Talk:Gamergate (harassment campaign)

Sanctions enforcement

All articles related to the gamergate controversy are subject to discretionary sanctions.

Requests for enforcing sanctions may be made at: Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement.

Discussion of notice

Removed previous "hat"; editors wishing to "re-hat" may raise the issue at WP:AE - Ryk72 ^'c.s.n.s.' 21:50, 23 May 2015 (UTC):

It's not our place to define or describe policy -- especially not in such complex matters. We could repeat what is written elsewhere, but that’s pointless: it's written elsewhere. Or we could describe the same things differently, in which case we might easily be incorrect and mislead our readers.

It is necessary and sufficient to warn people of the sanctions and to link to the page that describes them. There is nothing else we can do here -- and nothing else on this subject that we are permitted to do.

This interminable discussion has proceeded without explanation or justification. It’s neither pertinent to the topic nor productive of improvement to the encyclopedia. It’s gone on for weeks without making any progress whatsoever. Please, take it to AE or take it elsewhere, thank you. MarkBernstein (talk) 15:48, 23 May 2015 (UTC)}}

Added "Expand section" tag. This is a bit cryptic. What is the significance of this for the user? How about "dos and don'ts" that distinguish the guidelines of this page from Standard Talk Page Operating Procedure. Chrisrus (talk) 17:08, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

Please stop this. Take this up with the Admins at AE, AN, or ANI or anywhere but here. ForbiddenRocky (talk) 17:55, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

If this talk page is differen, we have to explain how. Chrisrus (talk) 19:15, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

To expand on the reference link above, it says, and I quote:

(i) The community Gamergate general sanctions are hereby rescinded and are replaced by standard discretionary sanctions, which are authorized for all edits about, and all pages related to, (a) GamerGate, (b) any gender-related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

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

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

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

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

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

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

This is too cryptic to be of much use to users. Chrisrus (talk) 19:15, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

If you believe that ArbCom should clarify this statement, I believe there's a page for that. [Clarification and Amendment] is thataway. Anything that one or two or more who are gathered in this place is just the sound of a tinkling cymbal. If you're believe that Arbcom doesn't understand what it said, there are plenty of newspaper and magazine reports about this page and Arbcom who agree with you -- but again, that's neither here nor there. If you're hoping to convince some administrators to be more accepting of Gamergate-recruited socks, zombies, and "new" users who are remarkably fluent in Wikilaw, well, it's a free country but at this point I think it's going to be an uphill struggle to find many administrators who enjoy that sort of thing. I don't see that there's much we can do here. MarkBernstein (talk) 20:06, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

This thread is about this sanctions enforcement announcement. If you have anything helpful to add the topic of this sanctions announcement; what it means for this article and this talk page, please feel free to let us know here. Chrisrus (talk) 21:03, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

What specific suggestions do you have to add regarding this topic? Gamaliel (talk) 21:30, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

That an explanation be added here here so the people can understand anything important about it that talk page readers should know. Chrisrus (talk) 21:56, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

"All articles related to the gamergate controversy are subject to discretionary sanctions. Any uninvolved administrator is authorised to place revert and move restrictions on this article, as well as interaction bans, topic bans, and blocks of up to one year in duration on editors who have been alerted of the sanctions" Would something like that (perhaps with shorter sentences) work?Bosstopher (talk) 22:01, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

Yes, I think so, thank you. It seems to say that those specific people named there have those specific sanctions on what they can do here. They are to last up to one year. If they do these specific things before that time, any uninvolved administrator can undo it. Is that correct? Is there more? Chrisrus (talk) 00:29, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

Hi Chrisrus & Bosstopher, Bosstopher's wording looks good, but, if I may, the page level restrictions don't seem to be limited to "move and revert". Suggest: "All articles related to the gamergate controversy are subject to discretionary sanctions. Any uninvolved administrator is authorised to place restrictions on this article, and to impose interaction bans, topic bans, and blocks, of up to one year in duration on editors who have been alerted of these sanctions". Hope this helps. - Ryk72 ^'c.s.n.s.' 08:56, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, I think it does. To improve it further, the significance of this for users could be elaborated a bit. For example, we might say what users can do to avoid the sanctions. Chrisrus (talk) 11:30, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

Ok; how about "This article and talk page, and all others related to the GamerGate controversy, are subject to certain discretionary sanctions. Any uninvolved administrator is authorized to place revert and move restrictions on contributors to this article, as well as interaction bans, topic bans, and blocks of up to one year in duration, on any editor who has been alerted of such sanctions placed on them." (Assuming we could turn those red links blue, of course.) Chrisrus (talk) 17:36, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

Why? This is already out there. Admin know this. New users are warned to learn what's going on. What's with this? ForbiddenRocky (talk) 19:18, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

Hi Chrisrus, Unfortunately, we still have the issue that the page level restrictions are not just limited to moves & reverts. I'd suggest linking to WP:Protection Policy for that aspect; although the restrictions don't seem limited to the types listed there either. But still, it seems like it would provide more information to the reader. We could also use WP:Blocking Policy and WP:Banning policy for the blocks & bans links. Hope this helps. - Ryk72 ^'c.s.n.s.' 20:36, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

Ryk72 I think I see what you're saying. With that in mind, if you would, please do take the next stab at it. Chrisrus (talk) 15:40, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

Ok I think we've turn all the red links blue:

"This article, like all others related to the GamerGate controversy, is subject to certain discretionary sanctions. Any uninvolved administrator is authorized to place move and revert move restrictions on contributors to this article, as well as interaction bans, topic bans, and blocks of up to one year in duration, on any editor who has been alerted of such sanctions placed on them."

I found subsection redirects called "WP:UNINVOLVED", "WP:IBAN", and "WP:PP" (protection Policy) for both move and revert restrictions, but Ryk72 seems to be right, that might be improved but it's the best I could find tonight. Chrisrus (talk) 05:00, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

Also, we are still providing no definition of the term "discretionary sanctions", we just link to those specific sanctions. Chrisrus (talk) 05:00, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

How about "This article, like all others related to the GamerGate controversy, is subject to discretionary sanctions. Any uninvved administrator is authorized to place move and revert restrictions on contributors to this article, as well as interaction bans, topic bans, and blocks of up to one year from the time of an alert to that effect." See Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/GamerGate#Discretionary_sanctions for more information." Does that summarize this announcement well? Chrisrus (talk) 05:02, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

Nope. Discretionary sanctions allow administrators to do far more than that. PeterTheFourth (talk) 05:09, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

Point of Order

ForbiddenRocky, In this subsection, users discuss this notice. Exactly which, if any, improvements to the talk page will result is not 100% clear at this point, but at the moment, it's looking like it might be useful for improving maybe the "Warning" hatnote or the FAQs or something. Also, even if improvements of that type don't result, it seems likely to increase and spread understanding of this notice and its significance for this article and talk page. However, at least one other topic, perhaps best described as a point of order, is also found. This may make the subsection harder to conduct and/or follow the first thread at times. Therefore, to facilitate efficient communication, please help keep these threads (and any new threads that might arise) separated within this subsection. Consider starting another section, subsection, or thread, as TheRedPenOfDoom has done below. Thanks, and happy editing! Chrisrus (talk) 15:40, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

Why are you bringing this up here? The editors here aren't the ones imposing or admining the sanctions, so what's the purpose of asking the non-admin editors about all this minutia? How about talking to Gamaliel or Bilby or Zad68 or Future Perfect at Sunrise on their talk page or over at AE? I hope you're not trying to get the editors to exhaustively list how they each might seek remedy within the given sanctions, because that's so situtional that it would take up millions of words. ForbiddenRocky (talk) 18:25, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

Listed admins have posted here recently. I think Masem is an admin, but he's involved. ForbiddenRocky (talk) 18:28, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

There is plenty of information in the multiple tags at the top of the page. How many times do we need to repeat content for people who are unwilling to read them? -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 09:46, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

I've assumed that, if there's nothing new in the announcement, why announce it, so if this announcement was placed here, we assume that it has more to say than just repeat what's in the hatnotes and so maybe we could improve the notes by doing this.

But even if I've been wrong about that and it's just a reminder of information already on this talk page in the talk page notes and such. Then this thread cannot be improve those notes and such, but we're still supposed to understand reminders. People who remind people of things still want their words understood. So as this thread works towards that end as well, and it's still worth doing for no other reason. Chrisrus (talk) 05:29, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

the link to the AE page and the link to the case itself are not included anywhere else in the notices, so that is why they are "being announced" -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 05:41, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

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.

---

ForbiddenRocky I'm not sure but there seems to be some confusion about who brought this up. I didn't start this thread. You'll have to ask them what their point was, but we assume that they thought it was important for us to know this. We've just trying to help to that end, and, insodoing, it is starting to look like it might be another hatnote or an improvement to the existing hatnote or something like that, but at the very least, it's informative and on-topic. Chrisrus (talk) 05:29, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

The first person to have commented in this thread (ie the person who started it) seems to have been... Chrisrus? PeterTheFourth (talk) 05:36, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

[1] yup. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 05:46, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

PeterTheFourth I didn't start this section. I was the first to come along and ask for clarification. I didn't "bring it up". Chrisrus (talk) 06:44, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

TheRedPenOfDoom If you go to Talk:Gamergate_controversy#Sanctions_enforcement and hit "edit", you can see some hidden text there that says "Purposefully not signed to eliminate the auto archiving. TheRedPenOfDoom." So it seems that you started this, not me, isn't that correct? Chrisrus (talk) 07:03, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

No, if you're the first to mention it that means you brought it up, Chrisrus. Please stop filibustering. If you're going to turn this into the same situation as the last time, it might be necessary to hat again. PeterTheFourth (talk) 07:06, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

Fine, as long as it is clear that, although I was the first person to ask for clarification, but I wasn't the one who introduced this subject to the talk page by starting this section. If you want to know why this section was created, ask the person who started it, not me. Chrisrus (talk) 07:22, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

In 6 months you were the very first who found a link to the source of the sanctions and the link to where problems would be resolved as something that "needed clarification".-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 11:31, 22 May 2015 (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.

Where meta-talk pages discussions should take place

Please move this meta-discussion off the GGC talk page. ForbiddenRocky (talk) 05:04, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

Please change your apparent belief that discussions about ways to improve a talk page of an article don't belong on that talk page. Thanks and happy editing! Chrisrus (talk) 10:45, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

Well, I suppose we could move this meta-discussion to Arbitration Enforcement. Would that be good? MarkBernstein (talk) 12:01, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

Who Judges Which Is A Viable Source Or Not?

(rm per editor not having 500 edits) — Preceding unsigned comment added by J0eg0d (talk • contribs) May 18, 2015, 4:27 AM

(WAM Report that was linked in above, for discussion purposes below) --MASEM (t) 01:26, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

Hi J0eg0d. I'm aware of the report, and the report would be regarded as reliable. The problem is that it is also a primary source, so generally we would have to wait for secondary sources to evaluate its findings. As it stands there isn't much we can say through using it other than perhaps noting that WAM found incidents of reported harassment that they identified as coming from Gamergate supporters, simply because any further analysis of the findings is original research, which we are not permitted to do. - Bilby (talk) 04:36, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

There's no requirement to wait on secondary sources to include a primary source. We actually have already alluded that WAM was doing this study already (that was noted by third-party sources), so it's fair to include it. We can report what they claim without any problems (stuff like their finding that only 12% of the tweets they monitered were GG related.) --MASEM (t) 05:12, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

Just as a note, however, outside of how they describe GG in a more neutral tone, the only data I see that really applies immediately to the GG is this 12% number ("During a study performed by WAM from (date to date) on harassment engaged on Twitter, they found that Gamergate-related events accounted for 12% of their total activity.") The bulk of the rest is about online harassment in general and/or Twitter. --MASEM (t) 05:24, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

(Comment by User:j0eg0d removed by User:Liz per editor not having 500 edits)

This is a peer-reviewed, academic paper which we don't consider to be a primary source since the conclusions are drawn and then reviewed independently. It does have a few downsides, such as being a commissioned report rather than a competitive academic journal and also the reviewers are not named (in my field, reviewers are usually picked randomly from a body of experts or committee - only a few experts review each paper and give feedback and this spreads the work around but also gives anonymity if they choose. The larger body is generally a published list so everyone feels comfortable that regardless of the reviewer, it's an expert. It seems the reviewers here were chosen by an Assistant Professor without disclosing the method of choosing experts - also double-blind review processes sound great but by the time one becomes a reviewer, their quirks, peeves and theories are well known and virtually every contributor can identify the reviewer by their comments). It's still more authoritative than virtually all other sources and it's not a primary source. --DHeyward (talk) 14:51, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

I'm not seeing any issue with using this as a source, but I don't think it's that useful. The only bit that seems to be relevant is that 12% of the reported harassment could be linked to GG. — Strongjam (talk) 15:08, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

I'm wondering why we believe this to be peer-reviewed? It appears to be a commissioned white paper. The authors are sound and I have no idea either way whether the work is a reliable source. MarkBernstein (talk) 16:02, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

No one is asking if this is a peer-reviewed paper.(Oops I see now. I agree its not peer-reviewed and/or academic) It is a group that has an interest in tracking harassment (as to combat it), and they have outlined very detailed how they did their survey. Their non-interpreted survey results (eg the 12% of what they tracked as twitter harassment tied to GG) is no way a problem to include, but any interpretation of those numbers that is not stated by this source or a secondary source. It's the same situation with the Newsweek/Brandwatch data. Brandwatch ran the numbers, Newsweek made a secondary conclusion from that. We don't have anything like a Newsweek piece yet to go off but there's no issue with including the "Raw" study as long as the data's useful, and right now, the only thing that even stands out is the 12% number and that's begging the question of really how useful it is. --MASEM (t) 16:33, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

It is academic. Matias is a brilliant young scholar at MIT. DeTar is at MIT too. Boneless is a fellow at Harvard’s Berkmann Center. Brian Keegan’s at Harvard Business School and Northeastern. And there is a statement that the paper was reviewed; this is not precisely what’s usually meant by peer review, but it's a reasonable facsimile. MarkBernstein (talk) 17:14, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

Okay, it's not what I would normally consider academic (it's written not in a style standard for peer reviewed journals), but it appears the work was done with the care of scientific method/surveying techniques, and full description of their approach. I would not be surprised to see a more traditional academic paper from a peer-reviewed source that reviews the results outside of the WAM scope from those researchers. I'm certainly not dismissing this as a possible reliable source just because it doesn't look like a traditional academic paper. --MASEM (t) 17:56, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

I agree with Strongjam. And I agree with Masem's point about need a secondary source for anything interesting conclusion-wise. ForbiddenRocky (talk) 17:26, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

Footnote 62 is interesting, but would need secondary RS. ForbiddenRocky (talk) 17:28, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

It is peer-reviewed using a standard method of review. Double-blind, revise and resubmit is a standard peer-review process. This report was reviewed by five academic reviewers in a double-blind, revise-and-resubmit peer review process chaired by Zeynep Tufekci, Assistant Professor at the University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill. The authors are deeply grateful for the detailed feedback and high standards of these reviewers, whose efforts have led to a much clearer, stronger report. What's missing from normal peer review is the gate to publication (i.e. "commissioned" report even though voluntary) and the qualifications of the reviewers (reviewers or reviewer pool not named). That doesn't make it a primary source. What makes footnote 62 interesting? It says nothing happened - not sure we need another secondary source to say 'nothing happened.' "On November 8, nothing happpened." Not quite compelling regardless of the number of sources. --DHeyward (talk) 18:07, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

Probably interesting along the lines of 'Gamergate supporters are not as capable as they tell each other' re: wave of false reports proving underwhelming. PeterTheFourth (talk) 18:11, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

It corroborates some level of cohesion and organization, as poor as it is. And it shows behavior after the events of 2014. I think the on-going (though dwindling) identifiable as gamergate behavior is historic/encyclopedic. (Though history looking back might not think this particular bit by itself is that interesting, but it does go to the pattern.) ForbiddenRocky (talk) 18:20, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

off-topic exchange of personal opinions. Fut.Perf. ☼ 05:47, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Umm, what? Three days earlier, on the November 8, WAM! was warned anonymously via its reporting form that ‘GamerGate’ was planning acampaign of fake reporting and spam, aiming to submit 10,000 spam reports over the subsequent few days. This was a significant overstatement compared to the number received. One anonymous tip from anonymous saying there will be 10,000 spam reports (not threats or anything directed at people, just reporting false harassment which is hardly GG MO - I'd be more inclined to believe 10,000 directly malicious posts rather than spamming the poll). This is like the conspiracy movie A Force of One with Chuck Norris. Maybe the Rabbit of Caerbannog army that was able to fend off attackers from multiple fronts. Sorry, but this doesn't even sound like GamerGate. A handful of 4chan users generated thousands of accounts and tweets and transitioned to various hashtags. Rocky, you objected to "small number" as being an inaccurate description of the handful of hashtag trolls, yet now "1" is somehow indicative of cohesion and organization? I'm beginning to think there is a conspiracy theory but it's not journalists. --DHeyward (talk) 20:58, 19 May 2015 (UTC) "We, Gamergate, are going to flood you with fake reports." - Gamergate supporters. Hm. Sounds like those fake reports they got later musta been third party trolls. PeterTheFourth (talk) 02:15, 20 May 2015 (UTC) Again, makes no sense if they can flood it with attacks as they did previously, why flip to surveys? Real attacks would count twice. Both skew the reports. How about "We, anti-gamergate, are goint flood the survey with reports of harassment and drive gamergaters off twitter." Which sounds more reasonable and logical? You proposition sounds like a ballot box stuffing campaign with the convoluted logic that if the votes are stuffed for the other guy, the election would be automayically be voided and their guy would be declared winner. You need to present your reverse psychology ideas to Chicago politicians as you must think they should be stuffing the ballot with dead votes for the other guy as counter to sampling statitics. --DHeyward (talk) 05:40, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

coming up

• http://www.themarysue.com/will-prosecutors-act-on-gamergate-death-threat/
• https://support.twitter.com/articles/20171366-trusted-resources

— Preceding unsigned comment added by ForbiddenRocky (talk • contribs) 01:33, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

I don't think either is useful at the moment. Wu has written a number of excellent essays that have been published, but we should be careful with how we use them since she's obviously close to the subject. Crash Override Network becoming a trusted resource by twitter is interesting, but I'm not sure how much weight to give that, and it would probably be more useful for the networks article anyway. — Strongjam (talk) 01:51, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

Found a secondary source for both:

• Machkovech, Sam (May 20, 2015). "GamerGate critic posts death threat voicemail after inaction by prosecutor". ArsTechnica. Retrieved May 20, 2015.

I think we'd be better of using the Ars article for any claims. I'm logging off so I'll leave it to other editors to add. — Strongjam (talk) 02:03, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

Actually I was thinking it was too soon for anything right now, but that it was worth knowing this would be coming up. ForbiddenRocky (talk) 02:12, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

If you take the Ars Tech article - specifically working on the fact there seems to be silence from FBI and others on the issue (and Rep. Clark's plea to push more) and this article [2] from Slate on the difficulty of prosecution of GG-related harassment/cybercrime, there's a reasoanble short passage for this, or integrated with the second para of "Long Term events" to discuss the lack of visible legal action. --MASEM (t) 18:34, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

I can see that. I was thinking more just about this event, but in context your suggestion makes sense. ForbiddenRocky (talk) 18:36, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

[3] Please review this addition. --MASEM (t) 18:51, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

Looks good to me, I did make a small change to avoid the open-ended 'to date' statement. — Strongjam (talk) 19:00, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

bot archiving

The template says it archives in 5 days, but I think it actually archives every 2 days (ish). Someone with bot knowledge can confirm one way or the other? ForbiddenRocky (talk) 17:42, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

Fixed by adjusting the archive notice template. The problem is that the archiving template, the archive index template, and the archive notice template are all completely distinct and will get out of step with one another from time to time.

As I said in my edit, you may find that the two day archive period is a little on the short side for optimal operation, though it may have been appropriate before the recent tightening of editing restrictions. --TS 18:01, 23 May 2015 (UTC)