Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/GamerGate/Workshop

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

Case clerk: TBD Drafting arbitrator: TBD

Behaviour on this page: Arbitration case pages exist to assist the Arbitration Committee in arriving at a fair, well-informed decision. 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 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, clerk, or functionary, without further warning, by being banned from further participation in the case, or being blocked altogether. Personal attacks against other users, including arbitrators or the clerks, will be met with sanctions. Behavior during a case may also be considered by the committee in arriving at a final decision.

Can I hat the long rambling discussions in my section

They seem pretty unproductive, but I don't mind if they continue, however can we hat them or move them or something to stop them filling up this page? HalfHat 11:23, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, I made a total mess of that, urgh I need some sleep. HalfHat 12:00, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

Let the clerks handle any refactoring of other editors' posts that they deem necessary. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 12:03, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

Good lord, there's still all of this to go through after the evidence is produced? Good luck, Arbs. starship.paint ~ regal 10:06, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

I've moved it below. Ridiculously long,  Roger Davies ^talk 11:31, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

Halfhat draft FOF: NPOV is over dominant

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Please identify where specifically there are any "impartiality" issues with the current or draft versions or provide your own draft that is "impartial". Vague unsubstantiated assertations are meaningless. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 21:35, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

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

Comment by others:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Sea lions

We are here to discuss behavior on Wikipedia not article content or behavior out in the real world. Beeblebrox (talk) 01:01, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

Didn't they also fully fund a sea lion that they've named Ethics in some major passive aggressive nonsense.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 09:58, 2 December 2014 (UTC) Actual sea lions are great and worthy of support, of course. But funding a sea lion, or any other charity, is not a notable act. Gamergate needs to do something notably positive as a group, something related to their supposed mission of ethics in game journalism, for the article on the movement as a whole to reflect that. 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, even something as cute as a sea lion, is not notable. ReynTime (talk) 11:56, 2 December 2014 (UTC) This seems like totally the wrong place to discuss this. HalfHat 12:22, 2 December 2014 (UTC) Why was this cut out? It was to show that Gamergate was using charities hypocritically and/or passive aggressively. They chose a sea lion due to its existence as a term of art in the "debate" just like someone who used a slur towards those on the autism spectrum donated to autism speaks, despite the neuroatypical community hating the organization.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 12:37, 2 December 2014 (UTC) What on Earth does a sea lion have to do with editor conduct or the articles relevant to this case? I really don't envy the arbs for having to sort through all this dreck. — east718 | talk | 13:36, 2 December 2014 (UTC) Because this was used as an example of how the "charity" actions of the group were actually spite donations when responding to someone on the workshop page. Roger Davies moved it here.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 19:29, 2 December 2014 (UTC) To answer east 718: Well, good luck following this chain of reasoning, but it goes like this. The behavior of the Gamergaters on Twitter inspired a comic you can read here and the neologism "sea lioning" to refusing to drop an issue even though the other person is long past done with the discussion. For some excellent examples, you can view the archives of the Gamergate Controversy talk page. I introduced a comment onto the Workshop page concerning the correct labeling of the Gamergate movement as misogynistic, and DSA (who was topic banned from the Gamergate pages for bad behavior) responded with a link showing that Gamergaters claim to have contributed to charities and that, apparently, in his mind, this means they cannot possibly be misogynistic. (You will have to ask him how he connected these two completely unconnected things.) He misidentified this as the "No True Scotsman" fallacy for reasons I'm unclear on. Ryulong posted something about the Gamergaters having supposedly adopted a sea lion charity as their mascot due to the linked cartoon. This was clearly off-topic and so it was removed. The actual relevant issue is that since Gamergate has no official anything -- no leadership, no membership roster, no adopted platform, and no accountability whatsoever, which is by their design -- it's impossible to prove that anyone connected with Gamergate donated anything to anyone officially in the name of the Gamergate "organization" as a whole because they pointedly refuse to organize. So even if donating to a charity somehow caused the movement to stop being misogynistic -- which is absurd -- there isn't any way for them to have "officially" made a donation. ReynTime (talk) 21:04, 2 December 2014 (UTC) Can I clerk please hat this section? Avono (talk) 14:09, 2 December 2014 (UTC) I agree this is a useless conversation. Do we really need to have an argument over whether charitable donations were done passive aggressively? Weedwacker (talk) 20:57, 2 December 2014 (UTC) I would like to have DSA explain why he thinks that having people claiming to be associated with Gamergate having donated to charity is proof that the movement can't be misogynistic. I don't see any connection there at all and east718 also appears to find this confusing. ReynTime (talk) 21:10, 2 December 2014 (UTC) It wasn't an argument over whether or not they are passive aggressive. It was an attempt to give an example of perceived hypocrisy over charity.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 21:36, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

Moved from /Workshop Proposals by Retartist: Principle: NPOV

Extended content

What is an opinion in regards to this case or subject?—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 00:01, 30 November 2014 (UTC) "Gamergate is pure evil" vs "It has been said that gamergate is pure evil by the sasquach" Retartist (talk) 02:40, 30 November 2014 (UTC) But what if the Sasquatch happens to be a tenured writer for the LA Times' tech news division?—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 02:50, 30 November 2014 (UTC) Shouldnt matter unless sasquatch has the final say on what is absolutely good and evil in our world. Retartist (talk) 03:02, 30 November 2014 (UTC) But he would be considered an established name with clout behind him.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 03:49, 30 November 2014 (UTC) That doesn't change the fact that it still has to be described as ""gamergate has been called evil by sasquach/others" not "gamergate is evil" Retartist (talk) 04:27, 30 November 2014 (UTC) But if Sasquatch, the Lake Champlain Monster, the Loch Ness Monster, the Bunyip, Mokole-mbembe, Cadborosaurus, Trunko, the Zuiyomaru monster, et al happen to be journalists for major publications and they all have similar "opinions" then at what point do those "opinions" cease being "opinions" when they are widely held?—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 04:53, 30 November 2014 (UTC) The problem is that Gamergate is saying that the loch-ness monster is a quack so all his friends are saying that gamergate is evil and that lends doubt to the validity of the sasquatches claims as a fact Retartist (talk) 08:36, 30 November 2014 (UTC) Enough cryptozoological analogy. Gamergate's focus on Kotaku does not mean that every other video game publication decided to go ahead and write anti-gamergate pieces, regardless of any of the shit found in GamesJournoPros. GamesJournoPros was found to be benign outside of the one event that apparently constitutes a BLP violation despite it being suggested to be added on the article's talk page. And it should not matter that several unrelated publications, including several non-video game websites and major news papers, all came up with the same conclusion about Gamergate.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 09:12, 30 November 2014 (UTC) I have a better analogy, say a movement (not gg for this situation) starts saying that all the wiki-project games editors are corrupt and bad. Wouldn't you as a wikipedian defend those other wikipedians from that movement? This is what some of gg sees in journalism in general. Retartist (talk) 10:39, 30 November 2014 (UTC) You're assuming that I wouldn't first investigate those claims to see if they were correct. In this case, Gamergate's initial accusations have been investigated and have been proven to be false. You are not recognizing that when a movement puts forth false accusations and refuses to ever back down from those false accusations, much less retract and apologize for them, that it will largely be viewed as non-constructive and tendentious. Everything that Gamergate says is now tainted by the fact that the very first things it said were false. Put in short, nobody outside the movement believes anything it says. The path to move forward from this is to acknowledge and repent prior bad acts, to make peace with those it has wronged and find a constructive direction to engage. Unfortunately, that requires sensitivity, nuance and a willingness to admit mistakes, none of which are commonly found on chanboards. So it goes. (And this is without even touching on the topic of the harassment.) NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 03:04, 2 December 2014 (UTC) Or "Intel is run by craven idiots." vs "Max Read has written 'Intel is run by craven idiots.'" Retartist (talk) 03:04, 30 November 2014 (UTC) Agreed in principle. The $20 million question, of course, is "What is an opinion and what is a fact?" For example, an allegation that a particular person committed wrongdoing is not an "opinion," it is claiming that a specific set of facts exist. If that claim has been widely rejected by reliable sources as not existing, it is not then an "opinion" to state that the allegation is factually false. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 05:07, 30 November 2014 (UTC) That the allegation was made is fact. That the alleged actions constitute "wrongdoing" is opinion, as wrongdoing is defined subjectively. However, the alleged actions may constitute bribery or slander, both objective legal terms and thus "fact." It may be the overwhelming opinion of Americans that Britney Spears is a talented artist; no matter the majority the presence (or absence) of her talent will always be opinion, not fact. 107.15.41.141 (talk) 05:56, 30 November 2014 (UTC) The "alleged actions" in this case have been shown to factually not have occurred. That is not an opinion, that is fact. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 05:57, 30 November 2014 (UTC) I don't know which point you address specifically, but while the premises on which you base your conclusion that these "alleged actions" have not occurred may be fact the conclusion itself is opinion unless universally held. X shot Y is objective. X shot Y in self defense is subjective unless both X and Y and everyone else agree. 107.15.41.141 (talk) 06:08, 30 November 2014 (UTC) No, we don't require a position to be "universally" held to regard it as factually true. Rather, it's required that there is no serious dispute. See WP:ASSERT. Whether there is a serious dispute is a matter of reviewing what reliable sources say. If there is no serious dispute in reliable sources, then we treat it as factually true. A good example of this in action is September 11 attacks. In that article, we accurately state as fact that the attacks were committed by al-Qaeda terrorists and were organized by Osama bin Laden. This is notwithstanding the fact that there are numerous fringe and conspiracy theories suggesting that the attacks were actually committed by someone else. This is because none of those theories are taken seriously in reliable sources and there is no serious mainstream dispute about al-Qaeda's involvement. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 06:17, 30 November 2014 (UTC) I think your example is illustrative: both victim and attacker agree the attacker was responsible. They disagree on the motivation for the attack and so the wikipedia article does not state as fact that "they hate us for our freedoms." 107.15.41.141 (talk) 06:36, 30 November 2014 (UTC) Being correct with regard to Wikipedia policy is all that matters at arbitration.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 09:15, 30 November 2014 (UTC) Comment by others: Seems fairly straight forward application of WP:NPOV: Avoid stating opinions as facts. Usually, articles will contain information about the significant opinions that have been expressed about their subjects. However, these opinions should not be stated in Wikipedia's voice. Rather, they should be attributed in the text to particular sources, or where justified, described as widespread views, etc. For example, an article should not state that "genocide is an evil action", but it may state that "genocide has been described by John X as the epitome of human evil." --Obsidi (talk) 04:00, 30 November 2014 (UTC) The issue here is that the threshhold for what is an opinion and what is a fact has been used to bludgeon the article into one full of lengthy quotes which is one of the major complaints of any reader (biased or otherwise). Things critical of Gamergate get automatically demoted to opinion while things not critical, yet being found in op/ed articles, are treated as fact.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 04:56, 30 November 2014 (UTC) Some things are opinion and some things are facts. They don't get "demoted" from fact to opinion. Can they be verified as objectively true? (Not are they true but can they be verified objectively) You can disagree with the facts (or not know the facts), but they are still facts as to what occurred or not. Now you can claim that they are treating facts as opinions (or opinions as facts), but for that I would need more details of exactly what is claimed. --Obsidi (talk) 15:00, 30 November 2014 (UTC) The thing is that a lot of statements presented not as opinions of writers in the original publications have for the longest time been demoted to the level of opinion or things that must be directly quoted simply because it contains a statement critical of Gamergate. Meanwhile, actual opinion pieces supportive of Gamergate get treated as fact. There was a point where The Devil's Advocate was complaining that NorthBySouthBaranof had turned the references to Cathy Young's pieces as opinions when they had been added as matter of fact statements, just like every other writer mentioned on the article, and this caused a huge complaint thread. I can't pull diffs right now and I don't know if it's in anyone's evidence yet but this has been a problem.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 17:02, 30 November 2014 (UTC) There are very few "facts" from any source about Gamergate. We know it's an online thing, we know some of the facets from the GG as the primary source of what ethics they want, and we know at least three major VG figures have been harassed by people using the "#gamergate" tag, and that's pretty much it that has any traceable evidence. Everything else is hearsay, opinion and analysis. This doesn't mean opinions and analysis from RS are inappropriate but they are just opinions and cannot be said in WP's voice. Similarly opinions supportive of GG should also be treated as opinions; to the best of my knowledge, the current article doesn't treat any proGG opinion (outside of what the movement has said about itself) as fact. --MASEM (t) 17:27, 30 November 2014 (UTC) A preponderence of similar "opinions" across several publications seems to suggest something different. The "analysis" is exactly what Wikipedia should feature because that's what secondary sources do.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 18:37, 30 November 2014 (UTC) Of course we should - we should not ignore that the prevailing opinion about GG in the mainstream media is highly critical and negative. As long as we understand that is their opinion (or that it is a fact that the press have clearly condemned the GG movement) and not stated as a fact in WP's voice. --MASEM (t) 19:04, 30 November 2014 (UTC) I would argue that any claim of a group or individual being "misogynist" requires very compelling supporting evidence to be held up as a formal claim being made by a source rather than an opinion. The reasoning is that there is, generally speaking, no reasonable way that a writer for the RS can start with the premise "X did something bad to a person who happens to be a woman" and logically arrive at the conclusion "X hates women". Not without a few other supporting premises. 76.64.35.209 (talk) 04:13, 30 November 2014 (UTC) As for the sasquatch example: no amount of authority can turn a subjective judgment into an objective claim of fact. Consensus might (for example, we don't need to specify a range of wavelengths in order to agree that an object appears blue), but we don't call historical figures evil on their pages, even when the opinion is nearly unanimous everywhere. 76.64.35.209 (talk) 04:18, 30 November 2014 (UTC) "Evil" is a unclear term with debated definitions, many of which include a supernatural element. Historical figures are not supernatural. "Misogynistic", on the other hand, simply describes behavior that is hateful toward, or involves the mistreatment of, women. This is right on the money for the only notable activities that have taken place under the aegis of the #GamerGate hashtag, and it about as debatable as saying "Ripe oranges are almost always orange-colored." The reason that a plethora of RSes have used this term to describe the actions taken by people claiming membership in this group is that it is an entirely apt and appropriate term, and it is apt and appropriate for WP as well for this reason. The choice to attack Zoe Quinn instead of Nathan Grayson over the false corruption charges; the doxxing of Felicia Day and not Chris Kluwe; the attacks on Leigh Alexander rather than on the other (male) game writers who released very similar articles about the gamer identity on the same day; the abundant explicit threats to rape and murder Zoe Quinn, Brianna Wu and Anita Sarkeesian and the scarcity of similar threats toward the prominent male figures in this controversy: all these activities show a clear and marked tendency for individuals who claim Gamergate membership to preferentially attack, threaten and mistreat women, not men. Certainly there have been Gamergate-related attacks on men as well, some very vicious (for example, the various attacks on Ryulong), but the preponderance of activity by a large margin is aimed at people who are female. There is no credible way to debate that Gamergate is misogynistic, just as there is no credible way to debate that the Ku Klux Klan is racist. This "movement" was created to attack a woman, it was christened in a tweet that contained a direct, vicious video attack on a woman, and all of its notable activities, as reported by the most credible and well-regarded RSes, have been directed at terrorizing women and attempting to silence them and drive them out of the game industry via the misappropriation of social media tools. Gamergate can be described as misogynistic in the same way that Hitler and Stalin can be described as mustachioed, because it's right there on their faces in plain view. In addition, Gamergate's only notable activities involve the harassment of women; Gamergate has accomplished literally nothing else worthy of mention in an encyclopedia. Despite ostensibly being about "ethics in game journalism" they have not managed to produce a single result of any significance to anyone but themselves. If it were not for the misogynistic behavior of those operating under this hashtag, Gamergate would in no way be sufficiently notable for Wikipedia because they have done nothing else of note.ReynTime (talk) 09:34, 30 November 2014 (UTC) [citation needed]. You guys wanna talk about SPAs? Weedwacker (talk) 12:32, 30 November 2014 (UTC) The citations are all in the Gamergate Controversy article, as you well know. 150 of them. (Or in a dictionary, which you can easily access.) I think you misunderstand the issue with SPAs and zombies: it's not that they are disallowed (obviously.) Nearly all editors start as SPAs with a specific interest and then expand their efforts as they get more comfortable. SPAs are not necessarily bad nor are they banned on sight, which is why this issue is crawling with them. The problem is when an SPA is disruptive and makes edits contrary to the purpose of WP. Those SPAs get in trouble, including MarkBernstein who is quite clearly not a Gamergater. No one would be giving the Gamergater SPAs grief if their edits stayed within WP guidelines, but activities such as repeated violations of BLP policy makes them unwelcome. Incidentally I'm actually a returning editor from a few years back, but after a hard drive crash a couple years ago and a move to a new state (with obviously a new IP) I wasn't able to find any information to retrieve my old username, sadly. ReynTime (talk) 15:00, 30 November 2014 (UTC) Even the definition of 'misogny' is highly contested. For example, you've stated that misogyny "describes behavior that... involves the mistreatment of women". This isn't a coherent definition. Misogyny is the internal state of hating women, and is not connected to any specific behavior. e.g A wife-beater may just be a drunk who hates everyone, but not a misogynist. A quiet pacifist may hate women with every fiber of his being and do nothing about it. This is why it is very suspect to claim anyone is 'misogynist' on Wikipedia. The word is a moralistic judgment about internal thought processes. We also don't claim people are 'hateful', 'stupid', 'evil, 'loving', 'kind' or any other such descriptor. We report clearly-observable facts about the physical world; we don't assign moral values or internal thought processes to groups or individuals. Casimirin (talk) 05:11, 1 December 2014 (UTC) If several news organizations describe Gamergate as "misogynistic" then Wikipedia will describe Gamergate as "misogynistic". Just because everyone says it is a subjective determination does not mean it requires Wikipedia take a moral stance.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 05:17, 1 December 2014 (UTC) I agree that it does not "require Wikipedia take a moral stance", and in fact per WP:NPOV I am pretty sure Wikipedia is required not to take a moral stance. The thing is, writing that Gamergate "is misogynistic" in Wikipedia's voice is taking a moral stance, because it's applying a moral judgement. Writing that Gamergate "has been labelled misogynistic by X, Y and Z" is not. Trying to argue that calling someone "misogynist" is somehow not judging their moral character, is extremely disingenuous. This is abundantly clear from even the most cursory study of how the term is used in practice, particularly on the Internet. 76.64.35.209 (talk) 05:26, 1 December 2014 (UTC) I misspoke. We at Wikipedia should not constantly demote any and all statements and analysis by major publications to be "opinions" simply because they happen to be critical of Gamergate or contain subjective viewpoints.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 05:33, 1 December 2014 (UTC) That which is subjective is opinion, full stop. 76.64.35.209 (talk) 06:19, 1 December 2014 (UTC) That's exactly what a viewpoint is - it is a subjective call, and WP does not speak subjectively in its voice for anything. --MASEM (t) 06:22, 1 December 2014 (UTC) The descriptor "misogynist" has nothing to do with a person's internal state of being for the simple and obvious reason that, since mind-reading does not exist and people lie, there is absolutely no way to determine the true state of a person's mind when they choose to commit hateful acts. "Misogynist" refers to the observable pattern of behavior of a person, or in this case, of a group united by a hashtag. All the top RSes have looked at Gamergate's behavior, noted that it is predominantly and overwhelmingly vicious toward women and not men -- a fact that is patently clear when you examine the history of the hashtag as well as its current-day activities -- and correctly labeled it "misogynistic" because it is. At this point, to not use this term would be a serious misrepresentation of the research done by RSes, which is what WP is supposed to be building the article around.WP:DUCK. Individuals operating under the hashtag can claim all day long that they don't feel hatred toward women in their heart of hearts, and they can believe that, but an individual's heart is not a verifiable source for an encyclopedia. Period. As an educational point, I will mention that psychological studies using the Implicit Association Test have shown that not only is it possible to hold harmful prejudices without conscious awareness, it is quite common; therefore, an individual can state without lying that he does not hate women, and he can be wrong about himself. Actions are what the best RSes are looking at here because only they are what tell the true story of Gamergate. ReynTime (talk) 09:29, 1 December 2014 (UTC) Which side recently called for SeedScape to be boycotted? The mainstream media says what people want to hear. The raw facts I've seen tell a different story. I guess I must agree with gamergate on one thing, when money is involved, journalistic integrity makes a swift exit. --DSA510 Pls No Bully 10:32, 1 December 2014 (UTC) I'm sorry, I can't understand how anything in this comment relates to this case. If you have "raw facts" that contradict the reporting from the top RSes (every single one of them!) you should take those facts to a journalist at a reliable source, present your proof, and get them published. They can then be included in the WP article. Of course your facts will have to stand up to editorial scrutiny, which is what makes reliable sources reliable. The Gamergate position, as argued by partisans on the article talk page, appears to be "Any journalistic source that agrees with me has integrity and any source that doesn't agree with me is biased," but this is obviously an unworkable definition of "integrity" for this encyclopedia. ReynTime (talk) 10:43, 1 December 2014 (UTC) I'm saying that the sources themselves have suspiciously weak sourcing. Wikipedia's sources themselves must be scrutinized heavily. --DSA510 Pls No Bully They are scrutinized. This is why Breitbart is not used. Guidelines and policies are in WP:RS if you need a refresher. Again, this sounds a lot like you are saying "They don't agree with me, so they are wrong!" I politely suggest that there is another more likely possibility for why they don't agree with you, which is that your understanding of the situation is incomplete and/or incorrect. In any case, once a source has been shown to be reliable, they receive the benefit of the doubt when it comes to trusting their research and reporting methods. Can you provide sources of verifiable factual errors on the part of the top RSes where Gamergate is concerned? Please keep in mind that verifiability is important here; a simple unsourced assertion of "They got this wrong!" will not suffice. You must show proof that the RSes were incorrect in some factual and non-trivial matter before you can call their integrity into question and expect to be taken seriously. ReynTime (talk) 11:13, 1 December 2014 (UTC) @ReynTime: @DungeonSiegeAddict510: Can you guys please argue elsewhere? You are drifting offtopic Avono (talk) 12:00, 1 December 2014 (UTC) @NorthBySouthBaranof: In this case, Gamergate's initial allegations have been investigated and have been proven to be false. No. Once again, you are conflating verifiability with truth, one of the things I have been complaining about the whole time. WP:VNT informs article content; it does not inform rational decision-making. If I tweet (knowingly lying) "someone sent me a death threat", and the Washington Post reports "someone sent the user of IP 76.64.35.209 a death threat <screencap of tweet>", that does not make it true, no matter how good WaPo's fact-checking normally is. They can make mistakes. Your statement is propaganda that I've heard a million times; it's ignorant of what the "initial allegations" even are (there are far more than Totilo addressed); those allegations that turned out to be false were quickly dropped, and many more were made as more evidence turned up. The absence of mainstream media coverage of these events may not allow them to be included in the article content, but it doesn't mean they don't exist. I can easily show you some. 76.64.35.209 (talk) 03:15, 2 December 2014 (UTC) VNT informs article content, which is the only thing we make decisions about. Calling my statement "propaganda" is merely a way of displaying your dislike and disagreement with the vast multitude of reliable sources which have declared the claims to be false. You are free to dislike and disagree with the conclusion of those sources. You are not free to write a Wikipedia article which disregards the conclusion of those sources. I'm sure that you can show me something that you believe is proof, but I'm not the one you have to convince here. Wikipedia is not written based upon what its editors believe, it is written based upon what reliable sources publish. That is foundational bedrock of the encyclopedia, and if you disagree with it, you're welcome to start another encyclopedia which does not rely on reliable sources. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 03:29, 2 December 2014 (UTC) Let me try to start over. I should not have to deal with a talk page where people I agree with and support are slurred as "sexually repressed basement dwellers", have my comments removed when I complain about that, and when I challenge the general attitude surrounding that bias, have editors point at the RSes to back up their biases. Especially when it seems like the same group of editors are the ones deciding which sources count as reliable for the article. 76.64.35.209 (talk) 03:44, 2 December 2014 (UTC) You are not recognizing that when a movement puts forth false accusations and refuses to ever back down from those false accusations, much less retract and apologize for them, that it will largely be viewed as non-constructive and tendentious. Everything that turned out to be false has been backed down from. It is still stated that Grayson gave positive coverage to Depression Quest, because said coverage has been shown to exist (you need only Google rock paper shotgun depression quest to find it). 76.64.35.209 (talk) 03:19, 2 December 2014 (UTC) It is verifiable that most people have dismissed the claims because the only claim that is put forward is the one concerning Quinn and Grayson seeing as it was the first and most prominent. I am also fairly certain that most of the other claims (being friends, people being roommates at one point in their lives, etc.) were also dismissed or never touched upon again. And this doesn't count as "positive coverage".—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 03:24, 2 December 2014 (UTC) Yes, it very obviously does. 76.64.35.209 (talk) 03:34, 2 December 2014 (UTC) You and everyone else at r/KotakuInAction may think that but no one else does. That explains why it's only mentioned by Gamergate advocates rather than any external media.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 03:45, 2 December 2014 (UTC) Maybe the media is so heavily entrenched in their own narrative, to say anything that breaks said narrative would make them look pretty stupid. --DSA510 Pls No Bully 04:20, 2 December 2014 (UTC) People outside of video game media have done their own independent investigations and found nothing that changes whatever they thought beforehand because the majority of the discussion isn't about ethics in video game journalism but thread after thread about their targets des jour.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 04:37, 2 December 2014 (UTC) From my own observations, with the help of my associate (she's very helpful for this stuff), and of course me getting doxxed twice, there are many inaccuracies with what the media is saying. The nature of this conflict is pretty useful, since everything can be archived. --DSA510 Pls No Bully 04:54, 2 December 2014 (UTC) Well, it's not up to us at Wikipedia to correct media mistakes.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 04:56, 2 December 2014 (UTC) Perhaps this is a unique situation where WP:VNT conflicts with WP:RS? Surely, the archives do not lie, unless someone went to France and got access to the servers and spent ages to modify each and every page to fit the evil desires of GamerHate. I mean, its verifiable, but not third party. --DSA510 Pls No Bully 05:02, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

The committee is not interested in this wall of text. Thread closed; do not comment further. AGK [•] 01:25, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

Mandated external review

Hi, all. I was wondering whether the "mandated external review," which indicates that certain editors who have a history of problematic editing on a topic can still edit the article itself, but have to receive consent for the proposed edit on the talkpage from an uninvolved administrator first, might be a useful thing to implement here. There is a precedent for it at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Falun Gong 2. John Carter (talk) 17:40, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

We struck down the few instances of this and deprecated the entire concept and marked its pages as historical earlier this year. So I'd say that's pretty unlikely. Beeblebrox (talk) 02:29, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

Note on new proposals

I'm sick of being harassed. I've been thinking, and I feel it isn't worth it to get doxxed by anti-gg terrorists. I take no joy in doing this, but, ultimately I'm a worthless coward. I just wanted to clear up my sudden change of heart. I know I'm to betray the only person who stuck by my side, helped me, and gave me support when I needed it for all this time; my informant, but as I'm nothing more than a stupid parasite who wallows in his own self-pity, it can't be helped. Its funny, I'm abandoning my own ethics (mainly not backstabbing people who trust me), to support the so called ethical side. Basically, my proposals aren't jokes, but me merely trying to appeal to the better nature of my tormentors. --DSA510 Pls No Bully 03:56, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

Nice signature color change doc.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 04:02, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

I don't want to give my tormentors a total victory. I'm a coward, but I wont completely give in to terrorists. --DSA510 Pls No Bully 04:09, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

Terrorist is a pretty strong accusation, DSA. Are those that you claim are harassing you (who?) really as bad as ISIS or similar groups? PeterTheFourth (talk) 05:29, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

If gamergate is as bad as ISIS, the KKK, Hitler, ebola, and other unsavory characters, what does that make the people who harassed me? --DSA510 Pls No Bully 05:35, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

DungeonSiegeAddict510 If you had heeded the advice when your first set of workshop proposals had been forcably been redacted (including arbitrators saying no) then we wouldn't be in this situation. Hasteur (talk) 15:50, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

I really hope I've misinterpretted your statement. Because it reads like you're saying its his own fault for being doxxed and harassed. Bosstopher (talk) 17:51, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

Bosstopher Either you've misinterpreted it by accident or are willfully misinterpreting it. The first proposal (an allusion to the BigBrother/1984) was clearly out of line and was redacted. Several people counseled DSA that they shouldn't be flippant on their talk page. The new set of proposals shows a significant lack of thought in the proposals (in fact trying to get Remedies passed under the guise of Principles) shows that they still treat this as a joke. Hasteur (talk) 17:59, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

The new proposals are poorly thought out, but I got the same interpretation out of your earlier statement as Bosstopher. Weedwacker (talk) 20:03, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

Hasteur It is incredibly easy to misinterpret your statement as victim blaming here. Given that the talk section was started by DSA describing how he has been harassed and doxxed, it is hard to think of the "this situation" which you mention as anything other than that. Bosstopher (talk) 21:56, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

DungeonSiegeAddict510 and Workshop decorum

Could the Arbs/Clerks evaluate some of this user's recent workshop proposals such as this? It does not in any way appear to be a serious proposal, but rather a mock draconian one to "punish" editors of a pro-GG bent. Tarc (talk) 14:25, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

If DSA dosn't self-revert his changes to the workshop the clerks should extend his topic ban for being pointy. Agree with Tarc here. Avono (talk) 17:01, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

I'm being completely serious here. I'll do anything it takes provided I stop getting harassed. --DSA510 Pls No Bully 20:15, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

I don't even have the slightest idea what you're talking about. Unless you have proof that someone here is harassing you, then stuff like I noted above, plus the Nazi allusions about Jimbo and the "terrorists", is getting to be a bit absurd. Tarc (talk) 20:21, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

I'm not being harassed here. And the fuhrer bit is a joke. So is the terrorists bit, seeing as the FC4 dev compared gg to terrorists. --DSA510 Pls No Bully 20:23, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

DSA, I'm a bit confused by your actions. At least, it's inappropriate. At worst, it's bad for the case in general. You have the opportunity to really spell it out how we'ven't been given a fair shake on Wikipedia, some of the iffy actions admins have taken, some of the failed reasonings and the like. There's no reason to do this. Tutelary (talk) 20:32, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

I don't care about your gamergate conspiracies. First its the entire media against you, now its the admins. What next? --DSA510 Pls No Bully 20:39, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

DSA510 this is clearly POINTy Behaviour. Retartist (talk) 22:19, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

• DSA is clearly just being silly, and is not in any way trying to contribute to the encyclopaedia. I've indef'd him and removed the silliness. If any arb or clerk feels that there's something to be accomplished by restoring the content or unblocking DSA, I have no objection to them doing so without any deference to me. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 22:35, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

Outside Proposals?

Howdy, I've been watching the proceedings of ArmCom, basically fascinated with this whole process and I had a question. Are only parties or semi-involved editors allowed to make proposals, or may completely outside parties, even those who submitted no evidence or otherwise participated, allowed to submit proposed principals, findings, and remedies? Ries42 (talk) 19:50, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

@Ries42: I'm going to say this as nicely as possible, but your relatively short edit history does not really inspire the command of WikiProcedure that I would expect of an editor making a serious collection of proposals. I suggest that you not make any proposals. Hasteur (talk) 20:40, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

I appreciate your response, but you didn't quite answer my question. I understand making any proposals would require a significant undertaking to be procedurally and substantively adequate, and I trust the arbitrators to apply due weight as they deem appropriate to any proposals submitted. However, my question is, assuming that all other things are equal, may an outside source submit proposals or is such explicitly or implicitly not allowed? Ries42 (talk) 20:56, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

Per the Guide to Arbitration you would not be forbidden from submitting workshop proposals. Hasteur is just suggesting to you that a new editor may not have the experience and knowledge of Wikipedia procedures and policies to put forth strong and usable proposals. If you don't know exactly what you're doing, i'd avoid contributing. Weedwacker (talk) 21:22, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict)@Ries42: Be Bold, however don't be upset if your bold edit gets reverted and please be careful. I'm not a named party or (what I consider) a semi-involved editor, yet I've made a set of proposals. Understand that if you make proposals, they are going to be gone over with a high power microscope to look for any defects and you will be extensively analyzed for motives. In short: I wouldn't do it. Hasteur (talk) 21:25, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

@Hasteur: @Weedwacker: Alright, thank you both. I'm still undecided, and may submit something if I have the time to put forth an analysis that I feel would be beneficial. I will keep your comments and suggestions in mind before making any proposals. Ries42 (talk) 21:29, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

Hasteur is also mostly wrong in the fact that you 'might be reverted'. This page is not an article and whatever proposal you put forward, it's wording can't be edited except by the arbs, only commented on. Though trolling or obviously sarcastic proposals like what DSA put forward is the baseline on what -will- be reverted. I've no doubt that the arbs will let you submit proposals, as long as you are sincere and serious about them. Tutelary (talk) 21:41, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

Why are you humoring a troll?—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 22:05, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

Are you calling me a troll, or User:Hasteur a troll? Ries42 (talk) 22:20, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

Because there is little shown misconduct to suspect he's trolling here and we're supposed to assume WP:GOODFAITH and not WP:BITE the newcomers, something you don't seem to know anything about. Weedwacker (talk) 22:56, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

@Tutelary: What's wrong with quoting from the 3 opening sections of WP:BOLD? If Ries42 makes obviously poor choices, the effectiveness of their proposals will be equivilant of revert. What's wrong with letting them know what could happen in the very worst case? Care to make more assumptions of bad faith on my behalf? Hasteur (talk) 23:57, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

Hasteur, respectively, you didn't state it like that. You stated it as if their entire edit--their proposal might be reverted by another editor. This is not true in the majority of cases. That's the only error I was intending to correct. Tutelary (talk) 01:30, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

There is nothing technically or procedurally preventing a single-purpose account from entering their own Workshop proposals. But as Arbitration is primarily a forum for dispute resolution among actual Wikipedians, don't be offended if the proposals aren't given much attention. Or they may be showered with attention, we'll never know til we see em. Tarc (talk) 00:09, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

• Ries42, I'm embarrassed at the reception you're getting here. These editors should know better. Welcome to Wikipedia! Your ideas, inputs, or suggestions on these pages are welcome. Wikipedia's administration is mired in a serious rut of not knowing how to resolve contentious disputes like this one in which combative editors are constantly sniping at each other. So, if you have any fresh perspectives, they are appreciated. Cla68 (talk) 00:43, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

• All this other noise aside, as far as this arbitrator is aware there is no restriction on who may make proposals on workshop pages.

We are asking people in this particular case (which has far more participants the our average case) to please try to keep their proposals on point, and not to make wild, pie-in-the sky proposals that the committee is not empowered to enact. Beeblebrox (talk) 01:51, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

@Beeblebrox: Understood. Thank you for the clarification. Ries42 (talk) 02:05, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

Proposal from uninvolved party

Solved. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 13:12, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
I have made a few minor edits to make the article more readable, but I haven't changed any content so I view myself as uninvolved. The article is still a mess from the readability viewpoint but when I get some time I will work on it further (I tried reading it after seeing an ANI case on the subject and yikes). Anyways my proposal (if it hasn't been submitted yet) would be an IBAN between CLA68 and Ryulong. Going through comments on the evidence page and here I believe this would be best for everyone. Both sides snipe a bit at each other, and even if one side started it in a distant time it takes two to tango. Thoughts on this proposal? Tivanir2 (talk) 14:52, 19 December 2014 (UTC) He has been disrupting this case since he began editing the evidence page and he's been using every opportunity he can to snipe at me. There is no prior history between us for this to be a thing. He should not be participating in this.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 18:38, 19 December 2014 (UTC) Do you have evidence to support that accusation? Not saying I don't believe you or it's not possible that what you said could be true, but you say that about pretty much everyone. Weedwacker (talk) 19:23, 19 December 2014 (UTC) Maybe Ryulong is tilting at windmills. Or maybe if there are several editors participating who don't have any skin in the game or prior history with him, chances are their only common goal is to try to see long-term abusers off the project. — east718 | talk | 19:34, 19 December 2014 (UTC) Cla68 has made three edits across the project to make the same baseless personal attack on me which I've mentioned multiple times here and are under discussion at WP:GS/GG/E.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 00:23, 20 December 2014 (UTC) My apologies for my earlier post, I thought you were talking about Tivanir2 (talk · contribs) not Cla68 (talk · contribs). If it's the latter, I'd agree with the editor who started this topic that an IBAN should be proposed in the workshop. Weedwacker (talk) 01:01, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

Last Request(s)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

I'm a big fat liar. THIS, is my last gg edit. I have one request. I'd like to be delisted as a party and my relevant edits removed stricken. Information I've received , as of today, makes me quite indifferent, if not genuinely happy to the current state of that article. Factoring in the fact that the anti-gg harasser (dox, dearh threats, other tasteful things) attacking me has been dealt with, I am finally somewhat, more or less at ease. I'm sorry about my erratic behaviour, I'm frankly, not comfortable getting not just my name, but various other personal details found out. Anyways, as I said, idgaf about the article, this bureaucratic mess called arbcom (no offense), or anything related, so, unless absurdly critical, I ask to be delisted from this case and anything from or about me stricken. I want to forget the doxxing/subsequent harassment, and the shit that caused it. I don't mind it not being removed, and won't even come back to this page to see the outcome. I want to be out of y'alls hair, and you out of my curlyish hair, I'm proposing a win win. Ah, and happy holidays to you all. --DSA510 Pls No RE 05:22, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

I wasn't sure where to ask it so I asked here. --DSA510 Pls No RE 05:23, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

Are you sure it's the wisest idea to be posting in this arbcom case again, given your current sanction against doing so? PeterTheFourth (talk) 05:55, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Relevance unknown

A friend has directed me to this discussion thread. This was apparently an attempt to disrupt.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 06:36, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

Seems like a lot of people telling the OP that it's a bad idea and that brigading and vandalizing Wikipedia is childish and accomplishes nothing, and then they go on to talk about forks or something? Why are you showing us this? Weedwacker (talk) 20:57, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

Because it was shown to me as possibly relevant to show anything regarding ongoing offsite disruption and more people are looking here than elsewhere.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 21:39, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

Important for all participants

The purpose of the workshop is to assist the arbitrators in deciding the case. Any additional proposals with links to evidence, and responses to those proposals, may be submitted at this time.

The arbitrators are already well aware that some of the parties to this case do not like one another. Any comments that simply provide more evidence of that fact, but don't actually help us in deciding the case, are unhelpful. Worse, they contribute to a situation we have historically seen in some other cases, where the workshop page becomes so unwieldy as to be almost useless for the drafters. Please do your part to help avoid this. Newyorkbrad (talk) 19:55, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

Proposing a two way interaction ban between Ryulong and Auerbach

Nothing good ever happens when the two of them communicate. If a two way interaction ban is put in place (and assuming both of them do the right thing and stop talking about each other on twitter), it should theoretically satisfy everyone's demands. Ryulong will no longer be able to make statements Auerbach considers lies nor edit information about him in articles. Auerbach will no longer be able to make comments that Ryulong feels expose him to harassment. Everyone lives happily ever after, and everything becomes good again.Bosstopher (talk) 00:09, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

Proposals for what we should include in the decision should be included on the workshop itself, rather than on this talkpage, preferably with links to the evidence. This will enable everyone to review and comment in an organized fashion. Thank you. Newyorkbrad (talk) 00:11, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

I dont mean for this to be part of the final decision, I meant this to be like the clerk enforced interaction ban that was put in place between Cla68 and Ryulong. Since that was done through a clerk's talk page, i thought there would be no harm in discussing this here. Bosstopher (talk) 00:19, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

I've warned them both, so we'll see if that helps before taking a more extreme measure. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 00:20, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

A party just blocked and topic banned another party

User:HJ_Mitchell, a party in this case just blocked User:Cla68 for one week and topic banned him indefinitely. They are both parties to this case. Tutelary (talk) 14:54, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

I'm not a party. I'm an uninvolved administrator. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 15:02, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

In fact, Cla isn't a party either according to Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/GamerGate#Involved parties. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 15:04, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

When you're in fact participating heavily in the evidence and workshop, and he is doing the same, you are both parties in the same Arbitration case .I feel uncomfortable with the fact that after blocking him for a week--preventing him from doing anything else to his proposals, you advocate for an definite ban -right- after you blocked him, giving him exactly no chance at all to respond. This reeks of ill intent. Tutelary (talk) 15:06, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

I don't think you'd be saying that if you'd seen the diff he re-instated (although he was not the original author of). I'm pretty sure any admin would have donr the same. Black Kite (talk) 15:08, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

I unwatchlisted the GamerGate controversy and its talk page as it has fittingly been taunting me with a topic I cannot edit. Nonetheless, I still take issue with the block. Even though I did not see said diff, I'll take your word for it that it was bad. Though that warrants only as topic ban---The block, preventing him from responding to proposals or making new ones is over the line. Tutelary (talk) 15:11, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

To be honest, had it been posted on a talk page of any random article, I would have blocked both the original author and anyone who re-instated it - and probably indefinitely or until they made it clear they understood why it was unacceptable. It really was that bad. Anyway, I'll let HJ Mitchell explain his rationale. Black Kite (talk) 15:17, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

I will have to agree that even an involved admin, seeing that edit and its reinstatement, should be empowered as an admin on WP whose purpose is to minimize disruption to the work, to remove and block immediately, though should then ask a second admin or more to just review. The BLP claim was way out of line, and while a new editor might not get that, Cla should know better to reinstate. --MASEM (t) 15:22, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

I never stated it wasn't. What I mean is that blocking another party to the case while you just proposed as a proposal to be indefinitely banned from the project--you blocked them so they can't respond to your proposal to ban them indefinitely. My main issue is with the block, not the topic ban. Tutelary (talk) 15:24, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

First, Tutelary, I'd thank you to withdraw that allegation. That's the second time you've made it here. I take it as a personal attack and an attempt to impugn my reputation in order to undermine an action you disagree with. People have been blocked for less, and if you don't withdraw it, I will ask a clerk to remove it and sanction you. I have not participated in the evidence phase, and my contributions to the workshop have explicitly been as a neutral observer. Note that I don't think I've ever had any significant interaction with Cla before today, I am proposing remedies for parties on both sides of the dispute, and that I have previously made admin actions related to the case (Ryulong, DSA) and to GamerGate in general (Torga, ReynTime, DownWithSJWs, etc, etc) and no good-faith editor has questioned my actions.

Second, I believe my actions were appropriate and proportional. Any experienced editor would be able to tell that that material was grossly inappropriate. I topic-banned the editor who originally posted it (they're relatively new and have constructive contributions elsewhere, so I decided to assume good faith); I did the same with Cla except I blocked him as well because he has a long history of disruption (including in this case) and has been around long enough to know that his actions were beyond the pale. I thought an indef would be disproportionate as the issue would likely be dead and buried in a week's time. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 15:42, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

Why don't you unblock him so he can defend himself from your own ban proposal on the proposals page? You already topic banned him. The block has the effect of preventing him from editing any page other than his talk page, he can't defend himself from your proposal. I'm sure that wasn't your intent, but that's what it's doing. I don't believe that's right--people should be able to respond to the accusations asserted in the workshop. Tutelary (talk) 15:48, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for striking the accusation. The block is necessary to prevent disruption. It's not some arbitrary punishment. I don't block on a whim. I've been an admin for a long time and made more blocks than most; if I went round blocking established editors for no good reason, I'd have been desysopped long ago. Cla is welcome to appeal the block to AN, to request an unblock for the sole purpose of participating in the case, or to convince me that the block is no longer necessary to prevent disruption, but one of those three things has to happen if he's to be unblocked early. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 16:00, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

Just noting that Cla68 may also respond to proposals by sending an email to the Arbitration Committee, the clerks and ask it to be posted or on their talk page and ask it to be posted. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 16:05, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

Armyline

@Callanecc:, I'm confused on this edit saying that Armyline is in violation of his topic ban for posting on the workshop? I thought they don't apply to ArbCom pages and if they do, then shouldn't a lot of people's proposals be removed? Now I'm not advocating for that, but I'm curious on why Armyline is being singled out here. Tutelary (talk) 15:38, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

They apply except per WP:BANEX, so a TBANed editor could post a proposal about their own topic ban (or other proposals which concern them). Only reason it's only them is because that's the only editor we've come across. If TBANed editors want to make other comments on arbitration pages they need to ask for permission from the Committee to do so, otherwise they are liable to be blocked to enforce the ban. So a reminder to those who are topic banned and have commented: DungeonSiegeAddict510, Tutelary, Avono, ArmyLine. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 15:56, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

Wait, so I can't make my proposals? Actually looks like I can, since Gamaliel thought about this and specifically allowed it once he topic banned me. Still, they should be allowed to participate in this ArbCom case regardless of topic ban. (Except for DSA, because he accepted exclusion of ArbCom case for his unblock.) Tutelary (talk) 16:02, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

Was just about to ask the same as my TB states An exception is made for participating at WP:ARBGG.. No where does it say there that I can't make any new proposals. Avono (talk) 16:05, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

That's not the policy and it never has been. They are free to email the Arbitration Committee and make comments there. No worries Avono and Tutelary regarding your exception, I just thought it wise to make sure everyone knew. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 16:07, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

For clarity sake, Armyline is being primarily singled out because his topic ban doesn't have the usual exception? Tutelary (talk) 16:10, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

It's because his topic ban does not have an exemption written into it like yours and Avono's. That is, if your topic ban did not have not including participation in ArbCom cases written into it. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 16:17, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

As far as I'm concerned as the original sanctioning admin, I'm happy to endorse an exemption in this case, or to amend the wording of the ban to allow participation, Acroterion (talk) 19:03, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

I'm sure he'd appreciate that. Though if you do that, you may want to leave a personal note on his talk page--and fast too. Workshop closes in a matter of hours. I know if my topic ban prevented participation I would just unwatchlist the entire thing. As a result, he might not even see we're discussing it. Tutelary (talk) 22:45, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

24 hours, from about now. I'd like to hear from Callanecc first, since I don't want to mess with arb clerk actions. I'll let ArmyLine know, though. Acroterion (talk) 00:07, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

Go for, if there is an exemption the section can be unhatted (we just won't go into litigating whether we can make retroactive decisions). Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 04:52, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

Removal of evidence

I protest the removal of my evidence by clerk SPhilbrick. Carrite (talk) 22:20, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

As one of the drafters I can assure you that this removal will not effect the eventual outcome of the case one bit. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:43, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

Proposals by Rhoark

I seem be having technical difficulties stemming from the size of the workshop page. So I will park this here, at least initially. Rhoark (talk) 03:01, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

Probably should've asked this earlier...

But what does 'proposed enforcement' mean? Is it basically how something will be enacted? For example, I proposed X editor be topic banned from the topic in the 'remedies' section. The 'proposed enforcement' section will be used to say that 'X editor is definitely banned from the topic of Gamergate, broadly construed'. Is that what the section is to be used for? If not, I'm a bit confused by it. Tutelary (talk) 18:34, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

Aren't most "enforcement" things like "this user will be blocked and logged below"?—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 19:05, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

TDA and Workshop Decorum

This, referring to self in the 3rd person and heaping praise upon one's own head cannot possibly be taken as a good-faith or serious proposal. Tarc (talk) 20:40, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

Huh? He's doing a proposed finding of fact on himself. He's more than able and free to do such. Whether the arbs will take it into the proposed decision is another story. Tutelary (talk) 20:47, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

I find it odd that this is the second time he's waited for the final day of deadlines to present all of this shit, so no one has a chance to respond to it properly.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 21:00, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

Ryulong do you have any proof that this is the reason? If not, I would appreciate that you redact unsubstanciated claims about editors. Tutelary (talk) 21:05, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

No and no.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 21:08, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

• Just as a general reply and not in reference to anyone in particular: I most certainly do anticipate that behavior during the case will be a contributing factor in the final decision.
• On this specific matter: I do find it annoying that in both instances TDA has elected, for whatever reason, to post large volumes of new material at the very last moment. We have been reminding everyone from day one, before the case was even formally accepted, that we want to get this done as quickly as possible and it hampers that goal when this sort of thing happens. That being said, in the absence of any evidence to the contrary it is entirely possible that TDA is just one of those people who is always the last person to show up. Perhaps he is out Christmas shopping as we speak... Beeblebrox (talk) 22:14, 24 December 2014 (UTC)