It has also been established that Yiannopoulos in his writing for Breitbart wrote an anti-gamer piece like a month or two before Gamergate was a thing and then made a complete 180 to capitalize on an anti-woman backlash.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 05:06, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

And your issues with Auerbach and Slate Magazine? --DHeyward (talk) 05:17, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

I wrote about this criticism of a piece he wrote. I have no opinion of him other than how he's acted after he called me out.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 05:32, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

I doubt that the community has "found" anything at this stage. It is a relatively new article relating to an ongoing controversy, and there has been no time for opinion to solidify within the community, within the public sphere at large, or among any academic scholars researching the events. Whether the article in its current form will ultimately seem biased when time has passed for cooler assessments remains to be seen. Accordingly, a finding that "the Wikipedia community has not found the article to be biased" would be premature and misleading. Meanwhile, someone could certainly reasonably suspect bias if reading the article cold, i.e. the article currently reads on its face, including in its opening, as if written with disdain for the consumer revolt or backlash, or however we characterize it, known as "Gamergate". To a reasonably neutral, fair person, the article looks unbalanced and hostile. Perhaps when much time has passed, when the necessary scholarship, etc., has all been done, that appearance can be shown to be misleading, but meanwhile I submit that Arbitrators should not be in the business of making any findings that would tend to vindicate the current content and tone of the article. Metamagician3000 (talk) 05:39, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

I'm not asking arbitrators to "vindicate" the content — I'm asking arbitrators to find that the Wikipedia community has, through existing processes, noted that the current content is not, as you and others suggest, radically biased and unfair. It is self-evident that the community, as expressed through a process designed expressly to determine consensus, has so noted. The fact that the article is "unbalanced" is natural, because the reliable sources available on this subject are not balanced, and thus one side receives greater weight than the other. This is precisely what our content policies demand. What you are asking for is a false balance which would violate NPOV by giving a more sympathetic face to Gamergate than the reliable sources provide. Gamergate's complaints need to be with the reliable sources, not us — Wikipedia is not a platform to right great wrongs. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 09:40, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

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.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Can we have the who, what, where and when of this please?  Roger Davies ^talk 11:15, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

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)

Comment by others:

Other way around for me. The intimidation of sanctions, reverts, etc, is nearly 100% against editors that try to present neutral coverage of the gamergate position. --DHeyward (talk) 06:27, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

Your point of view is not represented by the evidence. Everyone is affected by the sanctions and reverts. Resistance on-site to highly biased changes that try to violate BLP and incorporate content not from reliable sources is not the same as having your photograph and name published off-site in an attempt to intimidate you into silence.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 06:56, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

The Devil's Advocate

4) The Devil's Advocate has repeatedly imputed bad faith in Gamergate-related administrative and editorial decisions he disagrees with, viewing such actions as inherently illegitimate and frequently alleging that the administrators and editors who make them are doing so out of a personal bias rather than a good-faith interpretation of policies, guidelines and editorial judgment.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

As per evidence linked in the finding. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 10:57, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

Bias does not prevent one from making a good faith interpretation of the policies and guidelines. The inherent nature of bias, however, is that it tends to cloud your thinking on such things.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 08:00, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Titanium Dragon

5) Titanium Dragon has repeatedly violated the biographies of living persons policy in edits related to the Gamergate controversy, repeatedly making unsourced and poorly-sourced negative statements and insinuations about Zoe Quinn and other people who have been targeted by Gamergate supporters. He persisted in this behavior despite receiving every possible warning, including a topic ban which was undone due to a technicality.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Evidence links shortly. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 07:39, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

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:

Each remedy needs a FOF to support it.  Roger Davies ^talk 11:16, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

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

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

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)

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)

The topic ban is also applicable because of the COI issues. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 19:57, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Template

2) {text of proposed remedy}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed enforcement

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:Halfhat

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:

Can you support this with policy or a guideline, by linking to it please?  Roger Davies ^talk 11:17, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

Sorry I'm not sure if we are to reply in the same section as the comment we are replying to, or the cat. that fits us. WP:FOC in the dispute resolution appears to support this. HalfHat 11:40, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

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:

I don't understand the point you're making. Can I have the who, what, where and when please?  Roger Davies ^talk 11:32, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

I've moved ALL the comment to talk. Keep comment brief and to the point.  Roger Davies ^talk 11:32, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

It's a general comment on the state of the discussion. In archive 14 a search for POV had 50 results. 10 had 40, and 5 had 41. I picked these by choosing the most recent and then clicking the furtherest back displayed to do a rough check. HalfHat 10:16, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

When the SPAs come screaming in every day "POV Violation!!!" of course NPOV will be frequently discussed. Are you indicating that those repetitive "POV !!!" discussions should be closed and hatted more quickly? or are you trying to propose that NPOV cannot be cited as a reason when there are claims of "POV!!!" -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 21:07, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

I'm proposing steps are taken to make sure other areas are discussed. HalfHat 21:36, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

Like what? that people cannot bring up "POV!!!!" if it has been discussed and dismissed in the past 2 weeks? -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 07:46, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

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:

Examples please,  Roger Davies ^talk 11:34, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

Although I generally agree with Roger that many of the proposals could use clear links to evidence, I think we can take the wiki equivalent of "judicial notice" of this one. Cf. the principle we adopted about talkpage use in the Shakespeare authorship controversy case. Newyorkbrad (talk) 02:31, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Well, sometimes people don't want to hear "no", regardless of how many others say it. This has been the downfall of two editors in Arb cases I have been involved in; Stevertigo in the Obama case and Ludwigs2 at the Muhammad case. These editors wanted changes, demanded changes, and refused to back down when consensus did not go the way they wished it to go. Any editor can make their position on a subject known, and argue it, but they also have to accept that they may be in the minority. Tarc (talk) 15:42, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

But since there has been refusal to develop and establish a documentable consensus by a handful of editors, the discussions will continue to repeat and happen. Shutting down discussions on claims that the points have been talked about before but without being able to point to a consensus-derived result is not helpful to avoid that factor. --MASEM (t) 07:01, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

The RFC you initiated documents a community consensus that the Gamergate controversy article is not biased against Gamergate and generally reflects what reliable sources say about the issue. Not sure what more you want here, other than to re-run the argument because you disagree with the outcome. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 07:07, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

Once again: that RFC was on the factor of WEIGHT/UNDUE, which is not the issue anymore (eg respecting that decision). The issue is impartiality which has yet to have any type of consensus discussion. There is a huge difference between these two facets, because regardless of what the sources say or how far the weight swings in favor of one point over the other , we as WP editors have full control of the presentation of the material in an impartial manner as to neither sympathize or criticize any side of the debate in WP's voice. --MASEM (t) 07:15, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

If you fervently believe there is a meaningful difference between the two issues, why have you not initiated an RFC to ask the community whether the article adopts a properly-impartial tone in accordance with policy or not? NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 07:21, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

I'm referring to the long conversations, these often last for days with people just eventually stopping commenting rather than any resolution. Stuff like this https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Gamergate_controversy/Archive_9#Describing_Quinn-Grayson_relationship_in_the_lede https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Gamergate_controversy/Archive_9#Second_Paragraph These were selected just by there length really, almost at random. A lot of the comments/discussion leads nowhere. To really see it to it's full extent you'd have to have a decent look at the archives though. HalfHat 09:08, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

Talk page conversations don't generally have any official "resolution" — they go until they run their course. To take the "Second Paragraph" thread you posted as the example, it was initiated by a user who immediately violated BLP by making entirely-unsourced and unsupported claims of malfeasance. After those were redacted, Masem and myself discussed the fact that the claim of positive coverage by Nathan Grayson was provably false, after which that user started raising random disconnected unsourced points and soapboxing, and there was nothing further worth responding to. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 10:36, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

If this was something exceptional it wouldn't be an issue, the problem is the shear number of long unproductive discussion. There's been multiple convos so long they need arbitrary breaks, and yet go nowhere. HalfHat 10:46, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

@Halfhat: You are certainly correct, but any attempt to archive/hat random forum and repetitions "discussions" gets met with a chorus of "You cannot hat that discussion!!!!" Are you suggesting that those who take part in that chorus or actually unhat/unarchive be sanctioned? -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 21:57, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Ironically, this may be the only thing all parties can agree on. 76.64.35.209 (talk) 20:23, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

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.

Controlled discussion

1) To prevent individual issues dominating, conversation should be externally controlled by uninvolved admin to prevent tangents and steer the conversation to resolutions, bringing in external experienced editors where necessary.

Comment by Arbitrators:

With our limited resources, how do we achieve this?  Roger Davies ^talk 11:35, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

Again I'm not sure where to comment. You'd have to just ask for volunteers. HalfHat 12:24, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

@Halfhat you have been among the voices complaining when the upteenth iteration of the same circular discussion gets hatted/archived. Why would this proposal be any different than those closures? -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 21:03, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

Comment by others:

This, which is moderation, is essentially the remedy that was attempted in Tea Party movement, and it ultimately did not work. Is there any particular reason to think that it will work here, or that its failure in TPM was a special case? This case seems to be more disruptive than TPM, with respect to the amount of off-wiki coordination, and so would require even more time by a volunteer. On its face, this may seem to be an alternative to discretionary sanctions, but this article is already subject to community sanctions. Is there a reason to think that moderation will work here? How long would the moderation last? Robert McClenon (talk) 16:06, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

I was not aware of this. HalfHat 17:02, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

Template

2) {text of proposed remedy}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed enforcement

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

Proposed principles

Not a battleground

1) Wikipedia is not a battleground to continue external disputes.

Comment by Arbitrators:

To reduce bloat, please consolidate skeleton proposals one to five into ONE proposal, and delete the rest,  Roger Davies ^talk 11:40, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

These are all different principles. Why is this an issue?—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 04:57, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

Comment by others:

General sanctions

2) The community has the ability to develop general sanctions to deal with problematic user behavior.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Harassment

3) WP:HARASSMENT: Do not stop other editors from enjoying Wikipedia by making threats, repeated annoying and unwanted contacts, repeated personal attacks, intimidation, or posting personal information.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Disruptive editing

4) Disruptive editors may be blocked or banned indefinitely.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Scope of ArbCom

5) Arbitration does not solve content disputes

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

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:

No unsupported and generalised allegations please. So ... who, what., where, when, with diffs!  Roger Davies ^talk 11:48, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

ArbCom is a step along the dispute resolution pathway. That is not forum shopping in the slightest. --MASEM (t) 07:02, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

It is when third time was the charm.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 07:13, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

Roger it's all on the evidence page. I thought that was for having all those links so I didn't have to post them again here.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 12:20, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

[6] several arbs themselves have made the observation " 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" "I do not like the "keep asking till you get you want" feeling I get from these repeated requests," "wary of accepting a case so soon after we declined the previous request to give time for community sanctions to work or not." Do you want that entered as evidence? -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 14:26, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

Yeah that might be useful.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 19:49, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

done. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 21:58, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

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. A mediation request was opened by Retartist after WP:DRN [7] and an RFC failed to solve the content dispute in a way he wanted. Numerous AN and ANI threads were also opened.

Comment by Arbitrators:

No unsupported and generalised allegations please. So ... who, what., where, when, with diffs!  Roger Davies ^talk 11:49, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

ALL: If you want to bicker, do it by email.  Roger Davies ^talk 11:50, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

No, the past attempts, particularly at the "last court" of DRN, failed because several editors refused to participate, which is a required step for those processes to happen - they do not preemptively judge the situation. This demonstrates no interest in consensus building, resting on the claims about SPAs rather than the content. There has only been one RFC, the one I opened on the bias, and I even agree now it was the wrong question at the time - and in the two months since, the content issues have gotten worse. That means we need consensus building which is simply not happening on the talk page and refusal to participate by major contributors is disrupting the process. --MASEM (t) 06:56, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

Agree with Masem. Loganmac (talk) 01:46, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

Then just DRN which did have involvement of parties. And talk page discussion is just full of constant rehashing of the same themes that everyone else has come to say before them. "This is biased because it says Kotaku did nothing wrong", "Using 'misogyny' makes this biased", "Look at this link". There's nothing for editors to have ever acted on. And the only reason the "content issues have gotten worse" is because Wikipedia is the last frontier for Gamergate to get anything done. Maybe the MedCom one was a bad example, but these are all examples of forum shopping. There's no consensus on the talk page for the proposed actions. Complain on other boards. I cannot think of one instance from the talk page where there was an actual good idea that was put forward by any single purpose account or zombie editor trying to game the system into Gamergate's favor.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 02:08, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

Dispute resolution is not forum shopping. And when a few select editors have not demonstrate consensus but constantly shut down discussions or go "you're an SPA your opinion doesn't matter" or otherwise ignore any talk page attempts to develop consensus claiming that consensus has already developed, that is ownership issues that must be shut down. --MASEM (t) 02:51, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

That's because everyone is aware of offsite disruption and discussion and the arguments made by these editors rarely if ever were based on Wikipedia policy. On the talk page right now there are suggestions to use "Quinnspiracy" in a proposed draft and to add a link that to a website is full of libelous statements. There are comparisons to Hitler on the page. There's a rhetorical question that if a bolt of lightning kills a woman but not a man does that make the lightning misogynistic on this workshop page right now. The issue is that the constant attempts to seek out dispute resolution processes have been made by people with axes to grind, other than yourself. The fact that this has been brought to ArbCom multiple times, even when the general sanctions were made up to make sure that we wouldn't need arbcom for a while, TDA requested the case again less than a week later. Forum shopping is a problem in this case whether you like it or not.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 04:47, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

We do not prejudge the activities of new editors and/or SPAs; you have done this far too much to dismiss them before they have a chance, that's why you are targetted by offsite groups because you refuse to let them participate. The reason people make connections to Hitler is not due to any type of Godwin's law, but becuase Hitler the person is generally considered evil and disliked, but WP's article on the person does not speak ill of him in WP's voice, appropriately attributing opinions to appropriate sources (and this is just one example) and that's the same thing that the GG should do, which a handful of editors refuse to acknowlege. ArbCom as part of DR when people that own the article and refuse to work to develop consensus is far from forum shopping. --MASEM (t) 07:06, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

So you're blaming me for all the shit that's happened to me rather than the fact that this is par for the course for Gamergate? Lovely.

And the comparisons with other pages on people universally considered evil by history's standards is tired already. Godwin's law is "well Hitler was a vegetarian so vegetarianism is evil" not "Hitler isn't treated as bad as Gamergate and people say he's evil so why are we called evil". It is a tired meme that every single statement by a major newspaper is just that one writer's opinion. When multiple publications describe the actions of Gamergate as misogynistic then Wikipedia should describe Gamergate as misogynistic.

The only reason this is constantly brought up is because the word (and variations of) "misogyny" is used and it's mere existence on the article means to Gamergate (as it's the only point they can argue against anymore) that it implies Wikipedia has taken a moral judgement on the issue. When multiple (non-Gawker, non-Vox, non-Gamasutra, non-Vice, non-whatever company Gamergate hates this week) publications all come up with the same description that a bunch of vitriolic attacks on women in video gaming, a seemingly non-interest in men making similar statements unless they're not famous enough or not influential enough to backfire, a complete abhorrence to anything remotely resembling feminism, is misogynistic in nature, then Wikipedia should say that Gamergate is related to misogynistic acts. What do you want in the end? For the article to go "Gamergate has been described as misogynistic" rather than "The controversy around Gamergate concerns with misogyny and harassment"? What is the end goal? What must be changed? Because all I've really seen you do is try to mediate and lend an ear to the Gamergate advocates flocking to the article to try to overwhelm the system.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 07:26, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

I started an rfc early on (I'll have to check where in the archives later) but it was closed for no apparent reason. Retartist (talk) 04:02, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Prior arbitration attempts

3) Two prior attemtps to bring the dispute to the arbitration committee failed due to the content dispute and the subsequent implimentation of WP:GS/GG. The first time was by ArmyLine who has since been banned under general sanctions and the second by Skrelk who returned to extensive editing by jumping into the dispute.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Vague and unparticularised. Who, what, where, when, with diffs,  Roger Davies ^talk

It is quite true that we were reluctant for a long time to take this case, in the hope that the community-adopted general sanctions would assist in restoring a decent editing environment. Newyorkbrad (talk) 23:12, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

it's included in evidence—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 12:31, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

Updated.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 05:55, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Off-site discussion

4) The topic of Gamergate controversy is the topic of discussion in several locations outside of Wikipedia. [private evidence]

Comment by Arbitrators:

Vague and unparticularised. Who, what, where, when, with diffs. Read and digest WP:OUTING before replying. If you think you risk outing someone, don't say it.  Roger Davies ^talk 11:54, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

this and all information can be found in various entries on the evidence page and in the correspondence to the committee.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 12:30, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Off-site disruption

5) Many discussions in off-site forums concerning advocacy of Gamergate involve collusion to intimidate Wikipedia editors critical of Gamergate away from the Gamergate controversy article, including harassing messages sent on Wikipedia and to those editors' personal social media profiles, as well as attempts to force editors to become "involved" by embroiling them in "scandals". [private evidence], [8], [9], [10], [11]

Comment by Arbitrators:

Per above. Vague and unparticularised. Who, what, where, when, with diffs. Read and digest WP:OUTING before replying. If you think you risk outing someone, don't say it.  Roger Davies ^talk 11:55, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

this is included in my evidence as well as others' and the correspondence sent to the committee.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 12:31, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Editors involved in disruption

6) Some editors have been involved in these off-site forums and in the harassment of Wikipedia editors on- and off-site. [private evidence]

Comment by Arbitrators:

Vague and unparticularised. Who, what, where, when, with diffs. Read and digest WP:OUTING before replying. If you think you risk outing someone, don't say it.  Roger Davies ^talk 12:04, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

Ryulong's comment below is well-taken to the extent that it's legitimate for him not to post about private evidence on-wiki. I leave to the drafters the task of evaluating in the first instance the private evidence. Newyorkbrad (talk) 23:14, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

You were the one who responded to the email containing this information on the committee mailing list. What is the point of having the evidence page and that level of confidentiality if you want us to spell it out for you again here?—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 12:25, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Community sanctions created

7) In response to disruption to Gamergate controversy and other articles, the community came up with WP:GS/GG to supplement WP:BLPSE. [12]

Comment by Arbitrators:

Diffs of close etc?  Roger Davies ^talk 12:05, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

True and relevant. Newyorkbrad (talk) 23:15, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Evidence page. My section on the background of the page.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 12:26, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Community sanctions enforcement page

8) WP:GS/GG/E was developed to enable easier enforcement of the sanctions. [13]

Comment by Arbitrators:

Does this really need to be separate? There is tremendous bloat here,  Roger Davies ^talk 12:06, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

there was enough time between the two that I thought it was relevant —Ryūlóng (琉竜) 12:32, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

Comment by others:

General sanction bans

9) Several editors have been banned under WP:GS/GG. Most were involved in advocacy of Gamergate. bans logged here.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Who did what, where and when?  Roger Davies ^talk 12:08, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

in evidence page.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 12:26, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Avoidance of sanction page

10) Some editors have avoided using WP:GS/GG/E directly under claims of unfair treatment by enforcing administrators. [14]

Comment by Arbitrators:

Who did what, where and when?  Roger Davies ^talk 12:08, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

in evidence page.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 12:26, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Sanction page accusations

11) Editors have accused administrators who have enforced WP:GS/GG as being involved. [15]

Comment by Arbitrators:

Who accused whom of what, where and when?  Roger Davies ^talk 12:09, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Evidence page.has diffs.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 12:27, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

Comment by others:

The Devil's Advocate

12) The Devil's Advocate has used the evidentiary stage of this case to cherry pick diffs from the article history that he disagrees with or are out of context negative statements rather than any intentional malicious violations of WP:BLP [16] or general false accusations [17]. He has also misused the WP:OUTING policy in order to protect an editor with an undisclosed conflict of interest who had been banned for violating BLP [18] [19].

Comment by Arbitrators:

Serious stuff. Diffs please for each aspect of the allegation,  Roger Davies ^talk 12:11, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

again, all of these diffs were included in my evidence entry.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 12:27, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Tutelary

13) Tutelary has repeatedly reverted users and administrators who closed various discussions sanctioning editors due to disagreements with their decisions. [20] [21] [22] [23] [24] [25] [26] [27]

Comment by Arbitrators:

Diffs please for each aspect of the edit war,  Roger Davies ^talk 12:13, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

These diffs are included on the evidence page. It is a series of reverts performed by Tutelary throughout several threads.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 12:28, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

An attempt by Ryulong to characterize and cherry pick me reverting inappropriate refactoring of my comments (disallowed per WP:REFACTOR, people reverting my own withdrawal of my own report, and administrators removing comments from outside of the closed thread. Only one of the cited diffs above is me reverting any closure done by an administrator, and purely for procedural reasons too. Future was closing a topic ban discussion of Ryulong which was still ongoing, and did not mention it in the close in either form. Additionally, only two of the diffs that you cite are actual administrators. The rest are users. If this isn't dishonesty Ryulong I don't know what is. Tutelary (talk) 20:51, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

Then a correction. These people are all suitably uninvolved but because things didn't go as you liked you reverted.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 21:26, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

Again, could you actually check the diffs that you posted? Only one of them--The Future Perfect revert is actually reopening a discussion, for reasons listed above. The others are reverting refactoring (which per WP:REFACTOR should be reverted if the user doesn't agree with it) and reinstating my own withdrawal of the case that I myself brought to ANI. Tutelary (talk) 23:14, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

Yes.

• reverting archival
• reverting archival/closure
• reverting archival
• reverting unarchival apparently
• same
• reverting closure
• again
• reverting archival

A lot of these involve Gamaliel in some form too.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 23:26, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Single purpose accounts

14) Single purpose accounts have heavily been involved with the article and related articles in order to use Wikipedia as a soapbox to advocate for Gamergate when reliable sources do not. The following editors and edits represent accounts that made their first ever contribution to Wikipedia concerning the Gamergate controversy (interpretted broadly), advocated for Gamergate, and made little to no edits outside of the subject area:

Extended content

Willhesucceed (talk · contribs) [28] Exefisher (talk · contribs) [29] Racuce (talk · contribs) [30] Skeeveo (talk · contribs) [31] Derpen (talk · contribs) [32] Butter and Cream (talk · contribs) [33] Ginnygog (talk · contribs) [34] Nathan905RB (talk · contribs) [35] AnyyVen (talk · contribs) [36] YellowSandals (talk · contribs) [37] Muscat Hoe (talk · contribs) [38] (some edits prior but all edits since related) TyTyMang (talk · contribs) [39] The "previously involved IP editor" also falls under this umbrella: 70.24.5.250 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), 74.12.93.242 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), 76.64.35.209 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) As does another IP address that has been around for some time 107.15.41.141 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)

There have been, albeit fewer, editors critical of Gamergate that also fall under the description of single purpose accounts.

• ReynTime (talk · contribs) [40]

And then there's an editor whose only edits have been to this case page.

• PeterTheFourth (talk · contribs) [41] (first edit)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Counter from the other side of the debate ReynTime (talk · contribs) [42]. Weedwacker (talk) 18:19, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

This is fair enough.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 21:37, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

@Ryulong: Hi! I won't debate being a Single Purpose Account, but I don't believe I've advocated for gamergate. Is it possible there's been a mixup? PeterTheFourth (talk) 14:48, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

Corrected.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 01:18, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

Thank you. Sorry for the bother. PeterTheFourth (talk) 02:31, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

"Zombie accounts"

15) Several users who had accounts long before the Gamergate controversy came about, but either sporadically edited Wikipedia or had not edited Wikipedia in some time, in some cases years, have revived their Wikipedia accounts for Gamergate advocacy. What follows is a list of such users with their last diff of editing Wikipedia and their diff upon returning, showing the beginning of their advocacy; minor edits are also noted.

Extended content

ArmyLine (talk · contribs) June 22, 2014, September 28, 2014 Thronedrei (talk · contribs) July 27, 2014, September 11, 2014 Loganmac (talk · contribs) February 18, 2011, September 9, 2014 Torga (talk · contribs) November 7, 2008 (made 9 more edits to be autoconfirmed on September 6, 2014), September 6, 2014 Skrelk (talk · contribs) June 29, 2014, August 19, 2014 Lasati (talk · contribs) June 6, 2010, August 23, 2014 Tabascoman77 (talk · contribs) June 6, 2012 (minor edits on March 25, 2014 as well), September 25, 2014 Pepsiwithcoke (talk · contribs) (has 20 edits between October 4, 2012 [date of registration], and September 22, 2014) October 16, 2014 Halfhat (talk · contribs) May 29, 2014 (one edit to user page as well after this), October 10, 2014 Jgm74 (talk · contribs) January 5, 2008 (a few edits to autoconfirm), November 4, 2014 Akesgeroth (talk · contribs) August 15, 2013 (edits to autoconfirm), November 2, 2014 Weedwacker (talk · contribs) December 9, 2013, (minor edits), November 22, 2014

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

You still have presented nothing to show I, or anyone else, is pushing an agenda, I'm getting quite fed up with this. HalfHat 23:06, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

It is the totality of your edits, most of which have been in regards to Gamergate. Your edits concerned one side of the debate like this one.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 01:10, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Per WP:SLEEPER "Provided the account is in good standing and that the same person is not deceptively operating another account, which may violate sock puppetry guidelines, there is no objection to resuming editing after a long absence." Additionally: "It is possible that even in the absence of any edits, the owner of a sleeper account is logging in frequently and checking his/her watchlist and talk page for any activity. But there is no way of knowing." Weedwacker (talk) 18:40, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

This is not about sockpuppetry.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 21:36, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

What rule are you proposing this breaks then? Weedwacker (talk) 01:55, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

This is merely a finding of facts.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 02:18, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

A finding like is is unnecessary at best and extremely problematic at worst. First, single-purpose or "zombie" accounts are not problematic (nor against any policy) per se; if they behave disruptively, they can be dealt with for that (I've blocked several disruptive SPAs in the GamerGate area, some of whom were on your list, some weren't) but if they edit constructively*, there's not a problem. Second, arbitration is most useful for disputes between established editors; discretionary sanctions can take care of the rest. And third and finally, the inclusion of only those editors who oppose your viewpoint and the complete lack of acknowledgement that disruptive SPAs who share your view even exist shows that the main problem is partisan feuding between established editors (who should know better). HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 14:45, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

Well, I'd say that what a finding like this can establish is a delineation between editors who are actually standing members of the project and involved in a variety of areas, and editors who are here for a specific POV in a specific article or topic. I have been on the opposite side of this affair to, say, TDA and Diego Moya, but they are long-standing editors who have touched a wide variety of topics over the years. An editor who registers or reawakens solely to advocate for one side or the other of Gamergate, and (the "and" is key) by & large ignores the project's guides and policies on editing in the meantime, is an inherently disruptive individual. If I may single out an editor here, IMO @Halfhat: is one that has comported himself well of late, even if I do not agree with his POV on this subject. It's ok to be a single-issue editor, as long as one follows along with project norms. I'd also say that the now-blocked ReynTime should be added to the SPA list above in the interest of fairness. Tarc (talk) 16:40, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

Tarc hits the nail on the head here. There's a difference between established editors who edit a wide swath of articles and advocate Gamergate and the editors who have established accounts who have done nothing but advocate Gamergate after they began editing again after a months long or several years long period. And I don't think I've encountered any editors critical of Gamergate who fit this mold to list them. ReynTime will be added to the SPA list in the other FOF when I get my notebook running.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 20:56, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

Actually, MarkBernstein might actually fall under the description of "zombie accounts" critical of Gamergate, but he edited regularly throughout the year (except no edits at all in August) and edited fairly regularly until jumping into GamerGate in November with this edit so I don't know if it fits with the definition.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 21:32, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

I like how you finally added me after I guess previously not finding my edit times to fit your narrative enough immediately after noticing I supported a proposal that you had a "battlefield mentality". Guess I finally am the "them" vs "you". (timeline:[43], [44], [45] ) Weedwacker (talk) 22:31, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

You fit the description here. You edited last in December 2013 and now you're pretty much all Gamergate all day every day here. You're not the only person who has been retroactively added to this list.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 23:43, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

I edited last on November 14th of this year. And despite your insistence both here and on the evidence page, i'm not "all gamergate every day". I've never even edited the gamergate article or talk page like you say on the evidence page, and have performed many edits outside of the broad topic area. When are you going to stop with this witch hunt? Perhaps for your next investigation you should bake a cake with the urine of the afflicted, I've heard that's a good way to identify witches. Weedwacker (talk) 00:58, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

Your minimal edits 2 weeks before jumping into this drama fest are noted in the finding of fact. Blanking your user page and user talk and two minor edits to Rocket Power do not detract from the fact that practically everything else you've done is related to this dispute.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 01:05, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

To be quite honest, you look like you're only here to stir the shit.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 23:49, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

Established editors

16) Titanium Dragon [46] [47] [48], The Devil's Advocate [49] [50], Tutelary [51], DHeyward [52], and Carrite [53] have all performed edits in the contentious topic area advocating for Gamergate.

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.

Bans affirmed

1) The various bans meted out by WP:GS/GG are kept as-is.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Leaving existing sanctions in place would be the expected outcome unless a case is made out for modifying a specific past sanction. That is not quite the same as our "affirming" all the prior bans, which would imply that we have reviewed the merits of each and every one. Newyorkbrad (talk) 23:17, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

First option.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 05:07, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

@Newyorkbrad: Then see my third one below.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 06:15, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Bans elevated

2) Bans meted out by WP:GS/GG are elevated to bans by the arbitration committee.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Second option.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 05:08, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Bans acknowledged

3) Bans meted out by WP:GS/GG are acknowledged by the arbitration committee as valid per the community's ability to institute bans when necessary.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

New option as first isn't clear enough. I think I just want to say that the bans that are contended by the parties in this case as being unfair or by who they accuse of being involved administrators are recognized by the committee as legitimate but I don't know a good way to put it.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 06:15, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Proposed enforcement

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 Retartist

Proposed principles

WP:CIVIL

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

Comment by Arbitrators:

Editors are expected to be reasonably courteous to each other. Newyorkbrad (talk) 23:17, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

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:

All comments moved to /talk. Keep comments succinct and to the point  Roger Davies ^talk 12:19, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Ditto,  Roger Davies ^talk 12:19, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

Spirit Vs letter

3) Usually, there is no clear distinction between proposed policy, guidelines, and official policy. Policy at Wikipedia is a matter of consensus, tradition, and practice. While the principles of the policies are mostly well established, the details are often still evolving. Policies are not drafted like legal documents and users are urged not to be legalistic about reading policy pages. Policies are actually there to help Wikipedia work, defining more closely what should be done and preserving a good atmosphere. A narrow view of a policy or guideline is not likely to resolve matters. All policies and guidelines together convey to the same ideas as the five pillars.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

I am not really sure how this applies. Even the spirit of the policies is that when the overwhelming view from the sources is X we don't skew it to Y so that we are "fair" to those poor little guys who arent being treated impartially by the sources. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 12:29, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

Comment by others:

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}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed enforcement

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 previously involved IP user

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:

This is more of an essay than an Arbitration case principle. ArbCom don't rule on content,  Roger Davies ^talk 12:23, 2 December 2014 (UTC)  Roger Davies ^talk 12:23, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

No source is infallible and few sources are always wrong. Some sources, based on their history and reputation, come with a presumption of correctness and reliability, and others do not. One occasionally encounters the fallacy that would be Wikipedia policy to repeat a known error if it could be found in some otherwise reliable source; that patently is nonsense. But likewise we don't assume that the statement in an RS is an error without some countervailing evidence to show that it is. Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:51, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

To be clear, when an RS is talking about the content of some primary source, and some editors believe the RS to be in error, is the primary source itself admissible as "some countervailing evidence"? 76.64.35.209 (talk) 03:08, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

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)

Comment by Arbitrators:

This is even more convoluted than our actual policies. See my comment just above for what I perceive as a much simpler articulation of the main point. Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:52, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

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)

... 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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Comment by others:

Also Regarding WP:RS

i) When there is a disagreement or conflict over the reliability of sources used for an article, that should go to RSN. Editors should not just exclude new content from an article based on a blanket "not a reliable source" proclamation, especially if it appears that the objection is on the basis of bias perceived by the editor making that proclamation, and especially if the source has been used for multiple other articles on Wikipedia.

ii) Principles used to determine the reliability of sources must be applied consistently. If, for example, the argument against one source boils down to "it's just clickbait", then other clickbait sites should not be allowed. There is generally not a lot of disagreement as to what clickbait sites look like, except by those who are clearly pushing a POV.

76.64.35.209 (talk) 17:30, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Not supported by evidence or prior precedent.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 19:33, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

This is precisely backward. The burden of proof for the reliability of new content lies upon the editor who introduces it. The default is that content be excluded if the sourcing is questionable, particularly when the content makes negative claims about living people. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 21:41, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Perception of bias might be evidenced, for example, by statements made by the editor about individuals working for the publication in question. 76.64.35.209 (talk) 17:30, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

Again, this is a proposed principle, not a proposed finding of fact. That RSN is the proper venue for hashing out the reliability of sources is self-evident. And are you really saying that "prior precedent" doesn't exist to support the idea of applying principles fairly and without double standard?!? 76.64.35.209 (talk) 21:00, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

A source having been used for prior articles on Wikipedia is an implicit endorsement of its reliability. Under NorthBySouthBaranof's interpretation, an editor could be extremely disruptive by raising procedural objections to sources and demanding proof of reliability every time, claiming "questionability". Someone who thinks a source is "questionable" needs a better reason than, say, personal opinion of the political bias espoused by the publication. And it's not as if highly respected sources are immune to controversy. 76.64.35.209 (talk) 00:34, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

Our policies and guidelines are based on the assumption that editors are working together in good faith to write an Internet encyclopedia, and therefore we assume - in the absence of evidence to the contrary - that arguments about the reliability of sources are made in good faith. If an editor did what you're hypothetically suggesting, they would likely be swiftly sanctioned by community processes, as such behavior amounts to, as you suggest, disrupting the encyclopedia to prove a point.

Not all sources are reliable in all contexts, and a source that we accept for an uncontroversial statement of fact may not be acceptable to support a contested claim. One of the main points of the biographies of living persons policy is that we have particularly strict standards for controversial or defamatory claims about living people. In situations where potentially-defamatory material is being questioned, we fail-safe to the idea that the disputed material should not be included in an article until it has been examined by editors and a consensus has been reached. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 00:44, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

Recidivism

Editors will sometimes make mistakes and suffer occasional lapses of judgement from time to time in well-meaning furtherance of the project's goals. However, strong or even exceptional contributions to the encyclopedia do not excuse repeated violations of basic policy. Editors who have already been sanctioned for disruptive behavior may be sanctioned more harshly for repeated instances of similar behaviors. 76.64.35.209 (talk) 21:05, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

You're really pulling at strings to get me banned.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 21:25, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Copied from Interactions at GGTF. Seems relevant here. 76.64.35.209 (talk) 21:05, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

Expletives

Although there are cultural differences in the use of certain expletives, there is rarely any need to use such language on Wikipedia and so they should be avoided. Editors who know, or are told, that a specific word usage is reasonably understood as offensive by other Wikipedians should refrain from using that word or usage, unless there is a specific and legitimate reason for doing so in a particular instance. 76.64.35.209 (talk) 21:10, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

Comment by Arbitrators:

I would prefer to see better decorum and less rudeness in a number of places on Wikipedia. However, we adopted this principle in a recent case where an editor's use of a particular word had become a distraction. I perceive no comparable circumstances here. Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:55, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Why are you so intent on getting be banned though?—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 21:25, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Copied from Interactions at GGTF. This was originally presented as a finding of fact, but it reads more like a principle to me. 76.64.35.209 (talk) 21:10, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

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)

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)

While the theory is absurd (enough to warrant a parody), I must agree with 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 23:48, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Proposals by Masem

Proposed principles

General Findings per Tea Party case

1) The Executed Principles of the previous Tea Party movement ArbCom case all reapply to this case, as worded there. Without reiterating the exact text, these principles are: Purpose of Wikipedia, Neutral Point of View, Decorum, Consensus Building, Sourcing, Talk Pages, Tendentious Editing, Involvement, Seeking Community Input, and Role of Arbitration Committee.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

All these findings directly apply here, and instead of rehashing them, it would make sense just to repeat them here. --MASEM (t) 05:04, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Assumption of good faith

2) Editors should assume good faith on the part of the actions of other editors. In particular, new editors to a topic, newly created editors, and anonymous editors should not be assumed to be acting in bad faith or are single purpose accounts just because of initial participation, nor are single purpose accounts necessary improper.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Some of the newcomers-to-Wikipedia who have edited on GamerGate have behaved poorly. It is important to add that others have not. Perhaps some well-meaning newcomers have behaved poorly by objective standards in editing GamerGate because the topic-area is so fraught with controversy and because seemingly every edit or comment is viewed with a microscope. On the other hand, some have come here with agendas and edited poorly under any reasonable standard. If I were on recent-changes patrol right now, and three brand-new editors just registered, and for their first edits one edited GamerGate and one edited hedgehog and one edited leprechaun, and I had time to check only one edit, I know which one it would be. All that being said, I'm not sure what implication that has for the outcome of the case. The only case I can think of in which this Committee adopted a remedy targeted specifically against SPAs was Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/St Christopher, which is eight and one-half years old, and these days that case would have closed with a DS remedy instead. Newyorkbrad (talk) 02:02, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

A core issue is how we should treat newcomers/SPA on the article. --MASEM (t) 05:04, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

As oft-stated in situations like these, AGF is not a suicide pact. I'm sure Arbs with greater institutional memory than I can pull up some examples of past cases where the locus of the intractable argument was the invasion of a topic by single-issue "new" editors. This Scientology finding comes to mind, for starters. Individuals who come here to edit a particular subject for no other reason than to ensure that their point-of-view is heard are a net negative to this project. Tarc (talk) 18:01, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

It's not been demonstrated that even a significant minority of current contributes are here to push the GamerGate narrative. HalfHat 18:11, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

Seriously? Shall I enter into the Evidence page a list of pro-Gamergater SPAs who have been topic-banned? Shall I enter into the Evidence page a list of pro-Gamergater SPAs whose edits to the article and talk pages have been so egregiously horrid that the edits have had to be oversighted? Tarc (talk) 18:16, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

SPAs can be a problem, no doubt. But you cannot label a newcomer/IP to a discussion as an SPA nor assume they are here to disrupt. If we are going to be "the Encyclopedia anyone can edit" we have to accept this. Nor is coming to WP to edit with towards a singular POV a problem, it is all about behavior; if that SPA follows all appropriate decorum, doesn't edit war, avoids editing with direct COI issues, and all other expected facets of editors, they are fully welcome to contribute. The general sanctions here, while they require more work, have helped to prevent excessive disruption from more disruptive SPA of at least the talk process (it's hard to say about the editing process since both new/IP and established editors have acted in ways to immediately reset edit protection when it has been removed at least twice before - this we cannot blame entirely on SPAs). Notice that your link doesn't say anything towards SPAs in general, just identifing specific SPAs that were problematic on the article. --MASEM (t) 18:13, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

Disruption can certainly be evidenced by initial edits. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 21:27, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

In some cases, yes. However, there are times that the difference between a new editor that genuinely wants to get involved and is still learning the ropes (and thus clumsy with policy), and an editor that has come to disrupt, is difficult to tell until enough edits have been established to know what's going on. AGF is a requirement to extend to all editors until proven otherwise. --MASEM (t) 22:06, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

"You are being POV because you are not saying X is a slut" is not difficult to identify someone who is not here to make an encyclopedia but rather crusade -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 02:00, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

Yes, as I said, there will be certain cases that will be clear cut by one or two statements, like that. But that is not the case that happened here. Editors have immediately labeled newcomers to the debate as unwelcome despite them having reasonably statement complaints about the state of the article. That's inexcusable for established editors. --MASEM (t) 02:03, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

Evidence please. We have plenty of rev del first edits to show quite the opposite.-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 04:25, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

To NewYorkBrad - it is the behavior of the established editors - particularly Ryulong (eg his list at ANI) - that has attempts to illegitimatize any contribution from an SPA as something to ignore, as to justify a stance of which direction the article must go. Problem SPAs obviously must be dealt with if they are disruptive, but most that have come have not been, even if they are looking to drastically change the tone of the article via talk page discussion. --MASEM (t) 02:07, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

Comment by others:

I want to be as clear as possible on this point. Any accusation of POV I have ever made in relation to this discussion, and any belief of POV on the part of others that I still hold, is not based on reasoning like "You are being POV because you are not saying X is a slut"; it is based on seeing the arguments of others characterized in that way, and considering it grossly inaccurate and unfair to the other parties to the discussion. 76.64.35.209 (talk) 03:12, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

Impartialness

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)

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)

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)

That's just...not true. The lead of global warming explains it as scientifically-accepted, peer-reviewed fact, there is not even a whiff of denialism mentioned til much later in the article. Barack Obama citizenship conspiracy theories specifically calls out the false assertions and debunked conspiracy theories, it does not give credence to any of the birther claims. Intelligent design, in clear black & white in sentence one, labels it a "pseudoscientific view". WP:NPOV calls for a balanced coverage of a topic, yes, but it cannot be used as a tool to straighten what society and sources have bent in a particular direction. Gamergate is seen by reliable sources as a topic that is primarily about misogynistic harassment. Our article has to follow that. Tarc (talk) 18:12, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

Here's the problem: GG has no more than four months of details to analyze and review, compared to global warming (20 yr+ of research with 100s+ years of data), Obama's birth certificate (10+ yrs), and intelligent design (10yr+) as to determine the legitimacy of the opposing POV. We are still operating in RECENTISM mode for understanding GG, and the closest thing to any analysis that has been done was the Newsweek survey of twitter messages. But even with your examples, they do not flat out attack the opposing POV in WP's voice; they provide criticism and from what sources to explain that. Same with Westboro Baptist Church, same with Scientology. These articles do no speak in the tone of the popular opinion, but clearly distance themselves from that tone by noting what opinions come from what sources. --MASEM (t) 18:31, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

I'm not opposed to trimming down quotefarms and phrasing things more in "In the Sourced.com Newspaper, they said..." manner, as long as the underlying context isn't altered. If we can do that without the sideshow, 8chan-fueled noise, that'd be great. Tarc (talk) 18:42, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Look at the topics you are talking about above. Global warming is clearly about facts of how CO2 affects our world (what the facts are is disputed but it is still a scientific fact that is being talked about and it is expressed as the scientific consensus, again there is a fact that there is a scientific consensus even if you disagree with that consensus). Intelligent design is again about the scientific facts as to evolution, not opinion. Barack Obama citizenship conspiracy theories are about the fact as to where Obama was born. None of these are opinions like saying someone is "evil" or "racist" (notice racist is about hatred based on race), look at the most famous organization the KKK doesn't call the organization as "racist" instead it says it "is classified as a hate group by the Anti-Defamation League and the Southern Poverty Law Center." Properly attributing that opinion to where it comes from. I think that's the key difference, but this principal doesn't quite make that difference. It should mention something about opinion, because even disputed facts (such as global warming or Barack Obama citizenship conspiracy theories) are different. --Obsidi (talk) 19:34, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

The problem is, that wouldn't be your tune if you were a global warming denier, a birther, and so on. The respective talk pages of those articles are chock-full of a history of screaming antagonism by people who claimed that the respective articles were biased, NPOV-violating, not giving a fair shake to the minority point-of-view, (sound familiar?) etc... Those claims failed to achieve consensus, resulting in the articles as they appear at present. No different from what we're dealing with now; once the pitchforks are blunted and the torches quenched, we can get back to actual editing. Tarc (talk) 20:09, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

No question we have editors (new/IP) that come along on a relatively regular basis "this is biased, it's not telling the right story! fix it!"), which we simply cannot do, I am confident we all recognize that we just cannot turn the means by how GG has been documented in reliable sources on its head. But, in reading the various GG threads on the main sites it is discussed, and specifically what they see on WP, most are very self aware that they know they cannot rewrite the entire thing (they even laugh at their own "experiment" that Jimmy Wales suggested they do, create the way they would want GG to presented on a Wikia site, which basically most recognize is impossible to source within WP's standards). The more moderate part of the GG supporters are simply looking for the impartiality that we give groups like Westboro, Scientology, etc. - reporting on them without criticism in WP's voice and letting the press's stance do that job clearly. And that for us is more fine tuning of the article as it already exists, not a slash and burn restart. --MASEM (t) 20:18, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

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)

certainly the only WP:BIAS evident here is that a group of anonymous internet trolls whose most notable achievements are the harassment of women a far more detailed article than most leaders of countries from Asia, Africa and Latin America. it it also quite nonsensical tinfoil hat premise that everyone from PBS to the Guardian to Inside Higher Education to ESPN is part of some mass conspiracy. Also quite disruptive to bring such a claim again after your RFC to attempt to push such ridiculous Talk:Gamergate controversy/RFC1 was closed counter to supporting such bizzaroland interpretation of NPOV. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 01:33, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

The bias in that RFC was about weight/number of sources, which at this point, I fully recognize that as per that RFC there's no way we can change the predominate viewpoint, but that we should still be careful of sourcing. Systematic bias, on the other hand, is recognizing that the bulk of sourcing for GG from reliable source is opinion - which we can document just not in WP's voice. Further, your attitude/stance in the response is fully part of the problem - we cannot edit with that extreme a hatred towards the group - that's becomes a COI problem if you refuse to edit disengaged from your emotional take on the sources. Further, painting anyone associated with GG as those responsible for the harassment is not neutral as it is not a proven statement, and that's another stance we cannot take. --MASEM (t) 03:59, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

No. The viewpoint that Gamergate supporters are responsible for harassment is universal among reliable sources, and is considered a conclusive fact. As The New York Times reported, The threats against Ms. Sarkeesian are the most noxious example of a weekslong campaign to discredit or intimidate outspoken critics of the male-dominated gaming industry and its culture. The instigators of the campaign are allied with a broader movement that has rallied around the Twitter hashtag #GamerGate. [54] It is true that harassment is not coming from all supporters, but it is undoubtedly coming from supporters. The claim that Gamergate supporters aren't responsible is a fringe theory given no credence in reliable sources, is akin to a 9/11 conspiracy theory, and cannot be given credence in the encyclopedia. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 05:41, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

As you have just pointed out quite clearly from the NYTimes, there are two logical groups: those that did the harassing, and those that are seeking ethics changes, and the only common element that can be proven is that both use the hashtag #GG. The NYTimes goes out of its way to make it clear that they are not one and the same groups, and this is exactly what we have to do to. There is a strongly likelihood that there are common members of both groups, but no one has proven that yet. We cannot say GG supporters are directly responsible for the harassment in any way. The opinion that they are indirectly responsible, yes, but that's still an opinion and one WP cannot state in their voice. We have to take the most neutral position in discussing the actual facts. --MASEM (t) 05:54, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

I don't know how you can read The instigators of the campaign are allied with a broader movement and conclude that the Times is saying those responsible for harassment aren't part of the movement. Because that's the exact opposite of what those words mean. But so it goes. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 06:04, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

Even more explicitly reported, by The Telegraph: Gamergate started as a harassment campaign against feminist game developers on discussion sites 4chan, Reddit and Twitter, and developed into an email-writing group, targeting advertisers on gaming and game developer websites who had run articles on the changing demographics of video game players around the end of August this year. [55] NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 07:36, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

The NYTimes makes it clear that they are considering the harassers and the ethics pursuers as two different groups that may or may not have common membership, as the only unifying element is the use of the GG hashtag. They are not equating the harassers to the ethic pursuers. Note that the Telegraph article speaks to the same notion, as it doesnt' call any person out as belong to the same, but what the concept of the GG controversy is. These sources do not say the people involved in the movement are misogynistic, but neither eliminates that possibility, just that who is doing what is unknown due to the psuedoanonymous nature of the situation. --MASEM (t) 17:37, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

As per the guideline on fringe theories, Wikipedia is not a forum for presenting new ideas, for countering any systemic bias in institutions such as academia, or for otherwise promoting ideas which have failed to merit attention elsewhere. Wikipedia is not a place to right great wrongs. That is, if there is systemic bias in the media as regards Gamergate's ideology and claims, Wikipedia's article will inevitably reflect that bias, and our article must not be written in a manner which attempts to reject or counter that bias. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 05:35, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

Per WP:BIAS we are supposed to eliminate and avoid such. The fringe nature of GG's views will clearly make the predominate opinion that of the press, but that doesn't mean we take the tone of the press to present their ideas. We remain neutral and impartial in reporting facts even if the press are fanatically against this group; we don't do this for any other hated group, we should not be doing that to this group. --MASEM (t) 17:39, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

And it is an undisputed fact, as reported by a wide array of reliable sources, that Gamergate supporters are responsible for misogynistic harassment. Your continued refusal to admit this basic fact of the controversy is a roadblock to further collaboration and compromise. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 18:43, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

No, this is the problem. What is a "Gamergate supporter"? Most of the press ties it to anyone just using the hashtag, but that's the problem (a problem GG itself has to figure out) since a hashtag can be hijacked by anyone. The press has not provided any evidence to show that those that are "ethics" supporters of GG have also been those that have engaged in harassment, and just because they make that claim without evidence, we are not required to take it at face value if we are to remain neutral. The "language space" of GG is part of the problem, and we need to work past that ourselves to be clear in presenting material neutrally, and make a difference between what is a Gamergate supporter that is interested in ethics issues, and people that just happen to use the #GG hashtag. The reason we have tons of people offsite interested in this article is that because our article takes the extreme view that the press has presented, that every one that has use the GG tag must be one of those that engaged in harassment (eg "Gamergate is misogynistic") and thus falsely accuses them of that. Yes, not a BLP situation per previously discussions, but something a neutral encyclopedia cannot take; we can be more careful and exact than the press has in this case. --MASEM (t) 19:06, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

What you're suggesting is textbook original research. Our job as Wikipedia editors is not to second-guess the conclusions of reliable sources or demand that they provide "evidence" we might believe is lacking. Indeed, by foundational policy, our articles are based entirely upon what reliable sources report. Our articles are to be based on the views presented by mainstream reliable sources, no matter how "extreme" you believe them to be. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 19:15, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

WP:BIAS is, as it states at the top, an essay which represents the viewpoint of some Wikipedia editors. By contrast, WP:FRINGE is a guideline which represents generally accepted standards and best practices for the encyclopedia. The fringe theories guideline specifically states, in relationship to fringe theories such as Gamergate's claims, that the encyclopedia shall not be used as a platform to counter systemic bias when and if systemic bias is alleged as a reason why such theories are not given greater credence in reliable sources. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 19:11, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

And as per FRINGE we are supposed to giver the GG side a completely fair, neutral small bit of coverage per weight of the sources. We have strong reliable sourcing to pull that out and coverage them in a completely neutral manner. The bulk of the press doesn't want to do that (calling out to "but ethics!" jokes and immediately ) but we can satisify the requirements of FRINGE and impartialness. --MASEM (t) 19:16, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

We do present Gamergate's claims. But we must immediately discuss the fact that their claims are rejected by essentially everyone else. That's "neutrality" in Wikipedia's sense. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 19:20, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

This would only be an issue if the article relied on gamer journalism for sources, but pointed out by others, the article uses ABC News, the NY Times, the Guardian, etc... There may still be places in the article where a gamer source can be replaced with a mainstream source that is making a similar claim, and once the topic area calms down after this case is done, then this can take place. Tarc (talk) 19:09, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

As I noted before, because journalism in general is being targetted in addition to the fact that women were harassed, we cannot assume that any mainstream source is purely neutral in this manner. The better quality sources like NYTimes attempt to take the least biased stance but they still make statements of opinion because of the emotionally heated story. --MASEM (t) 19:16, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

Here we go again. You are literally arguing a conspiracy theory by claiming that every mainstream reliable source which doesn't agree with Gamergate must be treated as part of some bad-faith, biased, secret-cabal-of-world-journalism conspiracy against Gamergate. This has no place on Wikipedia. None. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 19:25, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

Masem, the NY Times predates the Civil War and the Transcontinental Railroad; to suggest that their stalwart reporting is dubious because a pile of anonymous game players criticize the paper is disingenuous. You cannot impeach an impeccable reliable source with claims of emotion-driven writing without providing proof. Christ, even in the project's article on the Pentagon Papers, an article about the Times specifically, we cite them in the lead that the LBJ administration "systematically lied, not only to the public but also to Congress". If we can trust them enough to cite them in that article, we can certainly cite them unabashedly in this so-called "emotionally heated" article. Tarc (talk) 19:41, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

Agreed - We don't base our assessment concerning the reliability of sources on unverifiable conspiracy theories concocted by our own contributors. And frankly, the suggestion that this storm in a teacup is any more "emotionally heated" than the multitude of other subjects we cite the NYT for is somewhat ridiculous. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:57, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

Well, it's not that I was saying that the NYTimes (or any source) is unreliable, but that the emotion of the story has clearly affected how some sources have written the story. And in the specific case of the NYtimes, they are the least likely to have a bias. Given that, our WP article should follow the tone of the NYtimes article but it does not, it takes a much strong attack-based approach that some of the weaker RSes have done. --MASEM (t) 20:03, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

Can you explain why The Telegraph, The Atlantic, PBS NewsHour, The New Yorker, Columbia Journalism Review and The Guardian should be considered "weaker"? We already came to an agreement to remove all Gawker/BuzzFeed/Huffington Post/clickbait-type sources except those used to directly support claims related to those websites, and we've removed almost all of the video games journalism sources as well. What other sources do you want us to throw out? What I'm asking is, at what point are you willing to agree that our sources are indisputably reliable no matter what Gamergate supporters think? NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 20:08, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

Comment by others:

@TheRedPenOfDoom: ... seriously? That reaction really seems uncalled for to me. 76.64.35.209 (talk) 01:42, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

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)

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)

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 (Jenn Frank) 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)

Believing that all mainstream reliable sources are conspiring against Gamergate is a fringe conspiracy theory. What you're proposing sets a horrifying precedent. All any future movement has to do is attack all mainstream reliable sources as "biased" and under your theory, we'd have to treat all the mainstream reliable sources about that group as "involved" and be more sympathetic to that group? That is the opposite of WP:NPOV — that is adopting a sympathetic POV which considers Gamergate's allegations meaningful even if they are not. It is a core principle of Wikipedia that our articles are based on mainstream reliable sources, whether anyone particularly likes what those sources say or not. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 17:21, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

I am absolutely not saying that we have to act like there is a conspiracy from the press against Gamergate, just that the press is general is not a neutral party due to actions of GG themselves. Recognizing that past situations where a group, the center of a controversy, has called out the media as biased (say, Occupy Wall Street), they (those groups) don't do anything about it beyond making those complaints. Here , we are dealing with techno-literate users that have means (or at least possess the means and ability to do so) to influence the media directly beyond just issuing complaints - eg the attempts to sway advertisers, the attempts to discredit DiGRA members and of course, the ongoing harassment (whether done by the same people or not) Whether that's appropriate or not is not a question for us to answer, but this does say we should be aware that these efforts from the GG exist, that the media is aware they exist, and while mainstream and video game journalism are two separate beasts, the attitudes of the mainstream sources to this suggests a "circling of the wagons" to protect their own as well as themselves. Again, this is a rather unique and new situation that I've not seen to as this much a degree since the start of the Endless September. And of course, add to the fact that you have harassment/threats/doxxing of women, and very few sources will take any sympathy towards the GG side. I will stress again: this does not invalid any mainstream source that is nominal a high quality RS (and even more so we want these as sources that are normally distant from the manner), but they are going to be prone to speak more "off the cuff" and express opinions over facts. As editors we just have to be aware of that and make sure opinions remain expressed as opinions and not fact - that's the systematic bais discussed below. --MASEM (t) 17:32, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

Well yes, that's what you're saying. Your statement that the attitudes of the mainstream sources to this suggests a "circling the wagons" to protect their own as well as themselves is literally a claim that mainstream sources are conspiring against Gamergate for their own purposes. You appear to believe in this conspiracy. Wikipedia cannot.

What this finding boils down to is an argument that we have to change the way we write about Gamergate because Gamergate doesn't like the press coverage it's gotten. There is absolutely no precedent for Wikipedia considering all mainstream reliable sources not to be a neutral party merely because one side of a dispute doesn't like what those reliable sources say. That leads down an incredibly dangerous path for an encyclopedia foundationally based upon what reliable sources say about a subject. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 17:37, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

No, that's not what I'm saying at all. First, it is more than just "one side doesn't like the coverage it is getting", it is "one side doesn't like the coverage it is getting and is in a position to influence that by targeting the publications directly". But lets assume that that doesn't matter. The point is that we have a emotionally-charged subject matter, where the actions alone by the GG side (harassment) will never been reported in a positive light (nor should it), in addition to smaller other facets of GG's disorganization and anonymity; the emotional aspects of this story alone are enough to create systematic bias. The RSes have clearly established an opinionated approach to this matter (it is patently obvious that even some mainstream sources come out the door highly critical of GG for the harassment), and so we have to recognize where fact stops and opinion is drawn, and report that distinction properly in the WP article. This is not changing how we write about GG (there is no sourcing at all to flip it around to make the GG looks like the good guys, or the like), and I've said consistently the article presents the established facts of the case in nearly the appropriate manner that the press has reported, and most of the time clearly separates opinions from WP's voice with the correct source identification ("So and so said that..."). But the language choices, wording, and ordering are attempts to bring in the opinions of the press to a factual tone in WP's voice, eg "Gamergate is misogynistic" is strictly the press's opinion (by and large the predominate opinion) and yet it is attempted to be stated as fact on the article. --MASEM (t) 17:57, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

The article nowhere states in Wikipedia's voice that "Gamergate is misogynistic" so I'm not sure what you're arguing here. We state that the harassment emanating from sectors of Gamergate is misogynistic, but that is an uncontroverted fact. If what you are saying is that the article leaves the reader with the impression that "Gamergate is misogynistic," well, that's an accurate reflection of how the reliable sources view it, and what a reader should take away from a Wikipedia article is an accurate reflection of how reliable sources view that subject. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 20:23, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

No, it doesn't say this in exactly those words, but there are several places (described on talk page previously) that all but say it in WP's voice due to choice of words and structure. It toes that line. I've tried to offer more impartial restatements of the same context and sources without changing the weight of the sourcing, but only to be rebuffed, with claims like yours above "that's how RS present it". We have to recognize that the presentation in RS is tainted by at minimum the emotional facets of the GG issues, if not the unintential bias due to journalism being a target of GG here. --MASEM (t) 20:31, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

You're asking us to "recognize" something that you haven't even supported, much less proven. You haven't presented any evidence that "the presentation (of Gamergate) in reliable sources is tainted," unless you believe that the mere displeasure of Gamergate supporters is such evidence. The fact that people who are viewed negatively by reliable sources dislike being viewed negatively is not evidence, much less proof, that the viewpoint is unfair or "tainted" in any way. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 20:46, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

This case is about Wikepedia editor behavior; there is a core content issue that we should not expect Arbcom to touch, but it is required to explain the nature of the content situation to explain and provide appropriate evidence towards content. To this extent, it is simply a matter of pointing out that it is patently obvious that the bulk of the RS, even the high quality ones, border on opinion pieces than factual journalism (this can be similar to cases like the Tea Party scenario) and thus we have to separately their opinion from the facts in the manner that policy requires us to do, in an inpartial manner. And the fact that editors have refused discussions towards consensus on that issue is what the focus needs to be. --MASEM (t) 01:15, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

The problem with the concept of "bias" in this situation is that when any publication doesn't automatically kowtow to demands, or doesn't paint Gamergate advocates in a positive light, it suddenly becomes intractibly biased against Gamergate and then they decide to drag the websites into disreptute by using their social resources into taking them down so many pegs or even run them out of business. With a non-profit like Wikipedia where all of its contributors are unpaid volunteers, that means threats to not donate anymore (not that it seems like any of them did beforehand) and intimidate people they think are against them into silence. That is what should be examined here rather tahn some wishywashy "They're only mad because of a bias".—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 01:34, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

Ridiculous from the get go. Outside of the harassment, gamergate is a non notable nothing which is why it hasnt received any coverage - not some mass conspiracy by the media. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 20:14, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Even assuming there is "systematic bias" what do we do about it? If we are asked to try to tilt are article against that bias, that will never work (it would just lead to endless arguing as to if bias exists and how far to tilt the article). If the only thing we do is be careful to "identify statements of facts from statements of opinion" and present each as such, that is what we already should be doing (per NPOV). If the request is that we don't include reliable opinions (properly attributed) that represent most of the RS's because they are biased, that would not be appropriate (even assuming there is bias). Our job isn't to correct bias, but only to report on what has occurred. Let the reader decide if there is bias or not. --Obsidi (talk) 17:56, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

The key to this point is as you state: recognize facts from opinions, even if the opinion is something held by 99% of the sourcing out there. Opinions of reliable sources should be included just as long as they are documented as opinions. --MASEM (t) 17:59, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

@NorthBySouthBaranof: It is stated clearly in WP:VNT that Most sources do not state their opinions as opinions, but as facts: "The hypno-toad is supreme" is more likely to be found than "our opinion is that the hypno-toad is supreme, but there are others who disagree with us." It is the task of the Wikipedia editor to present opinions as opinions, not as facts stated in Wikipedia's voice. The RSes in question cannot possibly be determining "the harassment as misogynistic" to be a fact, but instead it is clearly their opinion being stated as fact. This is a consequence of the fact that they make no attempt to demonstrate the "misogyny" of the harassment, and have no argument beyond "woman was harassed therefore it was because she was a woman" - which is sexist and condescending in and of itself. If the point of this is to harass women qua women, then why are the notable figures claiming harassment countable on one's fingers, vs. literally millions of tweets on the hashtag? 76.64.35.209 (talk) 21:07, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

Your argument stems from the fact that the concept of "misogynistic" somehow entails a permanent state in a person's being rather than it being used as an adjective to describe the acts of the movement to attack women and feminist viewpoints. The acts made to intimidate women out of the industry can be defined as "misogynistic" as there's been no equal focus on any male indie devs.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 01:34, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

Flatly, I disagree. That's absurd. If a thunderstorm occurs and some women are struck and killed by lightning while no men are, those lightning strikes were not misogynistic, nor can nature be labelled such. Further, men certainly have been harassed, and there's no reason to restrict this to "indie devs" since to the best of my knowledge, only two of the women claiming harassment are in this category. 76.64.35.209 (talk) 03:02, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

Your comparison is what's absurd. And Gamergate is characterized by its advocate's attacks on women in particular, particularly at its outset. It attacked them because they were women with opinions. It attacked them because of sexism. It attacked men who dared to speak out against the attacks on women. It's attacked women possess feminist viewpoints while praising anyone who is anti-feminist (even if that person proclaims to be a feminist herself).—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 03:10, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

@Ryulong: If you actually believe that's how Gamergate operates, I eagerly await your evidence of the campaigns against the Washington Post, the Guardian, the New York Times etc. etc. that presumably must exist in that case. 76.64.35.209 (talk) 03:02, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

Gamergate knows it has no power to ruin actual newspapers so they only go after the usual video game websites, unless they appease them somehow (ie The Escapist).—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 03:10, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

Emotion-driven editing

2) The situation around GamerGate has created a situation where there is a good deal of emotional-driven editing from both sides: Many who have great detest of the Gamergate movement due to the behavior and actions associated with the group (including harassment of females) and want the WP article to reflect that point, and many from the Gamergate camp that have felt they have been unfairly treated by the press and want the WP article to correct that. While having any opinion on a topic is in no way an actionable issue under WP policy, nor an immediate problem with editing, editors must not let such emotions get in the way of proper editing towards WP's neutral position, and in consensus-developing discussions as per WP:NPOV, WP:NOT#OPINION, WP:CIVIL, WP:BATTLEGROUND, and WP:COI.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

A key problem is that the editors are driven strongly by emotions in both directions; we need to remain clinically neutral and that means editing without letting emotions drive the tone of the article. --MASEM (t) 04:17, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

I dont think you can attribute editing the article to focus on "the behavior and actions associated with the group (including harassment of females) and want the WP article to reflect that point" with the editors being "emotionally driven" - "the behavior and actions associated with the group (including harassment of females)" is the entire foundation upon which reliable sources have covered gamergate and WP:UNDUE states that we should as well- ie- non-emotionally driven objective representation of the sources per policy. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 04:14, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

Except that:

• Many (not all, and not at the highest reliability) of the sources reporting on GG take an emotional town either (or both) sympathetic to those harassed, or a very condemning tone to those that did the harassing. That makes our job harder in separating opinion from fact in such sources.
• Many editors have argued on the talk page in a very emotional way (MarkBernstein's comments toward me are the most predominate but there have been others), that any attempt to legitimize the harassment of women or anyone is a bad, evil thing. I think everyone involved clearly agrees that harassment is morally wrong, but there is a degree to which to take that hatred into the development of a Wiki article which is meant to be neutral. It has prevented people from seeing clearly how to include rational discussion of the GG side as they see any attempt to legitimize any factor out of GG as legitimizing the harassment, which is clearly not the case. There is a way to present an impartial take on the GG side, followed by the huge bulk of sources from the media that will call them out on their claims; we should not be interjecting our emotions on top of that, which is what is continuing to happen. --MASEM (t) 16:58, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

MarkBernstein's commentary aside, please present any evidence that the article is inappropriately emotional or that any editor's "emotional" commentary on the talk page is because of inappropriate connection to the harassed and not exasperation at having to deal with unending inappropriate IDNHT BLP violations on the talkpage/article? -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 17:48, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

It's actually rather difficult to point to any single diff or even a small set of diffs to show this, it is only by the fact I've been there from the start I can see what emotions editors are using in writing about this. One aspect for example, as I've cited in evidence, is the refusal to call the group of supporters of GG a self-described "movement" or being able to document their so-called claims about ethics in a fair manner (both we can source), and treating the whole group as the press has done of being guilty of harassment, which WP cannot do; we have to not take any position. For the most part those with strong emotions against GG are not willing to give any type of neutral coverage of the group even though neutral, impartial approaches have been pointed out many times. I would consider the extra claims latched onto Mark's case against me by other editors as another demonstration of the emotional controversy that developing the article has become. Editors can pre-judge groups all they want, and it's pretty clear than when are talking about harassment against women devs/journalists to the extent they got, people are going to rather upset over that (I did too). That anger has borne out in the discussions - itself is fine as long as CIVIL is kept in check, but this has affected particularly the treatment of newer editors (see evidence against Ryulong for a clear example). Yes, the constant stream of IPs and SPAs that are here to purposely disrupt does not help, but the emotions driving some editors are also failing to AGF as we are supposed to do until proven otherwise. All these elements have led to a very emotionally heated situation from the event itself and from the outside actions that are not helping matters. I also do want to make clear it is not just the established editors at fault here, it's the newer editors that are likely GG supporters that are themselves emotionally investigate since, as noted, the media is broadly targetting them all as harassers and misogynistics so they have vested emotional interest to make sure WP's article doesn't speak that claim in WP's voice. This FOF is not meant as necessarily a negative, but simply that this debate is seeped in emotional reactions. --MASEM (t) 18:17, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

It's not "emotion-driven" to state that the overwhelming majority of reliable sources view the movement's "but ethics" claims as a disingenuous smokescreen for harassment. Nor is it "neutral" or "impartial" to downplay the blatant misogyny present in the harassment of Gamergate's targets, as you have tried to do. Nor is it "neutral" or "impartial" to remove all mention of sexism, misogyny and harassment from the lead sentence, as you have tried to do. This finding is simply an attempt to present yourself as some sort of neutral arbiter on a higher plane who isn't "emotion-driven," but that is simply not so. You have an opinion about this like all of us, and your opinion about this is no more or less "neutral" and "impartial" than anyone else's. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 19:14, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

Having opinions and having emotions are two different things. Opinions are something we have to work out through consensus editing. The problem is that when one is emotionally pressed to present their opinion as the only option, or when they refuse to acknowledge other opinions because they are emotionally charged about the topic. Mark may have been an extreme in this regard, but other editors on the page trend towards that (again, difficult to point to any specific sets of editors, its the broader attitude that one witnesses over time), on both sides. The reason I consider myself neutral is because I have very little emotional investment on the whole GG subject, and thus can see the problems with how both sides are trying to argue the article with emotions on their sleeves. There's no way we can reprimand anyone for that alone (nor expect that to be actionable as long as it stays civil), but it is something to flag as an issue in the situation. --MASEM (t) 19:29, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

When only one side of a debate views your actions as "neutral," that's probably a good indication that you're not actually neutral. "Based Masem" indeed. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 19:36, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

At least he isn't getting paid by one side. ZING! But in all seriousness, leddit is NOT a reliable source. For an actual argument, very few people even consider giving the pro-gg side a chance to talk. Whoever does lend an ear, as I've seen, is showered with praise (at least in the souper spooky irc channel on Rizon, access to my informant), even if they are neutral, or moderately anti-gg. --DSA510 Pls No Bully 23:17, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

As noted in my brilliant evidence section, GG pretty much believes everyone who doesn't explicitly condemn them on an hourly basis is secretly on their side. Bosstopher (talk) 23:47, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

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}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed enforcement

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. Editors engaging in off wiki conduct are expected to be civil as they represent the community when they out themselves as wikipedians.

Comment by Arbitrators:

We have repeatedly stated that off-wiki conduct can be taken into account here where it has a significant and foreseeable negative effect on the Wikipedia editing environment, such as in cases of persistent and serious harassment, or overt offsite coordination of editing to skew article content against consensus. Offsite behavior such as good-faith criticism, mere teasing, and suggesting that people might wish to edit an article is insufficient to warrant sanctions. While it would be nice if people promoting themselves as Wikipedians acted with decorum elsewhere as well as here, we surely have enough trouble defining and enforcing civility on Wikipedia itself without trying to do so on the rest of the Internet. Newyorkbrad (talk) 02:10, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

Comment by others:

Well then Its about time something is done about that. I cannot believe that comments such as this [56] about other editors should be tolerated by the community. Making such comments offsite avoids scrutiny Avono (talk) 10:45, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

I think a previous principle would conflict with this (It assumes too much responsibility for all WP policies) Off-wiki_conduct: "A user's conduct outside of Wikipedia, including participation in websites or mailing lists in which Wikipedia or its contributors are discussed, is generally not subject to Wikipedia policies or sanctions, except in extraordinary circumstances such as those involving grave acts of overt and persistent harassment or threats or other serious misconduct. The factors to be evaluated in deciding whether off-wiki conduct may be sanctioned on-wiki include whether the off-wiki conduct was intended to, and did, have a direct and foreseeable damaging effect on the encyclopedia or on members of the community." --Obsidi (talk) 16:14, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

I agree that for the most part it's not Wikipedia's job to sanction editors formally for off-wiki behaviour - after all, to the best of my knowledge, other sites generally do not sanction anyone for their Wikipedia edits. However, in the current case, it seems like off-wiki behaviour is largely being pointed at in order to establish essential context for things like bias (while in theory editors are allowed to be personally biased as long as they hold to NPOV in editing, in practice I strongly suspect that people just try to be more subtle about it) and collusion/WP:TAGTEAM behaviour, or especially as evidence of things like paid advocacy (since I assume nobody would be brazen enough to arrange that on their own talk page). 76.64.35.209 (talk) 16:37, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

Proposals by previously involved YellowSandals

Proposed principles

Attribute Points of View

1) Points of view include moral assumptions about a person or group. Though the bulk of the press has presumed negative morals to the subject of the article, this opinion remains the point of view of the press. It is easy to verify and even find articles, however, that plainly state the people involved in the article's subject do not hold the same point of view as those condemning them. To be specific, it is inappropriate to directly insult a group in Wikipedia's voice by insinuating or accusing them of being "misogynists".

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Not supported by evidence or policy.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 21:32, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

Ryulong, please cite evidence demonstrating that Wikipedia has ever supported the direct moral condemnation of an article's subject by Wikipedia in Wikipedia's voice. Alternatively, cite evidence revealing that the motives of those reported on within the article are verifiable and universally agreed upon by all parties involved in the article's subject. It is Wiki policy to attribute points of view where divergent points of view are relevant. Wikipedia is not a place for moral absolutes. YellowSandals (talk) 19:39, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

You are framing this as a content dispute rather than an inquest on user behavior.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 04:58, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Template

2) {text of Proposed principle}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed findings of fact

Template

1) {text of proposed finding of fact}

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.

Start Over

1) Regardless of what else is decided, the current article should be scrapped and begun again with a fresh face. The current article is bloated and often goes into extended diatribes and quote farming about the subject's most useless minutia. It is not especially valuable to a reader and does an exceptionally poor job of expressing how or why the controversy came to be. The current article is too large for a realistic re-write, especially with the clumsy use of charged headers to preface stances on the subject.

Comment by Arbitrators:

This is a content issue, and therefore outside the scope of an arbcom decision. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:47, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Not supported by evidence or precedent.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 21:33, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

YellowSandles I suggest splitting the proposed facts here from the solution. It's easier to present evidence for etc. EDIT: I believe I added this, sorry for not signing HalfHat

Comment by others:

Template

2) {text of proposed remedy}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed enforcement

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 Roger Davies

Proposed principles

Battlefield conduct

1) 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. Use of the site to pursue personal 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.

Comment by Arbitrators:

At first sight, this seems relevant,  Roger Davies ^talk 16:53, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

Agreed, although I'm not sure the adjective "personal" is the most apropos. Also, while this principle is quite valid, it should not be applied (and I don't suggest anyone would apply it) simplistically to draw and equivalence between feuding editors whose level of decorum or misconduct is not comparable. Newyorkbrad (talk) 23:19, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Conduct during arbitration cases

2) 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.

Comment by Arbitrators:

The sheer volume of squabbling thus far seems to justify this,  Roger Davies ^talk 16:53, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

Absolutely. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:45, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

@Bosstopher: I would say they are best not made on case pages. LFaraone 01:28, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

This principle is sound and is plainly applicable here. To the query below, arbitration is not the best forum for "jokes and silly remarks," but I suppose I would rather have more silly remarks if it meant fewer hateful ones. Newyorkbrad (talk) 23:21, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

On the issue of "decorum": There have been a few complaints about joking and a lack of seriousness during arbitration cases being innappropriate.[57][58][59][60]. Could there be a clarification on whether jokes and silly remarks (not made at the expense of others) fit under "appropriate decorum?" Bosstopher (talk) 21:26, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

Enough is enough

3) 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.

Comment by Arbitrators:

This may also be appropriate,  Roger Davies ^talk 16:53, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

Indeed, this is certainly the direction I see this case heading in. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:45, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

The community sanctions appear to be doing their best to take control of this considering the worst offenders keep getting banned. It's simply the aftermath of the ban (accusations of beinb WP:INVOLVED) that seem to be the biggest problem, considering much of the rest of this case is a content dispute propagated by external forces.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 04:51, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

Comment by others:

The principle in the past has been called "At Wit's End" and is sometimes written as: "In cases where all reasonable attempts to control disruption have failed, the Committee may be forced to adopt seemingly draconian measures as a last resort for preventing further damage to the project." Concur. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:46, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

Proposed findings of fact

Template

1) {text of proposed finding of fact}

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:

Proposals by Tutelary

Proposed principles

Discussion of bias

The factor of whether a Wikipedia article is biased or not is to be debated civilly among Wikipedians on the appropriate talk page, but care must be taken to cite actual bias within the article and not perceived bias, so that it may continue to be debated so that consensus may be reached. Discussions of the neutral point of view of an article should be encouraged, not halted.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Per NPOV disputes. Tutelary (talk) 21:12, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

While discussion is encouraged, the 15 archive pages created in 3 months are pretty indicative that lack of discussion has not been an issue here. WP:IDNHT on the other hand ... -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 12:43, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Could you clarify what objective standard you would apply to distinguish 'actual bias' from 'perceived bias'? AndyTheGrump (talk) 07:43, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

Template

2) {text of Proposed principle}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed findings of fact

Ryulong has repeatedly edit warred on the GamerGate article

1) The Wikipedia editor User:Ryulong has been reported to WP:AN3 multiple times with gross three revert violations and each time has received no resulting sanction, even after edit warring to 15RR.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Per evidence. Tutelary (talk) 21:12, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

If there was no sanction then what does this prove?—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 21:27, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

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.

Community Sanctions to ArbCom Sanctions

1) The community discretionary sanctions are thereby upgraded to ArbCom sanctions for the sole and express purpose of using WP:AE for larger participation by uninvolved administrators, negating 'uninvolved' remarks.

Comment by Arbitrators:

We have done this in the past, most notably in the Climate change case. I would appreciate input from administrators involved in sanctions enforcement, in this matter and in AE, on whether this would be helpful. I note that the reference to 1000 editors watching AE below may be inadvertently misleading because many of those editors are likely to be editors active in topic-areas currently covered by discretionary sanctions or other remedies from past, unrelated cases, who would not be interested in enforcing (and if not admins would be unable to enforce) sanctions on other topics. Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:43, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Pretty amicable. Many complaints about the general enforcement page by both sides. Tutelary (talk) 02:29, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

What do you define as "involved" and "uninvolved"?—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 02:59, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

That's not necessary. My reasoning is that WP:AE has 1000+ watchers, while the little subpage has about 60+ (I believe, I haven't checked it lately). The same admins are dealing with the same people and since there have been credible WP:INVOLVED complaints about administrators, having new eyes to look at these situations is truly beneficial. There's far more likely to be uninvolved admins--never made a comment about GamerGate in their entire wiki career but can interpret sanctions like no other and the like looking at these situations. Tutelary (talk) 03:09, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

But the issue has been that once someone enforces the sanctions they are accused of being involved.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 03:28, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

Comment by others:

The evidence of "admins being WP:INVOLVED" that I'm seeing, at least from TDA, doesn't appear to be based on enforcing the sanctions. Rather, TDA's complaints about Gamaliel are about how Gamaliel has enforced the sanctions while already involved. 76.64.35.209 (talk) 05:17, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

If he had never edited the page or involved himself in the dispute, how can he be involved?—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 05:45, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

Isn't it ultimately irrelevant whether any of the admins are actually involved or not? If it is true, then it solves the problem of involved admins. If it's not true, then it makes unfounded accusations of involvement nigh impossible without implying every single admin watching WP:AE is part of the conspiracy. It's a win, win situation for everyone regardless of what the actual truth of the matter is. Bosstopher (talk) 16:14, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

Gamaliel's current ongoing sanctions are declared void for GamerGate

2) As a result of his nature to being involved, any ongoing sanction relating to GamerGate issued by Gamaliel is voided by the arbitration committee. There however will not be a retraction for currently expired blocks/sanctions.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Even assuming solely for the sake of argument that we were to ask a given administrator to step away from this topic-area, which I am not at all suggesting we would at this point, I don't think it would be helpful to thereby vacate every action that administrator ever took. If an editor who was sanctioned wants to make the case that the sanction applied to him or her was unjustified or disproportionate, he or she may do so. Newyorkbrad (talk) 23:24, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Per evidence, mainly The Devil's Advocate's. I also don't wish for this to be centered mainly around 'Oh, this editor got topic banned by this admin and she just wants to do this so she get untopic banned!' I do have an inherent bias that I can't get rid of, because yes, Gamaliel topic banned me. I'm iffy towards that for other reasons, but it's since been proven that he's not sufficiently uninvolved to be issuing GamerGate sanctions in the first place. I've tried to make this as neutral as possible. Tutelary (talk) 23:08, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

What level of involvement is there other than being dragged into this as a so-called party?—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 23:09, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

I'd rather not repeat what has already been stated on the evidence page. Tutelary (talk) 23:17, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

If I was asked by the drafting arbitrator to show every single piece of evidence I had to support my proposals I don't see any reason you're exempt.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 23:22, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

WP:POINT. Per evidence, mainly The Devil's Advocate's. Let them ask me. (Note that I just added the "'s" on the end, copy edit.) Tutelary (talk) 23:25, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

Doesn't seem to be supported by the evidence, unless we stretch WP:INVOLVED so far beyond the boundaries of rationality as to render it impossible for administrators to effectively enforce sanctions. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 07:38, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

I've added more evidence of such, since TDA's was a bit lacking on face value. Tutelary (talk) 19:42, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

No, that's not really evidence of such. As per WP:INVOLVED, 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'. What I see in your links is advice about how Wikipedia is written, advice on community norms on reliable sources, including noting that particular sources are generally considered reliable or unreliable, and the removal of a totally incoherent and unhelpful talk page post. Neither you nor anyone else has presented evidence that Gamaliel argued for or against the inclusion or exclusion of any particular point of view, or that he argued for or against any specific article content. Moreover, your claim that Gamaliel "hatted" a discussion is false — the diff you include shows him closing an unproductive thread with {{archive}}, but he did not hide it using the {{hat}} function. There is a substantial difference between those functions.

I repeat myself, if we consider those actions to be "involvement," we reach far beyond any previous understanding of the term and stretch it beyond all meaning. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 22:50, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

HJ Mitchell, it's in my evidence section Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/GamerGate/Evidence#My_topic_ban_by_Gamaliel_is_out_of_process_and_by_an_involved_admin point #5. (Ignore the other ones, that's with the particular topic ban of mine which I don't want this to be the basis of.) Again, he participated on the talk page of the article and reasoned with arguments for and against things but ceased that to attempt to become 'uninvolved' again. Tutelary (talk) 00:48, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

Comment by others:

It might be illustrative if you were able to provide the diffs, Tutelary. PeterTheFourth (talk) 01:15, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

• (Uninvolved observer) @Tutelary: Could you provide evidence for Gamaliel's alleged involvement (or link, with an explanation, to a section on the evidence page)? I've seen the allegation made several times, but I've not (yet) seen credible proof. I'm open-minded, but I'd like to get to the bottom of the matter—I'm not a fan of admin (ab|mis)use any more than you are; it gives the rest of us a bad name and we have a hard enough job as it is. But nor am I a fan of hurling mud around in the hope that some of it will stick. (I don't think you specifically are doing the latter, but I'm seeing plenty of it from both sides). HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 22:30, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

I saw this edit as explicitly talking about the content of the article on the article's talk page. I also saw the edit summary on this edit say that Gamaliel personally believes "gamer misogeny is a widespread trend that should be documented" and this edit again talking about Gamaliel's belief in a "widespread gamer misogyny". These comments go to the heart of the content dispute in a way that is beyond just an admin using their tools in a way that someone thinks is biased due to selective enforcement. We have the uninvolved requirement because "involved administrators may have, or may be seen as having, a conflict of interest in disputes they have been a party to or have strong feelings about." "Involvement is generally construed very broadly by the community, to include current or past ... disputes on topics, regardless of the nature, age, or outcome of the dispute." In this case Gamaliel has clearly expressed "strong feelings about" "widespread gamer misogyny" and as such is involved in that topic. (all these links are in various evidence sections, so I am not introducing any new evidence here) --Obsidi (talk) 02:48, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

It is highly misleading to cite those edit summaries without noting that they are from edits that were made 17 months ago to an entirely unrelated article. In no way can those edits be construed as "involvement" in the current dispute. At best, they present evidence that Gamaliel has an opinion on a broader issue to which Gamergate is related, and admins are not prohibited from taking action on disputes that relate to issues where they hold opinions. An opinion is not involvement. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 02:59, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

17 months ago is irrelevant, as the policy says that involvement is "regardless of the... age... of the dispute." I think accusations of "gamer misogyny" is the core topic about which the content dispute over gamergate is about. I mean the first line of the article currently is "The Gamergate controversy began in August 2014 and concerns misogyny and harassment in video game culture." I don't think accusations of "gamer misogyny" is tangential at all to the gamergate controversy (and what most of the disagreement about content is about as well). Maybe you disagree, but that is the argument. --Obsidi (talk) 03:28, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

You know, when an admin in the course of their voluntary service finds themselves repeatedly explaining Wikipedia policy in good faith to other editors, and then sadly having to exercise and enforce that policy by using their powers, within reason, that does not make them "involved" in some dispute. Moreover, admins are human and if they're like me they have an opinion in pretty much everything. Having an opinion doesn't prevent an admin being able to exercise good judgement. --TS 04:01, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

I agree that having an opinion does not inherently make one involved and will propose a principle in due time to note the distinction.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 09:08, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

Proposed enforcement

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 The Devil's Advocate

Proposed principles

Involved admins

1) Administrators are generally expected to recuse from taking administrative actions when they have strong personal feelings regarding the subject, especially if they have been directly involved in a dispute. This expectation allows action in cases of obvious vandalism and obvious BLP violations, but less clear cases should be decided by an uninvolved admin. Merely taking action against editors for conduct issues, explaining policy to editors, or acting as an impartial mediator, is not sufficient to make an admin involved. Even when an admin's conduct is challenged or found to be in error this does not inherently make said admin involved regarding the overall subject.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

People keep insisting that I am suggesting every admin named as a party is involved, but I have never said that as this is not consistent with the letter or spirit of the policy. I think it is also established by policy that a finding of misconduct is not sufficient to make them involved either. The principle is that an admin is involved if their views on a subject are likely to cloud their judgment. While this is best established by admins directly engaging in the dispute, it is not intended to be so limited in scope either. Having an opinion, however, is not sufficient since you are likely to find plenty of subjects where just about everyone has an opinion.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 06:17, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Administrator conduct

2) Conduct by administrators should show good judgment and respect for the letter and spirit of the policies regarding editorial and administrative conduct. When using their tools administrators are expected to act only when necessary to minimize disruption and their actions should only be as harsh or as lenient as necessary. They are not to be used in a punitive fashion. Admins are accountable for their actions and are expected to respond to good faith concerns regarding their use of the tools. Repeated administrative misconduct may be cause for removal of the tools or restriction of their use.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Basic description of the kind of conduct desirable in admins.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 06:17, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Closing of community discussions

3) Discussions at conduct noticeboards and article talk pages are necessary to insure both conduct and content are handled in a judicious fashion. Except for the usual exceptions such as BLP or privacy violations, best practice is for such discussions to be closed by an uninvolved party after there has been a reasonable time allowed for discussion among editors regarding the matter that has been brought up for discussion. Where admin action is requested, it is preferable that the close be done by an uninvolved admin who has allowed sufficient opportunity for discussion of any action that has or may be taken.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

There are undoubtedly certain allowances for uninvolved and involved editors to take action to minimize disruption beyond the normal exceptions, but the basic principles guiding admin conduct should also apply to any actions that have the effect of ruling on a conduct or content dispute.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 06:17, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

The 15 pages of talk page archives created in 3 months suggest that hatting and closing of repetitive topics should be engaged MORE frequently, not less. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 14:21, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Revision deletion and suppression

4) Certain tools are available to admins to hide the contents of revisions and logs under a strict and limited set of criteria agreed to by the community as a way to minimize harm. Such measures should not be taken where reversion or redaction will suffice. The use of these tools is subject to the same standards as all admin conduct, including expectations regarding involved admins with exceptions for obvious cases. Oversight tools are reserved to a smaller number of approved admins for use in particularly egregious cases.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

No evidence supporting this has any relevance here. That the same people who are claiming a mass conspiracy in the media are suspicious of a conspiracy among admins is more indicative that they are a group who sees conspiracy everywhere rather than an indication that any actual conspiracies exist. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 14:16, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Misconduct by multiple admins

5) Where a dispute has seen inappropriate actions by multiple admins, including involved or excessive use of the tools, it can create a crisis of confidence in the normal community processes. Should those actions primarily or exclusively favor one side in a content dispute it can have the effect of unduly prejudicing discussions about content.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Thus far I have seen little credible evidence of misconduct by any administrator, much less multiple ones. Newyorkbrad (talk) 14:12, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

This is more or less the point I am getting at regarding admin conduct on this matter. When involved admins are deleting the revisions other involved admins are citing as evidence for sanctions or involved admins are rapidly closing discussions after severe sanctions have been imposed by an admin based on little to no community input regarding allegations of misconduct that are debatable at least, the end result is it creates the impression that "the fix is in" regarding a content dispute. End result is you have editors on one side who feel they can escalate their misconduct or disregard concerns without having to be held accountable and editors on another who feel like there is no way for them to seek redress for misconduct directed at them.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 06:17, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

Brad, could you explain what you would consider credible evidence? I would think admins taking major actions while involved would be credible evidence of misconduct. Are you suggesting that Gamaliel is not involved, that Cuchullain is not involved, or that Black Kite is not involved? While BLP gives admins some latitude, it has already been established in the Manning case that invoking BLP does not give an admin free reign and that is the principle of all the policies I noted above. I think that should go double when an admin is deciding on sanctions against other editors.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 02:15, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

When one side is persistently and flagrantly using Wikipedia pages to spread vicious, unmitigated personal attacks, false allegations and pernicious innuendoes against living people in furtherance of an international-headline-making campaign of harassment against those people, it stands to reason that there's going to be a lot of reason to use revision deletion and BLP-related blocks and topic bans "against" that side. As has been amply demonstrated by the evidence presented, that is, in fact, what has happened here. There is no community "crisis of confidence" in a process that has blocked and topic-banned people responsible for using Wikipedia as a weapon of character assassination. As this case demonstrates, there are a number of editors who support the Gamergate POV who have been able to make their case in a manner that doesn't violate fundamental content policies and basic human decency, and none of them are topic-banned. What has been punished here is not a particular POV, but behaviors that indicate an editor is here to use Wikipedia in furtherance of a harassment campaign rather than to build an encyclopedia. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 12:29, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

Stuff like this bothers me immensely, it's like some weird and warped perversion of small-l libertarianism. Not every side in a debate is right, nor does every side get an equal seat at the table. If admin action is being taken against one "side" more than the other, the automatic assumption shouldn't be "OMG BAD BIASES ADMINS!", like some knee-jerk, inherent mistrust of authority. I myself have been brought before ANI, 3RR, and the GG sanctions during all this and in each case, the accusations were found to be wanting. That's not "OMG BIAS", it is just the fact that other people who have been sanctioned in this have behaved terribly, while I have not. Tarc (talk) 14:29, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

Comment by others:

I believe that the evidence that Gamaliel has used his tools while INVOLVED (not involved in the dispute in the plain English sense, but INVOLVED in the WP jargon for not-entirely-objective sense) is credible, hence my proposed FoF below. I've seen nothing credible presented against any other admin thus far, and I'm not the first to suggest that TDA is attempting to impugn the reputation of admins he disagrees with and sling mud at the admin corps as a whole. The "evidence" against Dreadstar amounts to "he sanctioned the editor I like and he didn't sanction the editor I don't like" (the rest is clearly him acting in an admin capacity and not getting involved in the fray); noting presented against Black Kite sows him getting involved in discussions of content (as opposed to policy) or expressing an opinion on the subject matter; the only thing credible against Cuchullain is the edit though protection, which is a worth a trout, maybe an admonishment, but certainly nothing tangible unless you can demonstrate bad faith or a pattern of poor judgement; you haven't provided any diffs of Bilby's involvement, just links to analysis tools, and I see no problem with any of those RevDels (in fact I'm astonished that one of the RevDel'd edits didn't result in an immediate and permanent block for the editor responsible). The more I look at this, the more I think these admins have been quite conservative in their approach—there are at least three editors who are either temporarily blocked or not blocked at all whom I would have indef'd without hesitation. As for one-sidedness, neither side smells of roses, but the "pro" side seems to have more editors behaving abhorrently than the "anti"—I've made at least two blocks on the "anti" side (Ryulong briefly and ReynTime indefinitely), but I've indef'd several SPAs on the "anti" side for a variety of obvious policy violations: DownWIthSJWs, Uncle Crimbo, Torga (plus sockfarm, including an account created to impersonate Ryulong), and I think there might have been a couple of others. That's not to say that either side is "right" (both sides could disappear and not come back for me and I don't care to examine the controversy itself any further), but it does appear to me that one side is attracting more admin attention because more (but certainly not the only) egregious policy violations are coming from that side. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 03:01, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

I am not sure what you mean about Black Kite as the edits he made regarding the DDoS attack on the Escapist GamerGate thread are hardly covered under discussions of policy: [61] [62]. This also did not seem appropriate. Going to the Gender Gap Task Force and calling on editors there to watch an article for "misogynistic" edits reeks of canvassing.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 05:10, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

Given the number of inarguably-misogynistic and undisputedly-vandalous edits on pages related to Zoe Quinn that have been entered into evidence, asking editors to watch for misogynistic edits on those pages seems like, well, something that every right-thinking Wikipedia editor concerned with ensuring the project depicts living people accurately and with basic human decency in mind would do. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 06:21, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

Were Black Kite to have cited vandalism or BLP that would be one thing, but "misogynistic edits" is pretty vague and up for interpretation. In context, there was no activity at the time suggesting vandalism or BLP violations were a serious concern in need of outside attention. There was a lot of civil discussion about how to phrase content regarding the harassment and allegations.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 07:27, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

Oh really? All these edits say otherwise. Both articles were protected due to a slew of BLP violations, many of them misogynistic in nature, only 3 days before Black Kite's post. Claiming that there was no need of outside attention to two biographical-related articles under such vehement partisan attack that they had to be full-protected for a week appears to be a textbook example of WP:NOTGETTINGIT. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 08:09, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

I think citing stuff from days prior to his posting and from right after his posting is not addressing why Black Kite posted that message at that time. He again, did not say "BLP violations" or "vandalism" but "misogynistic edits" so that and the fact there had been no issues with BLP or vandalism for days makes it look more like an attempt to canvass editors to have them engage in the ongoing content dispute.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 09:11, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

Proposed findings of fact

Locus of dispute

1) The controversy centered around the GamerGate hashtag has been described as either being chiefly about allegations of ethical issues in video game journalism or issues with harassment and diversity in the gaming community. Disputes on Wikipedia have generally centered on emphasizing or downplaying one of those perspectives in relation to the other on all related pages, including material covered under the policy on biographies of living people. Such disputes have focused on the controversy's origins as well as the demographics, motivations, and activities, of the people using the hashtag. These disputes have included significant off-wiki discussion in various fora connected to these differing perspectives that has led to canvassing and harassment of editors on both sides. Various forms of discretionary sanctions have been available to admins to deal with the resulting misconduct, though the use of these sanctions in certain cases has been controversial.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

A workable take on all the related issues in play in the dispute. May be a tad too long, though.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 06:19, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

Pretty fair, but should mention that there is an unambiguous consensus of mainstream reliable sources on one side of the dispute, and that central to the dispute has been how to properly weigh the competing claims in this light. This includes allegations that this consensus of mainstream reliable sources should be viewed as inherently biased for various reasons, and that for that reason we should downplay or neutralize this consensus mainstream viewpoint. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 06:51, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

NBSB has hit on a very key issue - the relentless "yes all the reliable sources say X, but... [add conspiracy of involving all media] or [claims that following all of the sources is not fair to GG ] " -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 18:17, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Ryulong

2) Ryulong has repeatedly and egregiously breached 3RR, inserted BLP violations to article and talk pages, engaged in POV-pushing, disruptively edited to make a point, cast aspersions on large groups of editors, and been otherwise hostile towards numerous individuals on and off-wiki including subjects he made BLP-violating edits about. Despite being repeatedly warned and asked to step away from the topic area due to these issues and repeatedly promising to comply with such requests, he has continued to get involved in disputes related to GamerGate even after agreeing to receive financial support from people involved in the controversy and thus creating a potential conflict of interest.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Supported by my evidence, Logan's evidence, and east718's evidence, as well as several other evidence submissions about Ryulong. A point-by-point layout could be better for such a finding given the various problems being cited.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 06:19, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

Fine, I edit warred. But your "BLP violations" are complete bull. They're either not intentional or simply things you do not agree with being in the article because of your own bias. Surely you could have reported me to ANI or whatever beforehand considering you've dug up several dozen diffs that apparently show my BLP violations (like you did in that stupid boomerang worthy thread on ANI) but you've waited for this case to do so. None of your "BLP violations" that you claim others have done hold any water. Being a crappy writer is not malicious intent, which is what WP:BLP is intended for. If nothing was actionable before this case was opened, then nothing's actionable during the case itself. In addition, any money I may have received has been seen by the community at large as irrelevant.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 06:31, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

@The Devil's Advocate: - if you haven't, can you consider the evidence I brought up as well? I do not intend to make a topic on this workshop. Also, to Ryulong, some offenses on their own may be overlooked. Put all the offenses together, and we have a big problem. starship.paint ~ regal 13:10, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

If these weren't actionable before and particularly when TDA went out of his way to repeatedly post these on ANI to try to boomerang a thread on me then they're not actionable now either. Nine if the diffs that any of you have picked out show intentional malice against any people.mthat stupid "blacklisting" piece was actually supported on the talk page and suggested by several editors but TDA suddenly decides to go "this is a BLP" violation as soon as I have the balls to add it.mhe has done this to nearly every edit I have done to the page. He has taken it out of context and said "look at Ryulong being a BLP violator" when he could have reported me for this same shit months ago but that is clearly not the case. He waited for an arbitration case to prepare this lynching and that "previously involved IP editor" is feeding him shit too.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 19:12, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

@76.64.35.209: iOS corrections. And what edit of mine are you applying this to? The addition of Adam Baldwin in the list of conservatives? The statement that Gjoni is implicitly responsible for all of this? And unintentional BLP violations are aplenty here rather than actual malicious intent which is what people do get punished for BLP violations. It's why half of the people have been banned from the topic area already under general sanctions. Did I write badly? Maybe. But TDA has been presenting everything as if I intended to intentionally violate BLP when he himself had made statements much worse that were toeing the line.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 20:49, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

@76.64.35.209: Just because that one word is not found in sources, yet every single source out there describes the acts he took in a negative light, does not mean that there was a BLP violation.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 03:07, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Okay. First off, I called myself "previously involved", not "uninvolved", because as of the case request, that seemed like the most accurate label. The one diff I showed TDA is one I ended up using myself, and frankly, it's hard for me to AGF and accept poor writing as an excuse when the diff involves elaborating on an existing phrase about "harassment" by adding a clear, unsupported, and false attribution of who it was "by".

But regardless, I see nothing in BLP policy that requires malice, and the only accusation of malice I can infer from TDA's evidence section is not related to the BLP claims. I also have no idea what "context" can make apparent BLP violations not so. 76.64.35.209 (talk) 20:02, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

I indeed meant the part about rewriting the lede. Saying harassment... by an ex-boyfriend is not making him "implicitly responsible"; it's directly implicating him. As for the general question of intent, I believe I've already made my thoughts clear on the matter. 76.64.35.209 (talk) 02:09, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

The word "by" is extremely pertinent here. "Describing acts in a negative light" is substantially and clearly different from calling them harassment. 76.64.35.209 (talk) 04:02, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

Ryulong sanctions

3) Despite the egregious misconduct illustrated above and repeated reports to admins and various conduct noticeboards about such misconduct, no administrative actions have been taken against Ryulong. In contrast, editors in disputes with Ryulong or who reported Ryulong have been sanctioned soon afterward.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Consider this the exclamation point to the first finding as the fact that Ryulong can do all the things he has done, get reported for it, and not face administrative action suggests the processes in place are not working as intended.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 06:17, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

As above, cases are evaluated singly and on their own merits. The fact that several single-purpose accounts have seen blocks and topic bans has nothing to do with the fact that Ryulong has received none. You and the others have always been free to file a case at the GG sanctions against Ryu or myself or anyone. Tarc (talk) 14:36, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

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}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed enforcement

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 AndyTheGrump

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

Duplicitous argumentation by Tutelary

1) Tutelary has made entirely contradictory assertions regarding evidence in this case, in a manner which can only be seen as battleground behaviour and/or Wikilawyering with the clear objective of painting an opponent in as negative manner as possible. See specifically the evidence of self-contradictory and duplicitous argumentation presented by me in the evidence section: [63] It appears from evidence presented by others (see e.g. the proposals by Harry Mitchell below) that this is not an isolated instance, but instead part of a broader pattern.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

'Wikilawyering' when he refers to trying to reason my arguments and 'battleground behavior' by trying to elaborate on disruptive users and sanctions out of process and the like On an Arbitration page on the subject. Notice no diffs or quotations from me--Just tit for tat petty stuff. Tutelary (talk) 21:40, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Tutelary appears above to misunderstand how ArbCom works - they look for evidence on the page marked 'evidence' - for which I have provided a link to the relevant section (which includes diffs). AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:53, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

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.

Tutelary

1) For blatant and duplicitous attempts to Wikilawyer ArbCom process and game the system to advantage, combined with battleground behaviour as extensively documented in evidence presented by others, Tutelary be indefinitely be banned from Wikipedia. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:08, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

User:Tutilary is not a registered account. Tutelary (talk) 21:31, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

All unsubstantiated allegations--which should be supported with evidence or redacted designed to stir the pot of drama rather than actually attempt any solution--the main qualm and demonstration of what happens on the GamerGate talk page on a regular basis. Tutelary (talk) 21:41, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

The pot calls the kettle black. I sincerely hope ArbCom won't sanction for petty stuff like this, else 90% of people on the evidence page would be blocked. I've given my response and the like. Also Andy--you should put the request in the title marked 'template' so it's more visible when people scroll, else it might be overlooked; if you actually want this to happen. Tutelary (talk) 21:52, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Apologies for the typo - 'Tutelary', not 'Tutilary'. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:39, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

In response to Tutelary's post above, I am sure that ArbCom are capable of determining for themselves whether directly quoting a contributor's own contradictory statements would constitute "unsubstantiated allegations". AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:46, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

Template

2) {text of proposed remedy}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed enforcement

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 Harry Mitchell

NB, I'm completely uninvolved in this issue. I've acted as an uninvolved admin on a few occasions (I believe I've made four blocks related to GamerGate, I semi-protected the article once, and this is my only edit to the article. I have no interest in the subject matter at all apart from wishing that those involved would either leave each other alone or take their dispute somewhere less public. I believe I can legitimately claim to be a neutral observer. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 03:04, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

Only principles so far; I'm drafting proposals for FoFs and remedies. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 03:04, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

Proposed principles

Wikipedia is not a battleground

1) Insert boilerplate principle (this has been used in plenty of cases in the past, so there's no need to re-write it).

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

External disputes on Wikipedia

2) Given Wikipedia's almost unique ability to change in real time as sources become available, it is not unusual to see articles created about current events and controversies. A side effect of this is that the Wikipedia article can become a microcosm of the controversy itself. In such cases, the article is likely to be the subject of a great deal of attention on- and off-site and even in the mainstream media. In such situations, it is even more imperative that Wikipedia's policies on verifiability, neutrality, and content regarding living persons are robustly applied and enforced. Editors should be aware that their actions may be scrutinised externally and should maintain the appropriate level of decorum, taking care not to bring the project into disrepute.

2.1) Such articles are also likely to attract many editors, including new editors, long-dormant editors who have reactivated their accounts to edit the article, and experienced editors. Given the voluntary nature of Wikipedia, most editors will have some sort of interest in the subject matter and some will have strong opinions. While editors whose sole contributions have been to push one point of view or use Wikipedia as a forum for their own views should be removed from the topic area, experienced editors and administrators should be patient in their dealings with less experienced editors, and should attempt to offer guidance before considering sanctions.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Recidivism and tendentious editing

3) I'm sure there are bits of previous principles that could be spliced in here, but essentially: Editors are human, and thus occasional mistakes and lapses of judgement are of no great concern. However, editors are expected to learn from such mistakes when the mistake is pointed out to them. A long-term pattern of questionable editing or failure to learn from mistakes may be considered tendentious editing, and is likely to result in sanctions, especially where such conduct takes place in a controversial topic area.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Wikipedia is a collaborative effort

4) Wikipedia is, first and foremost, an encyclopaedia. Nevertheless, collaboration and discussion are integral to the maintenance, growth, and development of articles, and to the governance of the project. Editors are expected to conduct themselves in a manner which lends itself to collaboration. While editors occasionally lose their temper or make rash comments in the heat of the moment, editors who consistently behave in an uncollaborative or partisan manner may be sanctioned.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed findings of fact

doing these party-by-party in no particular order. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 01:39, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

Ryulong

Ryulong has exhibited a battleground mentality

1) Ryulong has approached editing with an "us versus them" mentality, as demonstrated by (for example) this thread at the Administrators' Noticeboard, where he accused 38 (thirty-eight!) editors—including several established editors in good standing and at least one administrator—of having "solely used Wikipedia to push the "pro-Gamergate" agenda" (see also East718's evidence).

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

The established editors became SPAs. This is the whole "zombie account" issue here.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 06:13, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

You cant become a SPA if you're an established editor because spa refers to accounts that are here to edit ome article/topic in one way with no other edits. It does not refer to editors with an interest in a particular topic Retartist (talk) 07:18, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

The issue is that regardless of any prior edits that the accounts made, there was little to no effort to edit anything other than Gamergate-related pages. I was wrong in my original listing. However, I've pared down the biggest offenders and added them to my proposals above. The list was retracted. I admitted a mistake. Why is this still a point of contention?—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 09:43, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

No, frankly, the issue is that you seem to be incapable of distinguishing between editors who disagree with you and SPAs. In fact, I would go so far as to say that your mentality is that an editor becomes an SPA by virtue of opposing you in a content dispute. The presence of editors with thousands of edits to other topics in your list of SPAs is telling, as is the lack of even the most obvious SPA who takes your side in the dispute (note that I've blocked obvious disruptive SPAs on both sides of the dispute). HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 12:41, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

The issue with the article is that several editors who had not participated in Wikipedia for months or years at a time all seemed to decide at they wanted to begin editing again and all of them wanted to begin editing the contentious topic of the year. That is not a coincidence and not a mistake on my part. Particularly when there is an editor in the list who had only one edit 6 years ago and then a flurry of activity to become auto confirmed and then every edit after that was Gamergate related. The same goes for everyone else I've included in my evidence at this stage. The fact I did not adequately double check the huge list that got everyone's panties in a knot that I retracted hours after posting should not matter. I noted my mistake and we got the general sanctions out of it.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 17:25, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

DHeyward, the only people angry at me here are POV pushers who don't like my POV which happens to be the POV of all major media.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 07:48, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

The article was beseiged by people trying to push a POV that wasn't found in reliable sources and they're angry at me for upholding what reliable sources say rather than whatever other stuff that their biased unreliable press says about them and about their idealogical enemies. I have been harassed and attacked for the past 3 months by these people. I'm allowed to think what I want about them considering I haven't brought that mentality into the edits I've made. All of this is bait at its best.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 21:25, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

So what? Everything I say in this section is to be picked apart? Simply because I had the balls to get this issue raised to the community at large with my misapplied attempt to clear the problem before it got to this stage? Then I'm sorry I tried to prevent Gamergate advocacy from disrupting Wikipedia.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 06:05, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Agree. This has been the case from the start. It seems from the evidence and history that Ryulong makes egregious errors, defends his position against the growing voices of the community until it's frankly indefensible. At that point, he declares a "self-ban" that lasts a few days and then he returns to fight the same battles. --DHeyward (talk) 07:44, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

As an example of the exact attitude displayed was his response above, quoted for posterityDHeyward, the only people angry at me here are POV pushers who don't like my POV which happens to be the POV of all major media.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 07:48, 10 December 2014 (UTC) Nothing says "us vs. them" like the demarcation he outlines above. Not collaborative at all. --DHeyward (talk) 21:14, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

Agreeing with DHeyward's reasoning on this. If Ryulong thinks this finding of facts is "bait", he has clearly taken it and proven it. Weedwacker (talk) 05:23, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

Ryulong has a history of edit-warring

2) Ryulong has edit-warred repeatedly on the GamerGate article. Prior to his involvement with that article, Ryulong has been repeatedly blocked for edit-warring on diverse articles and by multiple admins (see East718's evidence; The Devil's Advocate's evidence, Tutelary's evidence, Ryulong's block log). Ryulong was also blocked for restoring an unsupported allegation to the evidence page after it was removed by an uninvolved administrator (see Discussion on Ryulong's talk page).

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

If I wasn't blocked for those instances why does it matter? And I was on mobile. It's difficult to edit and make "unsupported allegations" supported very quickly.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 06:13, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

The standards for and purposes of blocking to force an end to an edit war versus a finding of fact in an arbitration case are very different. Blocks for edit-warring should only be made to end ongoing disruption; if the edit war concludes before an admin intervenes, a block would be purely punitive, but that doesn't mean that there wasn't disruption. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 12:41, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

The "disruption" is having to deal with dozens of bad edits against consensus by multiple people all of who,mihave an axe to grind and several of whom have been banned because the community at large finally saw all those sparks flying afterwards.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 17:30, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

DHeyward, having to revert multiple people making the same indefensible edits to the page against consensus is not evidence or a "pattern of disruption".—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 07:48, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Ryulong is has been around long enough to avoid being blocked by disengaging at the point of blocking but the repeated behavior in the same topic area is a pattern of disruption. --DHeyward (talk) 07:44, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

Ryulong has been the subject of a previous arbitration case

3) In 2009 (Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Ryulong) was desysopped and admonished amid concerns of questionable blocks, misuse of rollback, unresponsiveness to community concerns, and battleground mentality. Since then, his rollback rights have been restored and removed several times amid concerns of misuse (see rights log).

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

This is irrelevant here.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 06:13, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Tutelary

Tutelary has violated BLP

Tutelary has added or restored material which violated the policy on material regarding living persons (BLP) to articles on talk pages on several occasions. On at least one occasion, Tutelary restored the material after it was removed as a BLP violation by an uninvolved administrator and and later revision deleted by a second administrator.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

The revision deletion was performed by Black Kite, though he was not as clearly involved in the dispute at the time. Mr. Stradivarius was definitely not uninvolved having been very active in the discussion over the content and being the creator of the Depression Quest article.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 07:48, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

I elaborated this on the ANI about Wikipediocracy which led to a proposal of my topic ban which failed. If the diffs are to be viewed by ArbCom for this case, I redacted shortly after said diff what I thought to be the most horrendous of the BLP violation, was subsequently reverted by another user and I did not revert again. Given that this was on the talk page, I felt at first that it was salvageable with some redaction, and did such only to be reverted. I've no more context to offer as I don't remember the whole content of the diff, but I remember what I did with it. Tutelary (talk) 01:06, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Tutelary has repeatedly reverted discussion closures

Tutelary has repeatedly reverted administrators and outside editors who have closed discussions at administrators' noticeboards in a manner with which Tutelary disagrees. (See Ryulong's evidence, Ryulong's workshop proposal; see also this brief edit war at AE).

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

This discussion suggests the AE actions were the product of a common misunderstanding that ArbCom personally enforces the sanctions it imposes and thus matters at AE are for Arbs to decide.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 07:48, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

I elaborated on this in Ryulong's section. I've reverted two closes, and saying 'repeatedly' is heavily misleading. 1 was Future Perfect as done before, and this was 1 revert. I did such before he closed the entire section effectively nullifying the topic ban proposal for Ryulong without a decline or accept of community consensus. On the 2nd, Mdann42 (I think that's his name) was effectively supervoting in the administrative noticeboard regarding a content dispute of the NPOV tag. If you view the other history surrounding my revert, and the day or two before, this was not an uncontroversial close and in my view is still entirely ruling on a content dispute by not an administrator. All but 2 of Ryulong's diffs are not me reverting official closures. Tutelary (talk) 01:10, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

Comment by others:

The Devil's Advocate

The Devil's Advocate has engaged in edit-warring

The Devil's Advocate has engaged in edit-warring on the Gamergate controversy article (see [64], NorthBySouthBaranof's evidence)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

The Devil's Advocate has used policy as a weapon

The Devil's Advocate has repeatedly attempted to use the policy on administrator involvement to bludgeon administrators who have taken enforcement actions against editor with whom The Devil's Advocate sympathises (see NorthBySouthBaranof's evidence, Dreadstar's initial statement). While admins are used to criticism, The Devil's Advocate's tactic of repeated badgering has a chilling effect on admins' willingness to enforce policy.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

For the record, I have barely begun laying out the issues I have with admin conduct on this topic area. I have only accused admins of involvement where I think there is a good case for it. Several admins named as parties are not admins I consider involve and I may not even think most are worthy of being singled out in a final decision, but rather that their actions point to a general issue with how this dispute has been handled.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 07:48, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

It's impossible to overlook the correlation between admin actions you disagree with and accusations of involvement. Your silence when admins have made judgement calls that suited your side of the dispute is telling. I have no dog in this fight and, for all the allegations, the only admin whose conduct I've found to be worthy of greater scrutiny is Gamaliel (see my proposed FoFs below). But regardless of whether your allegations are actually true, nothing justifies this sort of aggressive badgering (from Dreadstar's statement) which typifies your interactions with admins with whom you disagree. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 12:53, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

I don't think it is badgering to ask an admin for an explanation when he or she is not forthcoming. The idea that I am singling out admins only for actions against one side is ignoring that there just aren't many admin actions being taken against the other side. Outside of some likely sockpuppets the only editor I know of who got sanctioned basically got sanctioned simultaneously with Tutelary after having already announced his departure from Wikipedia.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 23:04, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Gamaliel

Gamaliel has participated in content discussions

Gamaliel has expressed strong personal opinions on the subject of the "GamerGate" controversy, and has engaged in discussion about the content of the article ([65], [66], [67], [68]), thus becoming a aprty to the content dispute. He should not, therefore, be using administrator tools in the topic area.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Upon looking at the 4 diffs provided, rather than seeing them as "strong personal opinions", they just show Gamaliel explaining to a now-dormant single-purpose account the project rules of WP:RS, WP:FRINGE, and why a personal tweet does not stack up against a source like the New Yorker. That does not make this admin "involved". Tarc (talk) 15:53, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

I see where you're coming from, but I wouldn't feel comfortable acting as an uninvolved admin if I'd made comments like those, especially not in a controversial topic area. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 21:50, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

Yes, but this appears to be a gray area where, at worst, it's a judgment call. The policy explicitly permits discussion of sources and policies. Are you willing to modify this or the other finding to make clear that Gamaliel acted under a good faith belief that he was uninvolved? I don't see any precedent cited which suggests that he should have known that making suggestions and comments about the reliability of sources could be construed as involvement. This appears to be a novel application or interpretation of the policy and it wouldn't be fair to penalize Gamaliel for taking good-faith actions that, frankly, appear to have been the correct ones. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 22:17, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

Oh, I don't think there was any bad faith. I think admins should take a conservative interpretation of INVOLVED to avoid the appearance of impropriety (this case nicely demonstrates that the appearance of impropriety is what causes the damage), but I don't think anything more than a healthy serving of trout is called for unless there's evidence of a pattern of poor judgement or obvious bad faith (and as far as I can see, nobody has even attempted to demonstrate that thus far). HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 23:58, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Agree with this. I don't attribute any ill-will to him but Gamaliel has expressed very strong opinions on both editors involved, the topic and sources. These actions lack the emotional detachment necessary to act in a dispassionate and neutral manner. He prematurely closed numerous discussions on talk pages as well as the Auerbach ANI discussion regarding Ryulongs quotes. He has the appearance of defending one side and thwarting others which is why the parties of the dispute line up with/against Gamaliel in the same manner they line up against other editors. It's not surprising that Tarc, NBSB, Ryulong, et al would defend him and TDA, Tutelary, et al would find fault. This should not be the case for uninvolved admins and they should recognize this before having it brought to ArbCom. --DHeyward (talk) 07:59, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

Gamaliel has made administrator actions in the topic area

Subsequent to his expression of a strong personal opinion, Gamaliel—ostensibly acting as an uninvolved administrator—imposed a topic ban on Tutelary, prohibiting the latter from making any edit related to GamerGate, in accordance with the community-based general sanctions.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Per above, explaining project policy to a new editor and deflecting that editor's attempt to use tweets as sources is not "a strong personal opinion". Tarc (talk) 15:54, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Per all the other actions including continued claims of being uninvolved even after numerous statements that he was involved, this a factual statement. --DHeyward (talk) 08:09, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

Proposals by Obsidi

I have not edited the Gamergate controversy page or its talk page or any related page. I have occasionally commented on admin actions when appealed to WP:ANI or WP:AN (and sometimes in WP:GGE after it came to ANI). I'll start with principles that I think are important to this case that I have not seen anyone else advocate yet directly based on past principles that have been approved by the arbitration committee. In addition to these, I suggest the committee look at the standard decorum/SPA/Battleground principles that are proposed above. I'll get to FoF soon. --Obsidi (talk)04:06, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

Proposed principles

Fact versus Opinion

1) In drafting articles and especially in discussing disputed article content, editors should take appropriate care to distinguish reasonably agreed-upon facts from statements of opinion or partisan views. When the accuracy of a statement cannot reasonably be contested, it is inappropriate in discussing article content to deny that the statement is true, although it may still be entirely appropriate to question whether the fact is relevant to a particular article or has been given undue weight in that article. When a statement is a matter of opinion, however, the article should make clear who or what side of a dispute holds that opinion and ensure that competing opinions with a reasonable degree of support are also represented. From Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Gibraltar#Fact_versus_opinion.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

"partisan views" - by that I presume you do not mean reliable source third party news sources? -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 05:07, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

Even WP:RS third party news sources can present partisan views. The question is what is being claimed, not who is doing the claiming. If the New York Times comes out tomorrow and says "The Affordable Care Act is the greatest thing sense sliced bread." We should be smart enough to recognize that isn't a fact, its an opinion and if included should be attributed. --Obsidi (talk) 05:41, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

Do you have any evidence that any of the reliable sources are making any claims equivalent to the wonders of sliced bread? -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 23:16, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

You asked if I "mean reliable source third party news sources", and I answered Yes. I gave the example to just prove the point that it can occur. I'm not going to get into specific content arguments as to if an individual source made such an opinion in a principal that applies to ALL WP pages. Either the principal is valid or it is not. You can argue with my findings of facts later when I add them. --Obsidi (talk) 06:47, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

Under that logic we could recite all of Wikipedias policies because they all apply, but the Arb Com is about issues specifically relevant to this case and I cannot see where/how your "better than sliced bread" example applies. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 08:00, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Collective behavior of blocs of editors

2) It is potentially harmful to Wikipedia when editorial debates become strongly associated with real-world polarizations and when they become dominated by groups of editors lined up along philosophical lines due to shared beliefs or personal backgrounds. This is particularly harmful when such editors act in concert to systematically advocate editorial decisions considered favorable to their shared views in a manner that contravenes the application of Wikipedia policy or obstructs consensus-building. Defending editorial positions that support philosophical preferences typical of a particular group is not ipso facto evidence of bad-faith editing. At the same time, mere strength of numbers is not sufficient to contravene Wikipedia policy, and an apparent consensus of editors is not sufficient to overrule the five pillars of Wikipedia. From Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Climate_change#Collective_behavior_of_blocs_of_editors.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Non-neutral editing.

3) An editor may have views or outside interests that affect his or her neutrality in editing in a given topic-area. These may include views creating a bias either in favor of or against persons, institutions, or ideas associated with the topic-area. Whether or not such views or outside interests rise to the level of a conflict of interest, non-neutral or tendentious editing often results where an article is edited primarily by editors who are either affiliated with a controversial person or idea, or by editors who are avowed rivals or enemies of the subject, are involved in off-wiki disputes with the subject, or are otherwise disdainful of the subject. Thus, editors who have a strongly negative view regarding the subject of an article, just like editors with a strongly positive view of the subject, should be especially careful to edit that article neutrally if they choose to edit it at all. From Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Austrian_economics#Non-neutral_editing.2C_particularly_of_BLPs.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

can you throw something in there about steadfast refusal to not follow the lead of reliable sources? -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 05:10, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

Our job as editors isn't to "follow the lead" of reliable sources. It is to establish if there is a consensus of reliable sources as to any facts (and present those in WP voice as true), and facts without a consensus or opinions are to be attributed in proportion to the weight of the reliable sources. But we should still treat fairly even minority opinions that the majority of RS disagree with. We need to make sure that it is clear to the reader that a view point is in the minority if it is, and it doesn't need to have as much screen space and words about it. If the viewpoint is fringe (it has not been referenced extensively, and in a serious and reliable manner), then it shouldn't be included at all. But if included the significant minority viewpoints need to be treated fairly and in an impartial tone WP:IMPARTIAL. It is critical that "minority view presented in such a fashion that both sides could agree to it." --Obsidi (talk) 05:25, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

nonsense. WP:UNDUE of course we follow the lead. we impartially present what the reliable sources provide and how they provide it. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 05:40, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

"Giving due weight and avoiding giving undue weight mean that articles should not give minority views or aspects as much of, or as detailed, a description as more widely held views or widely supported aspects." We cut the amount of space or description of minority views, that is all. All minorities views should be impartially presented as potentially valid (with whatever space they are given) unless they are fringe. We don't just present whatever a majority of the RS's say. "Neutral articles are written with a tone that provides an unbiased, accurate, and proportionate representation of all positions included in the article." --Obsidi (talk) 05:49, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

From WP:FRINGE: We use the term fringe theory in a very broad sense to describe ideas that depart significantly from the prevailing or mainstream view in its particular field. For example, fringe theories in science depart significantly from mainstream science and have little or no scientific support. Other examples include conspiracy theories and esoteric claims about medicine. It is trivial to demonstrate that Gamergate's core beliefs amount to fringe conspiracy theories that depart significantly from prevailing and mainstream views, have little to no support among reliable sources and experts in the given fields, and in some cases have been factually disproven. We cannot present the belief that "Gamergate is about ethics in gaming journalism" as if it has equal validity as the viewpoint that "Gamergate is about culture-warring and harassment of women." It is absolutely true that some people in Gamergate believe it, but effectively nobody else does. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 05:55, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

Yes, we have to present the Gamergate's argument that it is about ethics in journalism in a fair, non-judgemental manner (aka equal validity) in WP's voice - that is what being neutral is all about, and FRINGE outlines this as well. We're free to state that this is their claim, and free to add the numerous commentary that the media offers that express their doubt at that being true, but as a neutral, impartial work, we cannot judge their claim as right or wrong, only that that is their claim in as much as we can report from reliable sources. We're not going to be able to include all the GG points since most are undocumented by reliable sources, but there are enough that we can described them in a neutral, impartial manner before turning to how the rest of the world sees these as unlikely goals, just as we describe Westboro Baptist Church as a self-claimed religious congregation before stating how most everyone else calls it a hate group. --MASEM (t) 06:12, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

No, we don't. Ideas that have been rejected, are widely considered to be absurd or pseudoscientific, only of historical interest, or primarily the realm of science fiction, should be documented as such, using reliable sources. It is trivial to document, using reliable sources, that Gamergate's ideas have been rejected and are widely considered to be, at best, absurd conspiracy theories and at worst, specious and misogynistic personal attacks. The best sources to use when describing fringe theories, and in determining their notability and prominence, are independent reliable sources. ... Independent sources are also necessary to determine the relationship of a fringe theory to mainstream scholarly discourse.

Specific to the claims about "the media is biased against Gamergate," WP:FRINGE specifies that: Wikipedia is not a forum ... for countering any systemic bias in institutions such as academia, or for otherwise promoting ideas which have failed to merit attention elsewhere. It follows, then, that Wikipedia is not a platform for Gamergate supporters to present "their side of the story" because they feel like the media has not paid attention to their claims or been biased against them. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 06:16, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

We are getting a bit far afield here, this is getting into content a dispute. Notice that all my commentary said IF it is fringe then we should not include that viewpoint. If it really is fringe that gamergate has to do with "ethics in gaming journalism" then NOTHING should be included about that (after all when you are saying it is fringe, you are saying that no one takes that view seriously). If it is a valid minority viewpoint that gamergate has to do with "ethics in gaming journalism", then that viewpoint should be expressed in a neutral manner. The decision as to IF it is fringe, should be decided by the community on the talk page (ie not here). But regardless of that decision all viewpoints expressed in the article should be done in a neutral impartial tone. --Obsidi (talk) 06:45, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

So are you stating that, as a fringe view, all of the "but ethics" should be removed from the article? -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 23:18, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

The question of if it is fringe or not, is if the RS take the view seriously (if it is a respected minority viewpoint, then it is not fringe even if most or all of the RS disagree with the viewpoint). If it is a fringe view that gamergate has to do with ethics in journalism (I don't think it is fringe, I think its a minority viewpoint, but I don't think we should argue about that here, that would be a content dispute to be argued about on the talk page), then it should be removed almost entirely from the article (completely or all but a passing reference linking to another article if the fringe idea is notable enough). When you say something is fringe, you are saying almost no one believes it to be seriously considered. How many references to Barack Obama citizenship conspiracy theories's are there on Barack Obama? (the answer is none) How many references to Astrology is there in Astronomy? (1 passing reference to explain the difference as they share a common history) Moon Landing has a small section about Moon landing conspiracy theories, but mostly it is just a link and a sentence, and goes on to talk about verifiable facts. Intelligent design is barely mentioned in Evolution (and then only for historical reference). You also have to deal with opinion vs fact VERY carefully even if it is fringe and you are describing it (say in a different article if it is notable enough) "A careful use of words and the adoption of a disinterested tone will ensure that a reader is not spoonfed opinions as facts and vice-versa." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Obsidi (talk • contribs)

One thing in reading this in considering the situation is that WP:FRINGE is being applied in a very odd way here. This is taking the stance that the GG article is about the controversy that the VG industry has over the actions and behavior of the "movement" or the people that claim to support GG and are seeking ethics changes in video game journalism (in contrast to the stance that this is about the movement's controversy with video game journalism). If we were talking about GG's beliefs about ethics in an article about video game journalism, absolutely 100% they are fringe to a point that we probably would not cover them in that article. But we're talking about the article that this group is central to. Their viewpoint may not have any serious support in reliable sources, or even strong documentation, but we have at least a handful of good RSes that give just enough bandwidth to describe the group's motivations as best that can be figured that we should be documenting the established motivations of the group that is central to the situation in a neutral, impartial manner. That means without sarcasm or criticism or the like; once that is established, then we can lay in on them via the sourcing from the press that is critical of this and effectively handwaves these motivations as impractical and/or a false front. In other words, from the standpoint of video games journalism, GG's stance is a clear FRINGE view, but from the standpoint of the GG situation, they are a core party that we need to document appropriately in an encyclopedic manner in the article about the controversy they are embroiled in - that is not a concept under FRINGE for all purposes, but primarily NPOV. We're not going to be able to document a lot here - there's only a few good sources that give us a handful of points to work from - but documentation in an impartial manner is possible and should be done to stay neutral. (It's also arguably necessary in that a significant counterpoint of the press is their sarcastic "but ethics" / "it's really about ethics in game journalism" false front aspects, and if we actually don't explain briefly what those ethics claims are as best we can tell, we're not telling the proper full story to support the above points). --MASEM (t) 07:44, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

We mention Gamergate's claims about ethics, Masem, so I'm not sure what your objection is here. In fact, I personally am responsible for finding and inserting into the article one of the very few reliable sources which has examined and analyzed a manifesto of Gamergate's claims to this effect. If your objection is that we also immediately state the mainstream refutations of those claims... well, that's what Wikipedia does. We're not going to downplay actual media critics such as CJR's Chris Ip and NPR's Alex Goldman in favor of anonymous 8chan posts. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 07:48, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

The thing is that both at the talk page and here, the OWNings editors have constantly promoted the idea that the proGG is so FRINGE that we shouldn't even given time to discuss their side or even trivialize any stated elements of that side (eg the "objective reviews" ethics aspect), which is not an impartial stance. GG is a central party to the page's topic, and while there is very little that both can be sourced to strong reliable sources, and is appropriate to include in the first place (eg avoiding BLP), there is more we can include from already existing sources and by arranging the text better to simply present the GG side in a neutral, impartial view. In fact, I would contend that views from 8chan/Reddit - as filtered through strong reliable sources - are much more important to include as parties to the controversy than opinions from mainstream sources that are only reporting on the issue for us to be providing a neutral encyclopedic article that a reader looking to understand the controversy can make their best judgement of what to think of it. Even if those views from GG are nonsensical or impractical; we can't judge them, we should just report them, and then pull in what others have judged about them. And while we do present criticism to views across WP, they are usually held until after we have presented all the views that are factual/positive about the group (See Westboro, Scientology, etc.) and not mixed in with that. --MASEM (t) 14:52, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

The thing is, that although some GG claim, scream, shout, repeat ad nausem "but ethics"; what has been notable is that "but ethics" is FAR from central to what the sources cover. And when it is mentioned its only in opposition to what the group has done and to ID that the "but ethics" are not really ethics. We cover that. probably giving far too much coverage to it to the relevance of the subject: the controversy. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 18:00, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

This isn't an article about the group, Masem. I doubt we could actually write an article about the "group" given the inability of reliable sources to decipher who and what it really is. This article is about the group's notable actions and the controversy they spawned. And it is irrefutable that their notable actions and the controversy they spawned are not at all about journalism ethics and have everything to do with harassment of innocent people, misogyny, sexism, false allegations and vehement opposition to social criticism of video games. Gamergate doesn't get to pick and choose how they're covered, and we don't line up a bunch of alleged "positives" for someone before discussing what really makes them notable. You're suggesting we cover Gamergate with a sympathetic POV, and that's just not on. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 18:44, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

NorthBySouthBaranof, you state, "I doubt we could actually write an article about the 'group' given the inability of reliable sources to decipher who and what it really is." As an external uninvolved observer of this Arbitration process, I'm curious: If according to your assessment in which you speak to the ostensible shortcomings of the reliable sources in this regard—in which you claim that the reliable sources themselves cannot accurately describe who and what the Gamergate group is—then how can you purport to write a properly weighted WP article about the group's motivations based on the statements which appear in those same so-called reliable sources which are afflicted by those same shortcomings? If the labor of defining the "who" and "what" of a given group consists of correctly and objectively identifying who they are and what their core principles and motivations are falls to the reliable sources you mentioned in your statement, then what is the rationale upon which you then defer to them for the purpose of proper sourcing for the article? What is the basis for your claim that the reliable sources have demonstrated an inability to decipher who and what the Gamergate movement is and/or consists of? Your answer to this will be fascinating with respect to what principles you adhere to in your role as a WP editor.

The movement's choice to be anonymous, leaderless and unorganized means that anyone who says they're acting as part of Gamergate is acting as part of Gamergate, because there is no way to distinguish anyone from anyone else. This means that the various claims that "whoever is harassing is not part of Gamergate" are unavailing because there is no authority within the movement capable of making such a statement. There is no Gamergate group — only a bunch of random, mostly-anonymous people using a hashtag. The result is that the only way for external observers and reliable sources to judge the "movement" is by the actions anyone takes while claiming to be part of Gamergate. They have done so, and the conclusions are self-evident. You can't demand that reliable sources "correctly and objectively" identify something that has made the deliberate choice to be totally amorphous, unaccountable and unidentifiable. There's not even an "objective" way of determining what Gamergate actually wants, because nobody can speak for Gamergate. Anonymity has its advantages, but credibility and accountability are two of the costs. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 08:57, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

By the way, this is what I mean about it being helpful if you had a draft version of what you had in mind, so that we could pick over it on the article talk page, instead of debating hypotheticals on an ArbCom page. What do you think the article should say differently than it says now? Many Gamergate supporters contend that the movement is concerned with ethical issues in video games journalism. However, observers tend to describe it as a culture war against diversifying social norms in video games — and women in particular. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 08:11, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

Given how I have been reverted or have had discussions of rewrite suggestions on claims of not being NPOV from the OWNing editors, I would rather get a concensus for doing a major reordering even on the draft page before doing so. But this is also further complicated by how to present a logical flow to the topic if certain things were re-ordered in the first place which I have yet to actually figure out a working solution for, so it doesn't make sense to make the change without having a full plan for going ahead. --MASEM (t) 15:15, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

You have your personal sandbox to create whatever you want, particularly something not bound at all by the current article and say "See, this is how "impartial" can be addressed." -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 18:09, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

You're selling a pig in a poke then, Masem, and creating a self-fulfilling prophecy. There won't be consensus to change unless we have an idea of what you want to change it to, and there won't be compromise until we have a place to start hashing out the differences between your proposal and the status quo. Propose something in the draft and drop it in the talk page. It's not difficult - I just did it for the lead paragraph last week. Maybe we're not that far apart and we're all wasting time arguing over trivialities. We'll never know unless others know exactly what you want to change, and we'll never figure out how to find a middle ground that we can all live with unless you lay out a starting point for debate. Is your proposal going to be accepted unmodified? I'll say probably no. But I don't think you can reasonably expect to have your changes accepted unmodified - you're not a "neutral" party here and you're coming at this issue with just as much of an opinion about the issue as I have. We can debate and discuss and work in good faith to find an acceptable middle ground. And please stop calling those who disagree with you "OWNing editors" in conversation. It's not making good-faith cooperation any easier. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 19:42, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

@NorthBySouthBaranof: It is trivial to demonstrate that Gamergate's core beliefs amount to fringe conspiracy theories that depart significantly from prevailing and mainstream views. I would like to evaluate this position, but I don't understand what you mean by "Gamergate's core beliefs". Could you state them, for the record? 76.64.35.209 (talk) 07:43, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

The belief that anything Zoe Quinn or Nathan Grayson did constituted a violation of journalism ethics, the belief that there is some sort of vast "social justice warrior" conspiracy inside video gaming journalism, the various beliefs that Anita Sarkeesian and Brianna Wu are liars/doxxed themselves/are corrupt, et al. There might be other scatter-shot beliefs here and there, but those appear to be the central ones, as per the reliable sources. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 08:19, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

Administrator participation in enforcement

4) There is a trade-off between having a relatively small group of administrators concentrate on arbitration enforcement or community sanctions enforcement versus having a larger number of administrators do so. Having a handful of administrators handle enforcement requests helps ensure that these administrators are familiar with enforcement policies and procedures and come to learn the issues associated with enforcement problems that arise in a particular case. On the other hand, as the same administrators handle multiple enforcement requests, they may increasingly be subject to accusations of "involvement" or bias and prejudgment based on their earlier actions in the same case.

In general, as more administrators participate in enforcement of a decision and develop the relevant expertise, the less necessary it will be for an administrator who might be arguably or borderline "involved" to handle an enforcement request. Conversely, it is understandable that if other qualified administrators are not available to handle the requests, then those who are willing to address them, even if borderline "involved", are more likely to continue making enforcement decisions. From Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Climate_change#Administrator_participation_in_enforcement.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

counter to policy defining INVOLVED and impracticable in that it weeds out every admin for any act implementing community or arbcom sanctions. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 05:13, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

This is a past principal of arbcom for a reason. It doesn't say that they are all involved, it just says that having a small group of admins handling the issue can, over time, start to make it look like they are involved. As such the proper way to handle that problem is that if it starts to become a problem (as I think it has in this case), is to move it to WP:AE so that all admins take part in the enforcement. --Obsidi (talk) 05:32, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Involved Administrators

5) Administrators are expected not to use administrator tools in disputes in which they are involved. The administrator policy states: "Involvement is generally construed very broadly by the community, to include current or past conflicts with an editor (or editors), and disputes on topics, regardless of the nature, age, or outcome of the dispute." Administrators are responsible for assessing for themselves the nature of any possible involvement, and to ensure they are not being influenced by prior personal interactions with any of the editors or personal views regarding the subject-matter. From Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Tea_Party_movement#Involvement.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Project-wide policies remain in effect

6) Discretionary sanctions are intended to supplement, not supersede, existing project-wide editorial and behavioural policies. In circumstances where community or administrator intervention would be appropriate, such intervention remains appropriate whether or not it would also fall under the purview of the discretionary sanctions. FromWikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Climate_change#Project-wide_policies_remain_in_effect.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed findings of fact

Template

1) {text of proposed finding of fact}

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:

Proposals by Hasteur

Proposed principles

Wikipedia Arbitration

1) The Arbitration process exists to impose binding solutions to Wikipedia conduct disputes that neither community discussion, Administrators, nor Bureaucrats have successfully resolved. (Per Wikipedia:Arbitration)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Starting out with a key point of preamble Hasteur (talk) 03:03, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

Evidence

2) Submissions of evidence are expected to be succinct and to the point. (Per Wikipedia:Arbitration_Committee/Procedures#Submission of Evidence)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Again, laying preamble to support my point Hasteur (talk) 03:03, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

Decorum

3) While good-faith statements are welcome, editors are expected to discuss only evidence and procedure; they are not expected to trade insults or engage in character assassination. Insults and personal attacks, soapboxing and casting aspersions are as unacceptable ... as elsewhere on Wikipedia. (From Wikipedia:Arbitration_Committee/Procedures#Decorum)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Slightly paraphrased from the exact language (as it was written for Arb Enforcement), however I do think it applies. Hasteur (talk) 03:03, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

Proposed findings of fact

Conduct of DungeonSiegeAddict510 during the case

1) On multiple occasions, DungeonSiegeAddict510 has exhibited poor judgement and discretion when commenting with respect to this case's proceedings [69][70][71]

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Showing 3 explicit cases where all DSA510 added was extra bytes to the page that actually detracted from the proceedings and was griped at by both sides [72] [73][74]

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.

Reminder

1) DungeonSiegeAddict510 is reminded that Wikipedia's purpose is to benefit readers by acting as an encyclopedia, a comprehensive written compendium that contains information on all branches of knowledge.. There are times and places to exemplify debating wit and to be silly, but Arbitration cases are not one of those places. Future failures to adhere to the general purpose of Wikipedia will be dealt with more stridently.

Comment by Arbitrators:

This editor was subsequently indeffed (and has consented to a topic-ban even if eventually unblocked), so probably not necessary at this point. Newyorkbrad (talk) 11:43, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Basically reading a riot act at DSA510 so that they understand the difference between ArbCom and the majority of Wikipedia. Hasteur (talk) 03:03, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

I still dont get why people are expected to never crack a joke ever at Arbcom. The poor arbs are going to have to have to read through a novel length tome of evidence here, surely a joke here and there wouldn't be hurting anyone? Bosstopher (talk) 10:27, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

Bosstopher It was quite clear above in Rodger Davies' section "Conduct during arbitration cases". To use some real world analogues, would you crack a fart joke in a large corporate board of directors meeting? Would you say that one of the supreme court members looks like a actor in a porno you saw last week in open court? Would you ask a police officer who had just pulled you over where the nearest doughnut shop is? In all of these cases the answer is very clearly No. DSA510's "contributions" to the case are not the in line with what I would consider the level of decorum for ArbCom. Right now it's only targeted at DSA510 because their contributions have been the ones that were the tall weed that gets hit by the lawnmower the easiest. Hasteur (talk) 16:02, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

All I thought about when you said that is this bit by Gabriel Iglesias.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 17:35, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

@Newyorkbrad: (of 11:43 15 Dec 2014) The user is appealing their block by offering a voluntary GG/ArbCom topic ban. I see no reason why a reminder to the user regarding WP's purpose wouldn't hurt anything. As I seem to recall the Committee's levels are Reminding, Noticing, Admonishing, and finally Sanctioning. I think a gentle reminder to several parties to this case would be helpful, but I'm deliberately keeping the scope small. Hasteur (talk) 13:03, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

Proposals by Cla68

Proposed principles

Emotional distance

1) Wikipedia's administration recommends that editors of controversial topics emotionally distance themselves from the outcomes of content disputes as this will help editors find compromise solutions that focus on upholding WP's pillar of neutrality.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed. Cla68 (talk) 01:45, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia neither has, nor should seek to have, any jurisdiction over contributors' emotional states. AndyTheGrump (talk) 06:55, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

Neutrality

2) Wikipedia editors are expected to be willing and able to "edit for the enemy", i.e. to be able to understand, accept, and represent all points of view involved with any particular topic area and endeavor to ensure that WP articles adhere to WP:NPOV.

Comment by Arbitrators:

This advice is useful is certain types of disputes, but not all disputes. Newyorkbrad (talk) 11:45, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed. Cla68 (talk) 01:50, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

Contrary to WP:WEIGHT. And contributors under no obligation whatsoever to 'accept' any point of view whatsoever - Wikipedia has no jurisdiction over the contents of people's heads. AndyTheGrump (talk) 06:57, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

What neutrality looks like

3) For lack of a better description, if an article is successfully meeting WP:NPOV the reader should not be able to tell what side Wikipedia is taking on a particular issue.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

This depends on one's definition of "what side Wikipedia is taking." If the weight of the reliable sources is clearly to one side of a particular issue, then as per the due weight policy, the article will contain significantly more discussion of that side of the issue and will present that side's viewpoint as predominant. Fringe viewpoints and claims must be placed in the context of the mainstream assessment of those views and claims. This may lead to a perception among adherents of that minority viewpoint that the article is not "neutral" — but that is simply how the cookie crumbles. Neutrality of viewpoints does not mean equality of viewpoints. NPOV/GEVAL states clearly: Wikipedia policy does not state or imply that every minority view or extraordinary claim needs to be presented along with commonly accepted mainstream scholarship as if they were of equal validity. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 02:10, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

The test of neutrality is if when reading the article, one cannot tell the difference in presentation in our article from presentation by reliable sources. WP:UNDUE -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 02:14, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

That's actually not a good test. Our level of coverage of certain points should reflect what is presented in reliable sources per WEIGHT, but if the press presents a tone or stance that is not neutral (which they will often do, not just in the case of GG), then we have to work past that and write more neutrality than they do. The press are only a court of public opinion, and their writers are human and not devoid of unintentional or intentional bias in a controversial story (Consider that most major media can easily be classified into their political leanings, their implicit bias to start with). --MASEM (t) 15:32, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

You and your "we need to be 'neutral' which is measured by my standards and not what the sources provide" is tedious and tendentious. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 16:43, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

Because that's something that is being constantly ignored by the few owning editors. Policy does not state, anywhere, that RS are absolutely perfect and we must follow them. We need to use common sense, and recognize that RS can have some bias (this, in fact, is documented at WP:BIAS), and the GG situation where you have a bunch of pseudoanonymous people cyberattacking predominate women in the VG industry is easily one where its near impossible not to view in a negative light. Clearly, some topics will get a great deal of negative attention in the media as a whole, but it is our policy per NPOV to hhave to write more impassionately about them - (eg Westboro and Scientology as examples). We can present the popular opinion as reported by the media but we cannot take that opinion up as WP's own without proof otherwise. --MASEM (t) 16:52, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

A proposal such as this would give the WP:FRINGE-based editors...not just in GG but project-wide...an early Christmas present. One can only imagine the "fair and neutral" treatment that 9/11, global warming, homeopathy/acupuncture, Obama's birth certificate, and so on will get. I suppose even the Protocols of the Elders of Zion will need to be "balanced" with the antisemitic point-of-view that they're real? Tarc (talk) 15:20, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

There's a difference here in all those cases: that there is documented evidence, sound scientific theory and analysis, or legal cases that establish that the fringe view has very little solid ground to stand on. GG is a situation where there is very little that can be documented on actual events, we only have a prevailing popular opinion (that the GG movement was designed as a misogynistic campaign from the state), that we have to be careful to avoid presenting any popular opinion, even the most prevailing, as fact. --MASEM (t) 16:27, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Proposed. Cla68 (talk) 01:50, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

Given that this proposal is entirely contrary to WP:WEIGHT, and this a proposal to revise policy, it is outside the scope of this ArbCom case. ArbCom does not make policy. AndyTheGrump (talk) 06:53, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

Administrator responsibility

4) When article talk page discussions have dengerated into combative, confrontational arguments marked by personal attacks, condescending remarks, and obstructionist attitudes, WP's administrators are charged with stepping-in and putting a stop to it. When WP's administrators are unwilling or unable to do so, WP's administration has failed in its responsibilities.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed. Cla68 (talk) 01:57, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

Administrator responsibility 2

5) When WP administrators do attempt to resolve user conduct issues in a contentious topic area, those administrators are expected to be impartial and not to favor any faction or side over the others.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed. Cla68 (talk) 02:02, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

Administrator responsibility 3

6) Administrators who have a history of using administrator privileges to favor one side over another in disputes or for making poor decisions may have their administrator priviliges suspended or removed.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed. Cla68 (talk) 02:02, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

Proposed findings of fact

Wikipedia's administration failed

1) The Gamergate controversy article was started on 5 September. Since that time, there have been numerous opportunities for WP administrators to intervene to stop the combative and counterproductive behavior surrounding the article's content. Wikipedia's administration failed to seriously correct the behavior in question.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed. I think one reason WP's administration failed here is because they mainly sanctioned editors from only one of the factions. However, that's not the only reason. The other reason is because WP's administrators did not impose effective sanctions or remedies. Wikipedia's administration still seems to be completely clueless on how to stop a dispute like this one from disrupting the editing of an article on a controversial topic. Cla68 (talk) 06:18, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

Would you care to give us a clue as to what you think they should have done? AndyTheGrump (talk) 06:44, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

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.

Google ban

1) Whenever edit-warring forces a WP administrator to lock the article from editing, the article will be no indexed to Google spiders for a period of at least 10 days with the express purpose to lower the article's ranking on Google searches.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Undesirable for multiple reasons (although having some potential merit for certain types of contentious BLPs); in any case, a significant policy change that would not be made by ArbCom. Newyorkbrad (talk) 11:41, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed. I don't know if this is technically feasible, but if it is it should be considered. One reason why activists are drawn to Wikipedia and edit-war over an article's content is the perception that because WP articles usually rank high on Google searches, there is a good chance that the article will help control the narrative on that particular topic. If that consideration is removed, or if it is threatened, perhaps editors will make a greater effort to compromise and work with each other. Cla68 (talk) 06:11, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

If it were feasible (which I doubt), and became standard practice, it would provide a clear incentive to anyone dissatisfied with article content to engage in edit-warring in order to remove it from view. A thoroughly ill-thought-out proposal. AndyTheGrump (talk) 07:05, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

Agreed, I think this could be used maliciously. Weedwacker (talk) 07:09, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

@Cla68: As the arbs have indicated that this is a non-starter for multiple reasons, If you really want to try and push this, I suggest proposing it at Village Pump (Technical) first to collect input from the foundation (with respect to noindex and delisting pages from search engines), then opening a RFC (probably at Village Pump Policy) asking if we should implement what you're describing. Personally I can see some merit in the proposal, but without significant questions answered this is a non-starter. Hasteur (talk) 12:57, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

We're starting over

2) Because WP's administration has so abjectly failed in this and other contentious topic areas, a reboot is required. As soon as this case closes, all en.WP administrators except arbitrators, checkusers, oversighters, and bureaucrats are summarily desysopped and must pass a recertification RfA to regain administrator privileges. Any ex-administrator who submits a recertification RfA must, in their statement, explain what they would have done to try to resolve this dispute so that it would not have had to come to arbitration.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Cla, please don't waste our time with ludicrous proposals that we all know are not feasible. One party has already been blocked for such behavior. Beeblebrox (talk) 07:13, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

Not helpful. Newyorkbrad (talk) 11:38, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Not supported by evidence or precedent. (belated sign [75] -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 14:06, 15 December 2014 (UTC))

Comment by others:

Proposed. I'm not joking, I'm very serious. If WP is ever going to get its house in order, something drastic like this needs to be done to shake things up and get everyone's attention. The status quo isn't working. Cla68 (talk) 06:28, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

Given that the behaviour of administrators who haven't involved themselves in the Wikipedia Gamergate affair is entirely beyond the scope of this ArbCom case, this proposal is utterly pointless. If there is a case to be made for a mass desysopping, it can't be made here. AndyTheGrump (talk) 06:42, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

Beeblebrox, haven't you ever done a group brainstorming exercise for a project? You throw out ideas and use them to stimulate other ideas that may be more workable or feasible. Nevertheless, I'm not joking that you guys need to think outside the box and do something drastic here. If you haven't noticed, since its inception, WP's administration never has really gotten a handle on handling warring editors in controversial topics. Do you think you could try to do something about it instead of reverting to a WP admin's default response, which is to threaten me with a block because I said something you don't like? Cla68 (talk) 07:30, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

The 'box' in relation to this case is the legitimate scope of ArbCom. They have no mandate to act outside of it, and it would be grossly improper for them to usurp the Wikipedia community (the only legitimate body to make the decision you propose) to do so. AndyTheGrump (talk) 07:35, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

Well, then, the other option is to punish the administrators who tried to intervene in this dispute and failed to fix it. That isn't totally fair for two reasons: (1) They were set up to fail because Wikipedia's administration is so screwed up and disorganized that they had no effective precedent or guidance to help them out, and (2) there are too many WP administrators who observe these disputes and don't try to help out to solve them which leads back to reason #1. That will prevent more administrators in the future from getting involved in these disputes. So, I would say it is in ArbCom's remit to impose a solution to this problem since it is at the root of why this case is here now. Cla68 (talk) 07:44, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

I'm not understanding why you believe there are only two options here: either "punish sysops" or "desysop everyone." That seems like, uh, a false dilemma squared. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 07:52, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

Ah yes, the system has failed. The people cannot be trusted. We need strong leadership to impose a solution. What could possibly go wrong? AndyTheGrump (talk) 07:55, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

Well, I guess another solution would have been for you two and any others involved in this and other disputes to work together better, but I know that's an even more ridiculous idea than desysopping everyone. Cla68 (talk) 08:02, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

I find it interesting that you suggest that I'm 'involved in this'. Would you care to provide some evidence of my involvement, to indicate what it is you think I have done wrong, and what you think I should have done instead? AndyTheGrump (talk) 08:17, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

Proposed enforcement

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 DHeyward

Proposed principles

Collaboration requires Discussion

1) Article collaboration requires discussion which normally occurs on article talk pages.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Straightforward observation. --DHeyward (talk) 02:43, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

Controversial topics can have controversial discussions

2) Articles that have difficult or controversial topics will necessarily have controversial discussions to arrive at consensus based NPOV, reliably sourced articles with no original research.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Is this some sort of blanket principle to completely negate the fact that people have been banned for pushing fringe theories that involve attacks on living people?—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 03:07, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

There are many articles that cover controversial topics that have not had any significantly controversial discussions. And for this particular topic, the authoritative sources all have pretty much identical views of the subject from the highest level of reliable sources to the standard level of sources we generally accept for most topics. Its only at the very non reliable sourcing level where there are any significant variations of view. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 06:28, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Controversial topics often have authoritative sources with various points of view, different levels of reliability for sourcing as well as being particularly susceptible to original research such as syntheses. --DHeyward (talk) 02:56, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

I can see little evidence from coverage in reliable sources that the subject matter of the article is particularly controversial by Wikipedia standards - the 'controversy' instead seems to relate to the behaviour of contributors, and to attempts some contributors Wikilawyer around established policies regarding weight, NPOV etc. AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:29, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

If it weren't, we wouldn't be here. By real-world standards, nobody gives a crap about the tiny group of independent game developers, gamers bothered by them, the journalists that cover them or the groups trying to change them. By wikipedia standards, though, it's nuclear war. --DHeyward (talk) 06:20, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

"By real-world standards, nobody gives a crap about the tiny group of independent game developers, gamers bothered by them, the journalists that cover them or the groups trying to change them". Yup - which is why this isn't a controversial article, in any meaningful sense, and why we don't need to treat this particular bunfight as anything more than another instance of POV-pushing behaviour by 'contributors' more concerned with their own dubious objectives than with creating an encyclopaedia. AndyTheGrump (talk) 08:10, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

BLP Policy is one of the strongest policy WP enforces

3) Material about living persons added to any Wikipedia page must be written with the greatest care and attention to verifiability, neutrality, and avoidance of original research.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

That's the only reason I ever waded into this in the first place, upon seeing this ANI filing and the hatchet job being done to Zoe QWuinn at the time. Tarc (talk) 16:40, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Straight from the policy --DHeyward (talk) 02:56, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

Proposed findings of fact

The BLP policy outlines best practices for discussing sensitive or controversial information

1) WP:BLPTALK outlines that material that may not be suitable for direct inclusion to Wikipedia without consensus may by referred to in discussion pages in a link to an external site as long as the material is not repeated on Wikipedia. Exceptions are for external links that would be subject to oversight such as doxxing. External links on discussion pages are not the "External links" that exist in articles and governed by WP:BLPEL.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

From WP:BLPTALK, which is part of the overall BLP policy. "For example, it would be appropriate to begin a discussion by stating This link has serious allegations about subject; should we summarize this someplace in the article?" This is the outcome of an RFC that acknowledges the difficulty of collaborating on an article with controversial topics. Note, there is a clear distinction between a link to a source and repeating the information in the source. The link is inherently allowed for discussion, the content is not. This policy is applicable only in discussion spaces.

Links posted in discussion space, by themselves, are not sanctionable

2) In order for a BLP related sanction to be implemented for a link in discussion space, the administrator cannot rely simply on their own evaluation of the material in the external link. WP:BLPTALK policy exists to provide a safe space for editors to bring sources for discussion and should be the basis for blocks, bans, warnings or any other "chilling effects."

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

This request for a warning [76] about a talk page edit with a link[77]. The discussion was novel and the entire text that exists on wikipedia's talk page was "This says otherwise . If Gamergate's concern were a fringe matter, why would have this source bothered to write an opinion article about it?"http://amherststudent.amherst.edu/?q=article/2014/12/03/gamergate-controversy-extends-beyond-computer-screen. None of the statements in the link were repeated on-wiki. Some of the statements in the Amherst article off-site concerned Zoe Quinn and those statements were deemed a BLP violation even though the Wikipedia editor did not write one word about Quinn himself or imply anything other than whether gamergate harassers were fringe. Amherst pulled the article and the closing admin wasn't able to view it until a copy was mailed to him. On-wiki diffs did not show any violations. The closing admin concluded that I've reviewed an archived version of the article in question that was emailed to me. It does indeed contain unsupported and likely libellous claims, and under no circumstances should have been published by even a college paper, much less posted on Wikipedia. Unless somebody can come up with a very good reason otherwise, i'm going to impose a two week topic ban on GamerGate and related articles, broadly construed. The problem is nothing was posted to wikipedia except a link and the link was dead. The administrator has not explained why this wasn't subject to WP:BLPTALK either on the sanction noticeboard or on AN[78]. The subject of the topic ban noted editors citing it for its "chilling effect"[79] and a different admin supporting a "chilling effect" [80]. Lately, editors on AN have redacted this quote This says otherwise . If Gamergate's concern were a fringe matter, why would have this source bothered to write an opinion article about it?[http://amherststudent.amherst.edu/?q=article/2014/12/03/gamergate-controversy-extends-beyond-computer-screen as a BLP violation even though the link is dead and have warned the editor who posted a dead link asking why it's a BLP violation. They claim the dead link itself is a violation. [81] and even though the link doesn't exist, [82]. The problem appears to be a broad misunderstanding about the demarcations of WP:BLPTALK and the other aspects of BLP policy. Nobody has ever suggested that the Amherst source be used for anything regarding Zoe Quinn. That doesn't exclude the source from being discussed regarding different issues or using that source to find more acceptable content and sources. The http title is "gamergate-controversy-extends-beyond-computer-screen" and because of the BLP issues, it was not quoted at all, only linked. The discussion was about the breadth of GamerGate. It is exactly the situation covered in WP:BLPTALK to protect good-faith editors from BLP sanctions. I note that the http title of one of the article sources, DailyDot, is "zoe-quinn-depression-quest-gaming-sex-scandal" which is arguably a BLP violation [83]. If you follow the DailyDot link to the source, it is filled with links to material that Wikipedia would consider a BLP violation, including the primary blog from Quinn's ex-bofriend. In addition, we have many articles (not just gamergate) that use a reliable source for one fact but we would not repeat or source other sections from that same source. Indeed one of the admins on AN praising the "chilling effect" on GamerGate sources on the talk page, vociferously defended a source that has many BLP issues to highlight a marginably notable event. In WP's voice we note just the event but the source we give the reader is chock full of other information that is BLP violating material if it were on-wiki. We have no way of diverting the reader from the "bad paragraphs" or "bad links" and simply don't. ArbCom needs to clarify that links used for discussion purposes should have the presumption of WP:BLPTALK and BLP sanctions should be limited to cases that have multiple issues (i.e. unrelated links, disruption, doxxing links, etc). Every editor familiar with the topic are aware of what elements of a potential source are problematic. Wikipedia is not repeating those elements but ignoring WP:BLPTALK to create a chilling effect on talk pages is unacceptable and contributes to an is the result of WP:BATTLEGROUND behavior. --DHeyward (talk) 05:25, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

The link was not dead when it was originally posted. Yes, BLP is designed to have a chilling effect on posting unsubstantiated and/or false claims and other defamatory material about living people. The article in question was published in an unreliable source to begin with (a student newspaper) and repeated unsubstantiated and/or false defamatory claims about a living person. Any editor in this space should, at this point, well know of the boundaries in this space. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 05:48, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

Of course it wasn't dead when it was originally posted. Requiring deadlinks for discussion would be stupid which is why WP:BLPTALK exists. The important thing is that for discussion, none of the BLP content was posted anywhere on Wikipedia. --DHeyward (talk) 06:40, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

Given the horrendous treatment of living people both on Wiki and off, a "chilling effect" towards gratuitous linking of inappropriate sites, is an appropriate effect to help prevent further disruption. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 05:55, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I've had links posted about me that weren't true regarding GG. The fact that it was false, from an unreliable source and a personal attack wasn't relevant as it as just a link on a discussion page (the personal attack was on-wiki). It didn't warrant oversite because it wasn't doxxing. Amherst is not an "inappropriate site" and the point of the discussion being made was about coverage. --DHeyward (talk) 06:40, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

Also, each editor is responsible for their own conduct, not the collective conduct of prior editors. If an editor is disruptive, TBan them for disruption. If they aren't disruptive and bring up a link that they believe furthers discussion on one aspect, they aren't disruptive and they aren't violating BLP. All it takes is a question: "What statement that source would support?" If none, remove the link if it bothers you that much. There is no way that a link, without any BLP content added with it is a BLP violation or disruptive on its face. One of the problems with the long-term editors is every new aspect is framed through a biased historical perspective that any new contribution is part of a pattern and destroys AGF and BITE. If you are so close to the article that a link for discussion drives you to justify a topic ban, overriding WP:BLPTALK without a thought, it's time to step back. You may have seen that accusation a thousand times. The editor may not have seen it at all. That editor did not write a single word about Quinn and was TBanned and driven off for it. --DHeyward (talk) 07:01, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

Comment by others:

The use of legal language to describe the work of living people, without a source is a BLP violation.

3) Describing an article attributed to a living author as "defamatory" or "libellous" or any other language that implies a possible crime requires a reliable source.

Comment by Arbitrators:

It is true that these are strong words and should be used cautiously. Newyorkbrad (talk) 11:50, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

This is patently absurd. Issues surrounding defamation and libel are two of the significant reasons why the Biographies of Living Persons policy exists, most notably the Seigenthaler incident. We have a specific policy in place which prohibits libel, called, helpfully, Wikipedia:Libel. According to this policy: It is the responsibility of all contributors to ensure that material posted on Wikipedia is not defamatory. It is Wikipedia policy to delete libelous material when it has been identified. This proposed finding would literally prohibit editors from requesting material be removed pursuant to this policy, or from even describing material as violative of this policy. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 06:16, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

Comment by others:

My nitpick, in reviewing the Amherst article/sanction, which was by-lined by an Amherst student-journalist and presumably still alive, was denounced by many wikipedia editors as writing "defamatory" or "libellous." one editor justified "actionable libel" because he took a media law class in college. Amherst did retract the article but didn't use any language that even identified what was false, rather, they used terms regarding "dated material" and quality of sourcing. In fact, if we used Amhersts retraction language to describe Quinn, it would be a BLP violation. Needless to say, without a source, we should avoid terminology that disparages the author without a source to attribute those views to. The action for ArbCom should be to encourage editors to redact such language if it's pointed out and if they aren't willing then such language is subject to BLP discretionary sanctions. Language exists to dismiss erroneous, fictitious or demonstrably false information. --DHeyward (talk) 06:09, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

Um, I am not a lawyer, but I think you'll find that neither defamation nor libel are 'crimes' in most jurisdictions. AndyTheGrump (talk) 06:20, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

Furthermore, if adopted, this proposal would render Wikipedia:Libel policy almost entirely ineffective - "It is Wikipedia policy to delete libelous material when it has been identified". Not sourced, identified. We are required to make a judgement as to whether something is libellous, and to remove it if we (collectively) think it is. The lack of a source explicitly stating that something is libellous cannot justify retaining such material. This proposal drives a coach and horses through basic policy in a manner that I cannot possibly see the WMF consenting to for one minute. AndyTheGrump (talk) 06:31, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

it's a specific tort that can destroy livelihoods and in some countries is criminal. The FoF does nothing to WP:LIBEL but strengthen it so we don't have to redact everyone's "That was libel" statement when the reporter wins in court (or settles). Identifying and removing material that is potentially libelous or defamatory (which really means poorly sourced or unsourced) is not the same as calling a living person or by extension, his work, libel. We have no problem with WP sayings like "Don't be dick" and distinguishing it from saying "You are a dick." Also note that WP:LIBEL is foundation policy that grants no one the ability to identify it or do anything about it. It's a statement. Actions are specified in other policies incuding BLP, RS, OR, and V. You are not required to do anything and it's the least explained policy for good reason. It's also passive voice. You can delete anything you like, you are also solely responsible for what you write. Calling an external article "libel" that was written by a third party about a person not yourself, is itself possibly defamatory. Calling it poorly sourced or unreliably sourced is the only reason you would be calling it libel because in reality you have no clue. Wikipedia's "poorly sourced and negative" BLP policy is as close as you will get to being able to "identify" libel but since you aren't a judge and this is not a trial, you should stick to "negative and poorly sourced." There is no "identify libel" button. To avoid the obvious BLP problem of accusing someone of libel or defamation, simply don't. DHeyward (talk) 09:52, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

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}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed enforcement

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>

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

Template

1) {text of proposed finding of fact}

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}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed enforcement

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:

Analysis of evidence

Place here items of evidence (with diffs) and detailed analysis

Template

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

General discussion

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others: