Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/GamerGate

Main case page (Talk) — Evidence (Talk) — Workshop (Talk) — Proposed decision (Talk) Case clerks: Ks0stm (Talk) & Sphilbrick (Talk) Drafting arbitrators: Roger Davies (Talk) & Beeblebrox (Talk)

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.

Preliminary statements by uninvolved editors

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.

---

Statement by Cla68

I've wanted to participate with editing this article, but have mostly held back because of the vitriol and condescending attitudes presented by some of the established editors who are heavily involved in that article. There are some indications, namely when Future Perfect of Sunrise prematurely shut down that AN discussion and other examples, of improper admin conduct related to this dispute. These examples include some particularly egrious examples of WP:BITE. Judging by the discussion on the article talk page, I think we have some of the most clear examples of non-NPOV editing I've ever seen in WP. If the Committee accepts this case, I will help present evidence, because it appears to be extremely voluminous. Cla68 (talk) 01:19, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

Statement by marginally involved EvergreenFir

Just commenting to urge arbcom to take this case now. On the previous request a couple weeks ago I urged the committee to wait. And wait they did. Not much has come of the WP:GS/GG. I think it's time for arbcom to step in. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 02:05, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

I'll echo a comment above:

• Google "Ryulong" and you will see the extent of the problem here. Edit for clarity: I'm trying to point out the vast off wiki activity going on in gg groups and that users like Ryulong are being targeted. If you Google as I suggested you can quickly see the numerous posts on reddit and the off wiki orchestration occurring. It demonstrates the extent of the problem. To be clear, I am not suggesting users try to dig up info on another user. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 06:20, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

Statement by still uninvolved Hasteur

Please see User:Hasteur/GG 3 Statement since the "committee" is harassing me about being at 861 words of germane to the case request and not the wide sweeping screeds. I challenge that the committee's "rule" about 500 words (especially in light of the SPA nature of this case request) puts those editors who are trying to respond to the committee (and other statements) as something that IAR should have been applied to. Hasteur (talk) 23:45, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

Statement by (uninvolved) Desine

Hi guys! You might want a heads-up that someone's trying to kick up a mob on 8chan to smear anyone and everyone involved in this Arbcom. They're actively trying to doxx people, so I'm not going to link it, but I'd be happy to offer links/archives to trusted parties if necessary. - Desine (talk) 04:43, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

Or, you know, people could just openly link it on my talk page. - Desine (talk) 05:38, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

Statement by Mr. Random

Regarding the 8chan mob: the only doxxing I see in the thread is the mentioning of one editor's name (it's unclear to me whose) in the context of evidence of an editing COI. Their primary objectives seem to be to collect evidence of editor misconduct related to the article (which quickly devolved into general smearing among some of them), and to find pro-GG sources for the article itself. Still, given the mob's instability, we should be ready for anything they might do, so to speak.

There seems to be an edit war here over whether Jimbo Wales is involved. He has commented on Twitter about this issue, but he has not directly participated (or even taken action that could be construed as such in any way), and is thus uninvolved. Please stop trying to list him as an involved party. I stand corrected.

Finally, regarding the case itself: in light of what A Quest For Knowledge just brought up (i.e., an uncalled-for and unusually well-coordinated discussion shutdown, tag removal, and page locking), I must strongly encourage ArbCom to take this case. Random the Scrambled ^(?) 15:38, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

Statement by Halfhat

The problemss with this article are complex and numerous, there are NPOV issues that need worked on (particularly on the intro), however they seem to be argued over almost exclusively making up the bulk of the talk page. There is a serious lack of attention to the over major issues with the page. These include the unjustifiable volume of opinion which has left the article at around 120kB which finally seems to be going down. Part of the problems I think also come from the highly polarizing nature of the topic, just about everyone here has some strong views, though I'm sure many will deny this, however there is clearly more going on. There's a bad habit of adding from every RS and a serious unwillingness to remove. HalfHat 09:01, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

Another issue is the large volume of users attacking each other, this plagues both of the "sides" that have loosely formed, they usually go along the lines of agenda pushing and seldom have anything backing them beyond having opinions, the nature of the topic is highly polarizing, and so we all have our own biases, I think we need to accept this and move on instead of being so quick to accuse. HalfHat 09:21, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

@SirFozzie What evidence do you have to back up your conspiracy theory? HalfHat 09:49, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

For the record I'm not sure what should be done, I'm just trying to share my understanding of the situation since I've been pretty involved. HalfHat 09:00, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

@Fut.Perf. What are you suggesting, guilty until proven innocent for new users? Totally against assume good faith and don't bite the n00bs, which is part of one of the five pillars. Mass bans without researching goes directly against what Wikipedia stands for.

I'm still not sure what is the best idea, but I can't help find how strongly certain users are against this a bit odd. HalfHat 09:48, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

I'd like to bring up a recent action by Dreadstar that I find rather odd, and I think is worth looking at. Basically he told me to stop making references to Hitler. The thing is all I was doing is referring to the Wikipedia article on Adolph Hitler to make a point, which to my knowledge has never actually been addressed. The reason I (and I'd guess others) make references to the Hitler article is because it's a well written article on a very controversial topic where nonfringe sources have strong opinions. I was simply making the argument that if all sources share an opinion we shouldn't agree in Wikipedia's voice. Like I said trying to stop references not to Hitler himself but to the Wikipedia article just seems a bit to me. HalfHat 09:30, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

Here are the diffs https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AHalfhat&diff=635482043&oldid=635152453 https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AGamergate_controversy&diff=635481687&oldid=635481421

Statement by Silver seren

In the interest of keeping the reading of this short, i'll just upfront state my opinion, since it's quite possible the rest of my comment will be long. Thus, in short, Arbcom should NOT accept this case.

This article topic is basically an issue involving a dedicated group of Fringe people (the supporters that make up the Gamergate group) pushing for an article that reflects their POV, rather than neutrality or reliable sources. Considering the ongoing harassment campaign against dozens of people by this group, it is unsurprising that they are also wishing to control the narrative of the Wikipedia article on the topic of their group. They are similar to any other fringe group, whether speaking of pseudoscience or subjects related to sects of things in religion or political ideology. Several of the individuals that have made statements above are clear and known supporters of this Gamergate subject group. As you'd expect, there are a lot of SPAs involved. And then there are several others, which I will name Masem as one, that are trying to be good Wikipedians, but are pushing the point of neutrality to a fault. In a manner like what a lot of news media does, they are assuming that since there is more than one side involved, that the sides are equal and should be given equal weight. In this vociferous attempt to be neutral, they are essentially advocating for a violation of WP:DUE WEIGHT and against the very point of FRINGE existing.

Also, a side note of what exactly Wikipedia as a whole is dealing with in regards to this group and which several others have noted above, there are a number of threads within the Gamergate areas that currently are watching this very Arbcom request and say things such as, and I quote,

"DIG UP ALL INFO POSSIBLE ON Ryulong, NorthBySouthBarnoff, TarainDC, and TheRedPenofDoom."

So, in addition to dealing with rampant meatpuppetry, there are also concerns regarding harassment and WP:GAMING. Please take all of this into account.

It is for all the above reasons that I suggest that Arbcom does not take this case. The article is already being administered properly, following the policy and guideline rules of reliable sources, neutrality, due weight, and consensus among editors. The involvement of Arbcom at this junction would only serve to make the overall situation more chaotic and would only produce heat and no light at all. Thank you for your time. Silverseren^C 09:03, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

Statement by SirFozzie

Here we go again. My statement last time (that people outside Wikipedia are attempting to use the "Death by a Thousand Cuts" technique to force editors out of the area, to give their SPA/POV warriors a chance to slant the article to their preferred version... think that's pretty much came true, huh? Dunno how it's solveable, it's against "Wikipedia's code" to restrict SPA's based on what they MIGHT do, but it's just a wave upon wave of attacks, hoping to "break the dam" through erosion. SirFozzie (talk) 09:39, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

HalfHat: Would the threads on 8Chan and KiA where they discuss how to break users in this thread help? SirFozzie (talk) 10:00, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

Oh, I see what got you worried. I mentioned Restricting SPA's, which would possibly affect you, correct? SirFozzie (talk) 10:02, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

Statement by Cs_california

I have been on Wikipedia for a while and made one to two NPOV edits on this page. On 28 September 2014 I added a sentence with reference on one of issues regarding corruption involving EA games. On October 22, 2014 a message was sent to me about an administrator board message from User:Ryulong. I, along with some fifteen users were wrongfully accused of being "Pro-gamergate" per Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive265#Nip Gamergate in the bud and was requested to be banned from the page for POV pushing and editing pages such as " (Anita Sarkeesian, Video game journalism, Zoe Quinn, Brianna Wu, etc.) ", which I have never edited. I only added 2 sentences and was automatically assigned an alignment to a certain side.

After reviewing some talk pages it seems like User:Ryulong is pushing a POV agenda including:

• Witch hunting of users per request Nip Gamergate in the bud with NO research (ie "zero edits outside of this topic area in the past 2 months")
• Incorrectly removing POV tags Talk:Gamergate controversy/Archive 8#POV tag
• Bullying and acting in an Uncivil manner
  • including reverting users talk pages for no reason
  • Using pejorative terms to refer to anyone presenting counter evidence
  • Incivility

Per comments about 8chan: I do not know what that website is nor do I use it. As for the dig up everything comment. If there was no proof of anything negative there would be nothing for them to find. Only administrative bureaucrats can delete personal information or items from history.

-Cs california (talk) 10:36, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

Statement by Avono

I will be agreeing with Cla68 and Masem, imho the biggest problem with the gamergate talkpage is that is it overly hostile for uninvolved /new users to get involved in by a set of problematic users who have clearly shown that there are not impartial (Wales telling both Tarc & Ryulong to stop editing the page ([1],[2]) . At the current time it is not worth the effort to solve the article’s npov issues because of that group of people who seem to think that they “own” ("35,5 % of all edits are done by Ryulong & NorthBySouthBarnof") the article.

@Silver seren:: the exact quote is "ITS IN ARBCOM GUYS. ARB. FUCKING. COM. (or at least a request). DIG UP ALL INFO POSSIBLE ON Ryulong, NorthBySouthBarnoff, TarainDC, and TheRedPenofDoom. Wiki related, we don't need twitter/tumblr/etc shit unless its related.",so please don't take quotes out of context. Users are accountable for their own actions therefore your second last argument about possible harassment is invalid. Avono (talk) 11:31 am, Today (UTC+1)

updated at Avono (talk) 14:25, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

Statement by User:Thargor Orlando

Please refer to my original comment, not much has changed. I'm completely in Cla68's boat in which the behavior of what, for the purposes of this filing, would be called "anti-GG" editors have fostered a climate where editing in the area for uninvolved editors is not worth the energy or fear of being blocked.

@Hasteur:'s point about the new enforcement page (which replaces/duplicates the existing page) just further highlights the problem. We're expecting the same community and administrators that appear to be unable to take a neutral look at this situation (as demonstrated with the NPOV tag issue) to then somehow be responsible enough to handle sanctions that do not appear to have wide approval, having been instituted after less than a day of discussion and without addressing significant problems. Also, Hasteur isn't uninvolved at all, as you're the one who sought community sanctions on this issue as the one who proposed the sanctions under "Proposed Gamergate solution by Hasteur." The accusations levied on me for wanting accountability and the bad faith demonstrated by Hasteur in his response are just some of many examples of how poisonous this has become and why a neutral party needs to be involved. Thargor Orlando (talk) 00:49, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

In summary, I don't see how this can be resolved without ArbCom intervention anymore. The community trust on this issue is basically ruined on both sides, and neutral parties willing to look at all angles of this are desperately needed. Hopefully ArbCom can be that group. Thargor Orlando (talk) 22:59, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

@Carcharoth: User:Gamaliel's latest update about "forum shopping" is, ironically, what I think of when I think of what happened the last few days with the NPOV tag. Clearly anti-GG editors couldn't get consensus at the article page to remove the necessary NPOV tag, so they forum shopped it to AN/I, allegedly got consensus there and then got the tag removed. The constant steamrolling of one side of the discussion in favor of the other is the problem here. I have no dog in this fight, I don't care enough about this issue to have a side, but I do have a vested interest in an encyclopedia that isn't having articles handled the way this one is by small pools of editors with various points of views and vendettas due to understandable anger at off-wiki activities. As someone who has been attacked off-site for alleged points of view and advocacy, I can sympathize, but that's simply not an excuse and the discretionary sanctions do not appear to be able to handle those editors because of the emotions and controversy surrounding this. Please take this case, it's really the only way we can get this sorted. Thargor Orlando (talk) 16:55, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

Statement by uninvolved Liz

I'm glad to see that this page is semi-protected. It's alarming to see threads like this (https://8chan.co/gg/res/471658.html and http://www.reddit.com/r/KotakuInAction/comments/2ltg1a/this_is_really_important_top_wikipedia_admins_are/) on 8chan and reddit basically trying to rally the troops to influence these proceedings and "dig up information" on some of the participants (specifically Ryulong, NorthBySouthBarnoff, TarainDC and TheRedPenofDoom) . I know off-wiki activity is generally not considered but this seems especially targeted to influence any decision-making.

I hope that ARBCOM considers the arguments of people actually involved with editing articles concerning this subject and not uninvolved editors (myself included). Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 13:12, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

I just came across Operation 5 Horseman (GamerGate is fond of military language) on pastebin, [3], focused on combing through contributions of a variety of editors and admins involved in this process to dig up dirt. Regardless of the specific content disputes, I fear that the evidence phase of a proceeding of an ArbCom case will spiral out-of-control and get overly personal on the real, personal failings of all-to-human editors. Given the off-Wikipedia conversations I've read, I wouldn't be surprised to see arbitrators next being subject to this same level of scrutiny if their opinions don't please this group of readers.

I realize that the consequences of taking a case shouldn't be the primary factor in deciding to accept a case. I just can easily see this becoming a circus with an ever-expanding number of participants. I'm thinking more about the ArbCom clerks more than anyone else as they are tasked with managing cases. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:19, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

Statement by Akesgeroth

I have rewritten my statement to follow the 500 words rule. Anyone wishing to review the original statement when the involved parties begin pretending that I do not address some issues (or simply wishing for more information) can do so here:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Akesgeroth#Statement_by_Akesgeroth

The continued contributions of four Wikipedia users (Ryulong, Tarc, TheRedPenOfDoom and NorthBySouthBaranof), referred to as The Four from here on out, combined with the tacit support of certain administrators acting as proxies for them threatens Wikipedia's integrity to an unacceptable point which will not be fixed without arbitration because of the involved party's continued abusive behavior and clear lack of remorse. They are not acting in good faith and are acting with the protection of certain administrators to edit politically sensitive topics and push their own narratives, making arbitration necessary to preserve Wikipedia's image. Here is a long, yet by no means complete, list of abuses committed by The Four:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Akesgeroth#Evidence

In summary, The Four have repeatedly rejected any evidence supporting the “ethics in gaming journalism” perspective, present their own evidence as neutral when it clearly isn't and hide behind the longevity of their accounts, the number (rather than the value) of their contributions to Wikipedia and flawed regulations rather than cooperate with other users in writing a neutral article. Furthermore, they viciously attack users trying to participate reasonably in the discussion, from veiled threats of administrative action on their talk page to outright editing what their opponents said.

So, considering the massive body of evidence of abuse from The Four, their obvious unwillingness to cooperate in the writing of a neutral article, their protection by users with administrative powers, the massive amount of reliable sources provided showing the misogyny perspective being denied, it is obvious that this issue will not be solved by anything short of arbitration and so strongly suggest that the request be accepted. The Gamergate controversy article needs to be either rewritten or deleted (and kept deleted) until the events are over, The Four need to be blocked from editing it or any politically charged topic in the future and administrators who acted as proxies need to be demoted. As spoken by Akesgeroth (talk) 00:31, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

Statement by A Quest for Knowledge

This request never should have been filed. It's only been a week since the Committee declined a request for a GamerGate case,[4] a request in which the filer directly participated in.[5] I suggest a warning/admonishment/sanction/whatever-you-want-to-call-it against The Devil's Advocate for filing a frivolous request. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 19:19, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

On second thought, perhaps ArbCom should take a limited case after what just happened at AN/I. Tarc violated his topic ban by opening this thread. Despite the facts that a) numerous uninvolved editors (such as myself) said that the tag should remain until the NPOV issues are resolved and b) the article talk page is filled with ongoing discussions of the article's NPOV problems, Mdann52 closed the thread bizarrely claiming (and I quote) "No ongoing discussion, so tag removed per consensus below."[6] TheRedPenOfDoom then removes the NPOV tag[7] and 18 minutes later, instead of reverting an obvious bad close, Future Perfect locks the article.

Now, perhaps the timing is purely coincidental, but given the accusation that admins have been favoring one side, perhaps ArbCom should open a limited case to examine whether admins have been enforcing community sanctions in a fair, even-handed fashion. If the accusation that admins have indeed been biased in their application of community sanctions, then the community sanctions will clearly fail. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 14:39, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

Statement by Jehochman

Salvio, please stay on the fence; Newyorkbrad needs somebody to keep him company.  :-D I think you could hear the case as long as you prune the list of parties to remove the neutral admins who are enforcing the community sanction. I think there should be a motion to confirm that those sanctions are in effect, and that this filing does not stop them from operating, nor does it interfere with their enforcement. To do otherwise would encourage gaming the rules. Also, if you find the accusations are baseless, you should consider sanctioning the requesting party(ies) to discourage the use of Arbitration as a form of SLAPP. Jehochman ^Talk 21:18, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

Statement by Robert McClenon

In the previous Request for Arbitration concerning Gamergate controversy, I asked what the filing party and supporters were asking the ArbCom to do, and in particular why the community general sanctions would not be the appropriate remedy. Failing a statement by the filing party and supporters, I said that the ArbCom should decline to take the case. Now I strongly suggest that the ArbCom accept the case. I will explain why. The primary reason is that there are certain editors whom the community cannot deal with effectively, and they are editors who polarize the community because they have both strong supporters and strong opponents. They include habitually uncivil editors who have a reputation as “excellent content creators”. It now appears that the editors who are called The Five are another class of editors who polarize the community. I make that statement without saying that they are right or that they are wrong, only that the community cannot deal with editors who polarize the community. The ArbCom can deal with editors who polarize the community. If the ArbCom finds that the principal “anti-Gamergate” editors have been engaging in ownership and battleground editing of the Gamergate article, it can impose sanctions on them. If the ArbCom finds that the principal “anti-Gamergate” editors have not engaged in sanctionable behavior, then any persistence in that claim will become a sanctionable personal attack by the critics. Either the principal “anti-Gamergate” editors deserve to be sanctioned, or they deserve to be vindicated, rather than constantly attacked by other editors.

A secondary reason is that, due to the excessive level of threats of doxing and claims of doxing, it may be necessary to consider evidence involving actual identity information that is only permitted for highly trusted functionaries such as the arbitrators.

Because one of the limits of the community process is that the community cannot deal with editors who polarize the community, I ask that the ArbCom now accept this case.

Robert McClenon (talk) 00:15, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

There is a thread in progress at WP:ANI in which a proposal is being made to topic-ban User:Ryulong from Gamergate controversy. Although it is clear that the thread will be closed with a consensus against, the thread illustrates my observation above that sometimes the community is polarized by particular editors, including Ryulong. Either Ryulong deserves to be sanctioned, or he deserves to be vindicated, or he deserves to be vindicated in general but with an admonition (which is what I would recommend). Only the ArbCom can sanction or vindicate Ryulong and other "anti-Gamergate" editors. Please accept the case. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:06, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

Statement by Volunteer Marek

Whatever you do (pass a motion, lock it down, empower some discretionary sanctions) DON'T accept this case. That will make sure that this issue remains unresolved for at least six ten months or longer. Volunteer Marek  00:17, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

Statement by Dave Dial(DD2K)

It's unbelievable to me that a few contentious editors(TDA, Tutelary, Cla68) aided by an admin(Masem) who claims to be neutral(which it is painfully obvious he is not) can cause such a shit storm. ArbCom has allowed this to go on for far too long, and if you don't have the guts to make the tough decisions, then resign. Masem, TDA and the rest have allowed articles and their Talk pages related to 'gamergate' to be disrupted by SPAs over and over and over. With the dozens of links known to the committee from outside sites driving this fiasco, what the Hell are you waiting for? Many of you seem all too eager to take the DP case below, and in fact desysop him at the drop of a hat wit no cause. Yet sit on your collective hands as this stupid shit spirals into the mess it is now. You all should be ashamed that editors at the article and their Talk pages have been bombarded by SPAs and shit stirrers, Masem aids and abets, and the cycle goes on and on, and ArbCom kicks the can down the road. Dave Dial (talk) 02:02, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

@User:Masem - You can bet that links will be provided if this case is accepted. For now, all anyone has to do is look at your contributions on the article and the Talk page. And your tactics are pretty well summed up on the most recent ANI episode. You have consistently and unrelentingly made long time editors jump through hoops to keep out reliably sourced material from mainstream outlets, and have accepted and tried to insert fringe material from SPAs. Over and over and over. Your claim of neutrality is laughable. Dave Dial (talk) 19:44, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

I just want to add that despite my harsh wording, I respect people who have the fortitude to serve on the committee. Saying that, I think a simple way to solve this case is to give out several topic bans of anything related to women or feminism(broadly construed) and then set the gamergate article, its Talk page, and all related pages(broadly construed) to "pending changes" protection. For 6 months. Inform the admins over at the Reviewer Rights to not give the right out to new accounts. Thanks. Dave Dial (talk) 15:31, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

Adding that it looks like overwhelming the project is working just fine for the 8chan gamergate trolls. As long time editors and helpers of the project get burnt out, we are left with fewer and fewer good editors helping the project, and more and more trolling for POV and "lulz". Good job, Jimbo. Dave Dial (talk) 23:03, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

Statement by uninvolved John Carter

I suggest the case be taken as per Salvio's comments below. If this is, as he says, the third time that a request for action on this topic has been made in the past couple of weeks, there is some clear evidence that at least some individuals are trying to avoid talking to each other and instead talking to ArbCom to start a case. Collective beating on a dead horse can I suppose sometimes in itself be grounds for arbitration action, if there seems to be a rather longish line of people holding sticks waiting to relieve each other as the earlier corpse abusers get blocked, finally get some sleep, etc. John Carter (talk) 17:58, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

Statement by Protonk

It seems we may accept this case. If we do, I recommend two things:

• "Off-wiki" coordination (a bit of a misnomer here as the coordination predates and is not largely concerned with wikipedia) and message discipline are ongoing and have been since the disputes over this article arose. Both the content goal ("gamergate is a movement about ethics in journalism, harassment is limited to bad eggs whom the community has disavowed, further the actions against gaters are just as bad but are being papered over because of unfair media coverage") and the methods (high volume of complaints about bias and equal time, doxxing of involved participants, all the while stating that it would be bad to harass these enemies of truth and justice, etc.) are coordinated in various places--4chan, before a bunch of people got kicked; 8chan's /gg board; TumblrInAction and KotakuInAction as well as other IRC channels and imageboards. This is not a paranoid wikipedia's fever dream, it is something established by reliable sources for this subject specifically. This coordination doesn't indict individual editors per se, but it exists. Do not ignore it.
• Long term editor behavior has not been optimal, but resist the urge to focus on editor behavior as this is exactly the playbook for the above coordination (and one well worn from every FRINGE dispute which makes it to ArbCom). Don't overlook wrongs, but consider the volume and relative calm of the GG talk page as a testament to the repetitive and stressful nature of the debate. This is a content outcome, but we should not carry water for a movement (where it is acting as a movement) which represents a reactionary and sexist bid to rewrite history just for the PR. The core of GG is about making everything "about ethics in games journalism" while the whole of the controversy carries on with women, critics and indie developers harassed and anti-feminist allies found on the right. It's ugly tribalism and there are a small number of editors (now targeted on 8chan) working to make sure our article doesn't present this fringe view as reality. Do not forget that.

Be prepared to deal with bullshit and don't waste your time or ours. Protonk (talk) 16:39, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

Statement by Rich Farmbrough (GG)

This is always going to be a difficult area, until the text-books are written about it. The polarising nature of the debate ensures that the majority of people, which includes many of us, believe that they are NPOV on the subject, while actually taking either one side or the other. The normal recourse to RS is difficult, because one side of the dispute is (at least to some extent) the people who normally write the RS. Thus it is not surprising that there is conflict. Nonetheless there is common ground even among those most affected by the dispute, for example the guy that runs 8Chan was interviewed recently and condemned the treatment of Quinn, Quinn was also interviewed recently and said some nice things about gamers in general. While of course the trolling on both sides continues, the people who actually matter are acting like real human beings. I see great efforts being made on talk pages to reach consensus, but I also see edit warring and intransigence. It is up to the community to develop a modus vivendi to deal with these issues.

In the event that ArbCOm can be part of that solution by lowering the temperature and perhaps pace, then am Arbcom case could be a good thing. Blocking can be left I think to AN/I, if editors adopt a battleground mentality, or edit war.

Statement by Pudeo

The administrative actions of Dreadstar have been peculiar here. In particular, this this 3RR report concerning 12 reverts in 24 hours was closed as no action by Dreadstar because it was stale 15 hours later. The adminstrator in question often arrives to do clutch decisions that seem to be completely one-sided to me. Dreadstar also closed the ANI thread mentioned in TDA's statement, again of course the people who are for the "anti"-POV (Ryulong et. al.) got off the hook. The Gamergate talk page and edit notes have had horrendous language, usually from Ruylong and Tarc (scanning for the word "fuck" may give a quick idea), but they have never been admonished as even the ANI was quickly closed by Dreadstar. One view referenced in the article itself is that the Gamergate controversy is a "culture war" (feminism/anti-feminism). This in my opinion explains why "uninvolved" admins as well can have plenty of external motives to act in a partisan way. It's definitely not a good thing if such cliques form in the admin corps. --Pudeo' 01:53, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

Statement by AuerbachKeller

Ryulong made a problematic BLP edit referencing me as chronicled on the Gamergate:Talk page. When I politely requested that he not cite me in the future due to this incident, he accused me in multiple places on WP of threatening him: On my own talk page and on the Gamergate talk page He is now telling Drmies to revoke my confirmed status and to tell me to stay away from him (Ryulong). Ryulong's behavior appears to be a WP:CONDUCT violation on the grounds of civility at the very least. I hope this issue will be addressed. Auerbachkeller (talk) 19:36, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

Statement by Tony Sidaway

I think this is working, and I hope more admins will get involved in enforcement. Editing on the talk page has really stabilised over the past three days and progress is being made on the draft since the main article was put under full protection. Editors with different opinions are reaching consensus on major issues of content and structure in this admittedly imperfect article.

I'm trying to direct conduct issues (some of which are admittedly severe) towards dispute resolution in user talk pages as the like, and this will work if given a chance. I'm not encountering any serious opposition. Keep this open for a few more weeks, perhaps. This topic is time sensitive, ephemeral. Consensus is coalescing as reliable sources grow in unanimity.

There may be a case for community action on some disputes, and in some cases a 2004-style summary motion may help. The admins are still timid. Perhaps a motion encouraging them to take action is in order.

Update 21:52, 19 November 2014 (UTC). I'm unhappy with the apparent existence of a rather ugly external campaign. I'm stepping away from Wikipedia for a while. I now think arbitration is inevitable though I'm uncertain what it can achieve in the circumstances. Good luck, and please make sure you lock down the arbitration mailing lists.

Statement by previously involved IP user (74.12.93.242)

I am making a new statement as my first was rejected as too long.

Let me preface this by noting that I find the prejudice against so-called "SPA"s here mind-boggling. Every account is, by definition, an SPA the moment the first edit is made. It's unreasonable to expect new users to begin work on multiple articles simultaneously, and not devote special attention to any of them - especially if that user then gets dragged into WP:BRD.

But what really irritates me about the current situation is all the double standards.

Claims about "obvious SPAs and POV pushers who have been filling the talk page with rambling, evidence-free arguments... [and] unsupported claims of "bias!!!!" are made here unironically, without citing the evidence of POV-pushing, and in spite of other statements that exhaustively cite the claims of bias on the part of User:TaraInDC and others. Meanwhile, when a small team of like-minded editors are responsible for a huge percentage of the edits to both the page itself and the talk page, they seem somehow immune to accusations of WP:OWN and WP:TAGTEAM. The same editors claim a "consensus" against the WP:NPOV tag on the article, and then say "consensus is not a vote" when basically everyone else objects.

Accusing admins etc. of being SPAs and pushing for them to be banned somehow doesn't WP:BOOMERANG on some, while relatively minor issues do on others. Some accounts get sanctioned for 3RR, while others get away with 15RR. I get chastised for WP:BLP when I try to explain what Gjoni actually said on the talk page, while other editors apparently get to misrepresent the sources and make false allegations against Gjoni in the actual article content (1, 2).

I see complaints about WP:GAMING by people who are trying to figure out how to make a case that will actually stick, after all the flagrant violations that have been ignored due to what looks like blatant WP:GAMING to those individuals. They're condemned for "organizing offsite" to figure this out - even though editors are supposedly allowed to do/say what they want off of Wikipedia in general, and complain loudly when those actions are cited as evidence of bias.

(Most of the above is a synthesis of other users' statements and my observation thereof. Please let me know if you feel any additional citations are necessary.)

Per comments User:Ryulong made in previous ANI action, it seems he considers himself qualified to judge his own lack of bias. He also promised there: "I will keep away more than the 48 hours it took for me to get bored sitting in Hong Kong airport with nothing to do for 5 hours." That was on October 23, and as far as I can tell from the revision history, this did not happen. I point this out for the benefit of those who have been counselling Ryulong to calm down and step away for a bit (Robert McClenon; Jimbo Wales).

74.12.93.242 (talk) 13:01, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

Statement by very marginally involved user xaosflux

I am only involved if the use of the PC2 protection level as an WP:IAR action in violation of the protection policy as an extraordinary measure is being addressed by arbcom. I participated in and endorsed Cuchullain's use of PC2 on the Zoe Quinn article as an extraordinary control. This was endorsed on WP:RFPP as well. — xaosflux ^Talk 03:01, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

Statement by Kurtis

I urge the Arbitration Committee to accept this case. Gamergate has become a spiraling cesspool of vitriol, the likes of which I've never seen before. This isn't just a bunch of fringe theorists trying to use dispute resolution as a means of pushing an agenda; this is one of the nastiest disputes in the history of Wikipedia. The two sides have stooped to casting vile aspersions against one another, poisoning the entire atmosphere of the main article and related pages. This has spilled onto ANI, AN3, and elsewhere on an almost daily basis. At the very least, something must be done to stem the tide of aggression, because it's making collaborative editing virtually impossible. We cannot sweep this thing under the rug any longer, because it will only fester until we're looking at a mess of gargantuan proportions. Kurtis ^(talk) 06:27, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

Statement by previously involved Bosstopher

I'd like to reiterate the points I made here. The article is a scary place where everyone is too suspicious of each other to act collaboratively, or view any suggestions made by editors they dislike as legitimate. Everyone's convinced the other side's out to get them, and as a result of this are out to get the other side, so by the end of it regardless of initial intentions it becomes ultimately impossible to edit this article without giving into (a worryingly justified) paranoia. Over the course of this article being edited, two editors have been doxxed. The reaction to this doxxing was one of little sympathy.[8][9][10][11][12][13] Another editor of the article has had to turn his twitter to private, due to the harassment he has received for his editing. And as a lot of the other statements mention 8chan is now trying to dig up dirt on the people they dislike.

Further adding to atmosphere of suspicion are the actions of editors such as Loganmac. Loganmac has been broadcasting the conversations of the Gamergate controversy talk page through twitter and the subreddit KotakuInAction. There is of course nothing wrong with doing this alone, other editors like Tarc and TheDevilsAdvocate have also broadcasted their editing sagas and contacted those embroiled in the controversy. However in both their cases they have acted to clear up confusion regarding the article, tried to explain why it is how it is, and have apologized and clarified when they have made factual errors. Loganmac has now spread false information about other editors through KotakuinAction, at least twice now. In both cases he has refused to clarify the incorrect information he was spreading. He has also lied about these events on wiki claiming Ryulong was stalking his twitter and reddit accounts when in reality (as evident in the very diff Logan cited) I, who track both the twitter hashtag and KiA out of interest in the controversy, brought the posts to his attention. Logan has been acting to heavily inflame the situation.

As a result of events like the ones I have described above, people editing this article do not trust each other. Including this hilarious ANI, in which Ryulong accuses an admin of being an SPA that's out to get him, and accuses me of "solely [using] Wikipedia to push the "pro-Gamergate" agenda," a somewhat cynical claim given that in two of the few times we interacted in our editing, I was pushing for the inclusion of material that could be considered Anti-GG, and defending the article from a pro-GG POV pusher (dont know how to link deleted diffs, but it's from 22:51 26/09). Similarly Ryulong assumed when Willhesucceed posted an article highlighting misogyny and abuse in Gamergate, that he had done the exact opposite.

In conclusion everything is dreadful and there's probably no way to fix it. Good luck Arbcom! Also sorry for mostly focusing on you, Ryulong and Loganmac, your actions were those that remained the freshest in my mind.

Statement by Sookenon

Not much to say, except maybe to bring this to your attention.

Maybe it's just me, but I have a VEEEEEEERRRRRY good feeling that you gents on the Arbitration Committee might want to take a look at this:

https://twitter.com/milky_candy/status/531771040444461056

https://twitter.com/search?q=https%3A%2F%2Fen.wikipedia.org%2Fwiki%2FWikipedia%3AArbitration%2FRequests%2FCase Sookenon (talk) 23:19, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

Statement by Hustlecat

Hi all,

I have been following the constellation of editors, articles and complaints on this subject for a couple months now, while trying to keep my input minimal. I have briefly offered my opinion previously and would like to do so now.

This issue brings to mind the gender gap (particularly in tech). However, rather than being driven solely by inaction, entrenched attitudes, and the status quo, this involves overt threats and harassment of female developers, writers, and social scientists interested in video games. That is, there are people actively working against the equal treatment of women in a popular modern art form/tech product (regardless of whether they understand it that way). This is scary to those who support an end to gender discrimination.

I mentioned previously [14] that this is similar to other "culture war" issues, in that it is exploitative of false balance to tilt the discussion in the desired direction even when facts say otherwise. I think the fourth and last paragraphs of Hasteur's now-moved comments and replies shed light on how this is happening here.

I want to address the issue of the targeted editors. Many of the complaints about their behavior are bald-faced attempts to enrage from their ideological opponents. A couple complaints resulted in justified warnings. However, I consider the warned behavior to be defensible, and not surprising, as they are being hounded by both external harassment and on-wiki "sea lioning". It is a testament to their dedication to policy and accuracy that they have kept their cool to the extent that they have while under fire.

Those targeted are doing good work in the topic area; it may look like WP:TAGTEAM and WP:OWN because there are very real threats of "doxxing" and harassment for potential newcomers who effectively contribute in ways that opponents dislike. (I'll admit that that is why I haven't gotten deeply involved.) However, editors who will champion the RSes and boldly advocate for an article that represents reality (and respond to those relentlessly and baselessly attacking RSes) are necessary for a good article. I believe the targeted users' contributions should not be undervalued due to behavioral blips (I have Ryulong and Tarc in mind here, although I'm seeing others begin to lose patience and slip- exactly what their opponents want). This is not meant as an apology for bad behavior; I mean that those who have been targeted for following policy are understandably defensive. Uninvolved users seem hesitant to come to their or the article's defense due to the potential threats both on-wiki (being reported repeatedly for overblown reasons) and off (threats, harassment). I don't think the targeted editors should be penalized for momentarily digging in their heels, losing civility, or forgetting to assume good faith amidst an onslaught of comments and edits that have often been baity [15] [16] [17] [18] [19] [20], repetitive [21] [22] [23] [24] [25] [26] [27] [28], and hostile to RSes [29] [30] [31] [32] [33] [34] [35] [36] [37] as well as standard policy [38] [39] [40].

Thanks for reading.

--Hustlecat ^{do it!} 07:26, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

Count me in with MarkB about being slightly confused about why DSA510 pinged me. If he's really trying to say that there is no external off-wiki coordination... I think enough other statements here have provided evidence to the contrary. If he's trying to say that there are threats to both sides of getting doxxed over this, that is superficially true (just as I could theoretically be doxxed if I pissed off the wrong guy over, say, the wiki article on tomatoes), but trying to take a controversy that has begun because real people have been doxxed and harassed for their beliefs that women should be treated as equals in society and claim "but wait, one angry person did something to me, therefore both sides are equal" sounds like gratuitous attention-seeking at best, and is blatantly insulting to real victims at worst. DSA510, I'm sorry you feel that way, and it's truly a shame that it has happpened to you, and I know you probably didn't mean it in the ways it came across to me, but please consider that what happened to you is what has been happening to women involved in video games all along, simply for expressing their opinions and creating games that treat women as people and try to understand where those arguing with you are coming from. Peace, Hustlecat ^{do it!} 00:01, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

Statement by Resolute

Uninvolved, looking to stay that way. My comment, given the case appears to be on the verge of acceptance, is simple: This dispute is largely a battle between Neutral point of view, and Misogynistic point of view. And if there is one thing Gamergate has amply demonstrated, it is that there are a great many misogynists willing to harass and threaten all opposition into silence. So please, arbs, be careful that you don't become unwitting tools for their cause. Resolute 14:50, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

Statement by MarkBernstein

With regard to the “Update” supplied a short time ago by @Loganmac: I have read the reddit thread cited there, and see no clear support for the allegation made in that paragraph that a specific editor is engaged in paid editing. In a regular talk page discussion, I would be inclined to delete such a comment as a probable WP:BLP issue, perhaps also nodding at WP:CIVIL, WP:AGF, and WP:FORUM. Different standards apply here, of course, but do they extend this far? MarkBernstein (talk) 16:42, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

Update: in light of off-wiki efforts to inquire into Ryulong’s sexuality, address, and religious affiliation -- efforts which appear to be coordinated with a campaign to convince Arbcom to accept this case -- I urge the committee to take special care before rewarding behavior that now considerably exceeds forum shopping. MarkBernstein (talk) 20:59, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

@DungeonSiegeAddict510 calls me out for some misdeed above, but I'm not sure what is objecting to. Huh? MarkBernstein (talk) 23:12, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

In the course of a discussion at AN/I, I was requested to forward information to ArbCom by email concerning off-site denigration of User:Ryulong. I have complied with this request and offered further assistance if desired. I have not received any thanks, which I confess is strange, as I am not a party to any dispute concerning User:Ryulong. Having seen the off-wiki disparagement, however, I can say that Wikipedia owes a substantial debt to User:Ryulong and ought to make an effort, public or private, to repair the harm that has been done.

In view of the its inexcusable behavior toward the victims of GamerGate, I can no longer support Wikipedia and will no longer contribute to it. In the event that ArbCom or others with to contact me, information can be found on my user page. MarkBernstein (talk) 22:56, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

Statement by uninvolved Obsidi

I have mostly stayed out of the gamergate controversy (I don't think I edited on the page or its talk page at all). I have no opinion on the content issues, but have occasionally commented at WP:AN or WP:ANI on various admin actions taken. During the review of the gamergate situation, I would request that the committee review the gamergate topic ban:Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#Appeal_of_30_day_topic_ban. To me this topic ban is HIGHLY unusual. It did not have to do with ANY edit to gamergate page, its talk page, or any related mainspace/talk page. Instead it is claimed that the user copied another editors userpage (that had all of two lines in it and no background/colors), and replaced that users attributes with their own. It is claimed that this was done to "mock" the other user, but I find this ridiculous, there was nothing that mocked anyone in that. And secondly it is claimed that they mocked this user because of gamergate, and that is why they are indef topic banned from gamergate. This is an abuse of the standard discretion given to administrators and should not be allowed. An appeal was filed and closed, but this committee has the responsibility of overseeing administrative actions. I ask that this topic ban be reviewed. --Obsidi (talk) 20:49, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

There has been a few GG related AN/ANI requests lately, the committee may wish to consider some kind of preliminary injunction about those that have GG related admin requests/appeals during the time that the case is open. --Obsidi (talk) 03:29, 27 November 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.

Statement on the GamerGate case

The Arbitration Committee has published a statement on the GamerGate case.

For Wikipedia to be the encyclopedia that anyone can edit, it is essential that the editing experience is civil. Wikipedia is a reference work, not a battlefield. In recent months, the atmosphere surrounding the Gamergate controversy article on the English Wikipedia has resembled the latter. This atmosphere has been disruptive to the experience for editors and was damaging to the English Wikipedia project as a whole. The English Wikipedia Arbitration Committee accepted a case on user conduct in the Gamergate controversy article and related articles, including biographies of those related to the topic. Our preliminary decision found that many contributors were in violation of English Wikipedia policies on user conduct. The proposed decision imposes broad sanctions against a wide range of individuals, however this decision is subject to change, and proposed sanctions have not taken effect. These sanctions are intended to allow the restoration of normal editing processes to the topic area and facilitate constructive contributions. Our investigation and findings do not pass judgement on the content or quality of the articles in question. About the English Wikipedia Arbitration Committee The Arbitration Committee deals with editor conduct on the English Wikipedia. Its members are volunteer editors elected by the Wikipedia community. The role of the Committee is to restore normal, amicable editing processes when those processes have been disrupted by disputes. It does so through hearing cases and issuing rulings, and when appropriate, removing disruptive parties. The mandate of the Arbitration Committee extends only to editor conduct. Wikipedia policies prohibit the Committee from making editorial decisions about article content. When deciding cases, the Committee does not rule on the content of articles, or make judgements on the personal views of parties to the case. Although sometimes described as Wikipedia’s Supreme Court by the press, the Committee applies Wikipedia policies and guidelines rather than legal principles. Preliminary findings regarding the GamerGate case under consideration The Arbitration Committee is in the process of hearing a case on the conduct and interactions between editors contributing to the Gamergate controversy article and related pages. The Committee agreed to hear the case to examine user conduct and to attempt to reduce the level of disruption around the topic on Wikipedia. There have been a number of articles about this case in the press of late, some of which mischaracterise the Committee, its process, and outcomes of this case. We would like to clarify the Committee’s purpose, process, and preliminary findings. The two primary issues in the case at hand are the behaviour of editors as they have engaged in the development of the Gamergate controversy article, and the application of the Wikipedia policy of neutral point of view. Status of the decision Last Monday (19 January 2015), a subset of Committee members posted a proposed decision on the case. This proposal was not a final decision. For each case it hears, the Arbitration Committee selects drafting arbitrators: several members of the Committee who, often with input from the rest of the Committee, review the evidence presented and offer preliminary findings. Once the proposed decision has been posted, other Committee members are invited to add additional findings and remedies, and edit existing ones. The proposal may be reworked or revised, and new measures may be voted on. If there is a consensus among committee members, the preliminary decision may be restructured entirely. Sanctions in the proposed decision do not take effect until the Arbitration Committee votes to close the case, at which point the passing principles, findings, and remedies are posted in the final decision section. Contrary to what has been reported, the Arbitration Committee frequently hears and approves appeals of sanctions and other remedies when they are found to no longer be necessary. Findings on editor conduct From the creation of the Gamergate controversy article, many Wikipedia editors have held differing views about how the controversy should best be represented. These discussions grew increasingly heated, and certain editors were identified for potentially violating established English Wikipedia conduct policies, as defined by the broader editor community. The Arbitration Committee agreed to hear the case to attempt to reduce the level of disruption in the topic. The Committee’s preliminary findings have been represented in some media stories as targeting feminist editors and attempting to prevent their contributions to gender-related topics. This is inaccurate. The findings of the Arbitration Committee deal exclusively with the documented conduct of editors on the English Wikipedia. They do not consider editor opinion, identity, affiliation, or beliefs, nor do they take into consideration an editor’s actions or affiliations outside of their participation on English Wikipedia, unless those actions are directly related to facilitating disruption on the encyclopedia. The Arbitration Committee does not and cannot take a stance on the content of articles, nor on broader issues such as the Gamergate controversy itself. An accurate characterization of the Arbitration Committee’s preliminary decision is as follows. The Committee found that editors on various sides of the discussion violated community policies and guidelines on conduct. The Committee’s preliminary decision currently includes broad recommendations for, and endorsements of, community sanctions and topic bans for editors on various sides of the dispute. These include: 11 topic bans applied to editors on various sides of the dispute, an endorsement of 40 or so existing community sanctions on combative parties on various sides, roughly 100 community warnings/notifications, an extension of all community topic bans and restrictions from editing articles related to the Gamergate controversy article to include restriction from participation in any gender-related dispute, for editors on various sides, and the introduction of discretionary sanctions for any gender-related dispute, which can be imposed by any uninvolved administrator when useful for stabilising a topic, empowering the community to deal with disruption quickly. The current majorities on the proposed decision are not in favour of banning any editors from Wikipedia. Neutral point of view The Arbitration Committee does not address the content of Wikipedia articles. As such, the preliminary decision by the Committee is not a referendum on the content, perspective, or neutrality of the Gamergate controversy article. The Committee does not endorse or censure the content in the article in question. However, the Committee understands that the editor conduct issues under review are related to efforts by those with conflicting opinions of the topics relating to the Gamergate controversy article to influence the content of related Wikipedia articles. The English Wikipedia has robust policies and guidelines designed to address precisely such situations. The preliminary findings of the Committee reiterate the existence and importance of these existing policies and guidelines, and invite the participation of neutral editors and administrators in the maintenance and development of the articles in question. These include: a reminder to editors about existing provisions of the English Wikipedia policy on biographies of living persons, for the purpose of addressing "drive-by" abuse, an invitation for neutral editors to participate in the topic, an invitation for uninvolved administrators to participate in dispute resolution, and a reminder for administrators on appropriate actions pertaining to biographies of living persons. Please direct press enquiries about this case to the Arbitration Committee via email. For the Wikimedia Foundation, the non-profit organisation that hosts and supports the projects of the Wikimedia movement, see their press room.

For the Arbitration Committee, LFaraone 03:02, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

Discuss this

Amendment request: GamerGate (February 2015)

Original discussion

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.

---

Initiated by GoldenRing at 04:55, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

Case or decision affected

GamerGate arbitration case (t) (ev / t) (w / t) (pd / t)

Clauses to which an amendment is requested

1. WP:ARBGG#Parties topic-banned by the community
2. WP:ARBGG#ArmyLine, DungeonSiegeAddict510, and Xander756 topic-banned

List of any users involved or directly affected, and confirmation that all are aware of the request

• GoldenRing (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) (initiator)
• MarkBernstein (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
• Gamaliel (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

• MarkBernstein - [41]
• Gamaliel - [42]

Information about amendment request

• WP:ARBGG#Parties topic-banned by the community

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

• ArmyLine (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
• DungeonSiegeAddict510 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
• Tutelary (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
• Xander756 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
• MarkBernstein (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

• WP:ARBGG#ArmyLine, DungeonSiegeAddict510, and Xander756 topic-banned

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

Statement by GoldenRing

The effect of this amendment would be to add MarkBernstein to the list of editors whose TBANs imposed under the community general sanctions are converted to arbitration-imposed TBANs under the standard topic ban.

I believe it was an oversight of the committee not to do this in the first place. The reason that it happened is that most editors presenting evidence dropped sections concerning MarkBernstein when he was handed a community-imposed topic ban (eg [43], [44]). However, there is ample evidence available of personal attacks and treating Wikipedia as a battleground to add a separate finding of fact and support a separate remedy (eg [45], [46], [47], [48], [49], [50], [51], [52], [53], [54], [55], [56], [57], [58], [59]) if the committee thinks that a more appropriate approach.

The reason this has come up now is that Gamaliel has seen fit to remove MarkBernstein's topic ban. on the basis of private email discussions with him. This seems problematic for several reasons:

• At the time the TBAN was lifted, MarkBernstein was blocked for violating it ([60]), the blocking admin being of the opinion that you have no intent to stick to separate yourself from the topic area and you will continue to skirt the edges of it and even outright violate it. In addition, your previously stated that you had no interest in continuing to contribute to Wikipedia, and almost every edit you've made since has been in some way related to GamerGate.
• The violation for which he was blocked was clearly continuing his battleground mentality [61]
• He has continued to make disruptive / battleground edits since the sanction was lifted ([62], [63], [64], [65], [66], [67], [68], [69], [70], [71], [72], [73], [74], [75]).
• Over 70% of his edits since the TBAN was lifted have been GamerGate-related (31 of 42, though there is some doubt about a couple of YGM notifications; given the editors to whom they are directed, it seems likely)

The sequence of events has the appearance and effect (though I don't think the intention) of making an end-run around the arbitration case. By TBANning MarkBernstein before evidence was well-developed, waiting for the case to end and then removing the TBAN, the committee has effectively been prevented from considering evidence related to him. I think the right way to deal with this is for the committee to consider the evidence presented above and to consider making the amendments suggested.

Lastly, my apologies if this matter was considered by the committee when coming to a decision. If this is the case, I will happily withdraw the request. As it stands, I can see no indication on the workshop or PD pages that it was considered, and several indications from other editors that they considered it moot because of the indefinite topic ban. GoldenRing (talk) 04:55, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

@Gamaliel: To be clear, I named you as a party to this request solely as a courtesy, given your involvement, to invite exactly the sort of comment you have made. I had and have no intention that action would be taken against you regarding this and I do not intend it as an accusation of misconduct on your part. We obviously disagree in our assessment of Mark's editing, but if disagreement was misconduct then where would we be? GoldenRing (talk) 06:48, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

@Johnuniq: I don't think that one discussion at Gamaliel's TP, in which I made five edits (not counting the ARCA notification) rises to the level of disruptive chipping away. If the committee disagrees, I will gladly accept a TBAN; I'm not exactly in the habit of bringing these things and don't want to be. I decided to bring this to ARCA rather than AE because I don't think the request fits the pattern of AE, as it requires consideration of what happened around the case itself. GoldenRing (talk) 07:19, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

Statement by MarkBernstein

Good grief! GoldenRing, greatly aggrieved,
Grouses at my gallant jests, those galling goads
That Gawker, Guardian, and gazettes aplenty
All gave to Gamergate, and you. I admit:
I hold some strong opinions of Arbcom’s acts
Throughout this case. These I have expressed
Elsewhere quite clearly, and accurately I think;
Audiences, alerted, have predominately agreed.

Generous @Gamaliel patiently posits that
People who think me pernicious, perfidious,
And pretty much perfectly putrid would be
Glad to display my poor noggin on pikes
Or by preference at Kotaku In Action.
Anxiously, admins already anticipate
A trip to AE, where more words may be spent.
An admin convinced, we may head then to AN/I,
And wend back to Arbcom. Oh wondrous wiki!

O’er what? I have had some strong words
For your actions, and indeed some of you have had some for mine.
Jimbo writes that I caused all this stuff from the first,
And Gamaliel writes I am "widely unpopular"
Throughout Wikipedia. I think he means wildly;
He might not be wrong.

But this project’s not purely a contest for praise.
Policy prefers both firmness and speed
For protecting the blameless who’re prostitutes called,
Whose sex lives are subject to endless discussion
On the project’s talk pages.

   This Baranof did.
Off-wiki was Baranof smeared and belittled
Because these benighted he bravely defied.
He better deserved (and deserves) of you all.

Before I conclude, one brief issue I'd raise:
“Behavior” is common to children and beasts,
Not colleagues, and conflicting views, bringing heat,
Can better be handled with courteous care.
“Christian” names, to my ear, can sound rather familiar,
And I don’t recall that we’ve been introduced.
Adversaries adopt (in America) address
That’s more formal. I think Dr. Bernstein is fine.
I did attend Swarthmore: if perchance you’re a Friend
Or don’t like to use titles, my names, please, in full.

---

(Do you believe these japes should be consigned
To user space? Once read, I do not mind.)

Statement by Gamaliel

I have already discussed at length with numerous editors my reasoning and my belief that Mark Bernstein has satisfied my concerns regarding the problematic behavior which caused me to impose the topic ban.

I don't believe there is anything problematic with the way I handled the situation. I had extensive email discussions with Mark Bernstein regarding his behavior, how it would change, and what he would do if the sanction was lifted. This is routine. It would have been impossible to have that discussion on-wiki given the heated atmosphere here and the inevitable sniping that would occur. User:HJ Mitchell has topic banned one user from discussion of Mark Bernstein because he was following him around the encyclopedia criticizing him and trying to get him sanctioned, and likely more will follow.

I disagree that this has the effect of "making an end-run around the arbitration case". Off the top of my head, I believe I indefinitely topic banned five users, and I think most of those before the case had started. At least two of those bans became indefinite Arbcom sanctions, so clearly the case provided ample time and opportunity to consider the behavior of any user sanctioned by me. It would be bad form to retroactively sanction a user well after the case was closed. The discretionary sanctions can easily be applied to any ongoing behavior problems from any user editing these articles.

I find the evidence presented here does not warrant a retroactive sanction nor a discretionary one. As initially presented to me on my user talk page, they included the correction of another editor's typo as evidence of problematic behavior and the inaccurate claim that Mark Bernstein's discussion of anti-Semetic comments about him on Twitter was an attack on other Wikipedia editors labeling them anti-Semetic.

Mark Bernstein is widely unpopular on Wikipedia due to his blog posts and the press coverage they have received, and he is even more unpopular on the less savory parts of the internet, who desperately want him sanctioned so they can add Mark Bernstein to their collection of Gamergate trophies and parade his severed head on a pike through the boards of 8Chan. I believe this particular request is sincere and made in good faith, but we can't ignore the context of the request. In this sort of atmosphere, where so many editors are utterly convinced of Mark Bernstein's perfidy and menace, otherwise well-meaning editors are likely to view even the most innocuous statements by him in the worst possible light, as is happening in this request. Gamaliel (talk) 06:29, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

@GoldenRing: I didn't interpret your post here as a request for action or an accusation against myself, but I do appreciate your clarification. Gamaliel (talk) 06:58, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

Statement by Johnuniq

I noticed the lengthy questioning of Gamaliel at his talk (permalink) and added my thoughts, including the suggestion that any evidence to show a topic ban would be warranted should be presented at WP:AE. As GoldenRing has instead chosen to involve Arbcom, my request is that some action be taken—if new evidence supports a topic ban against MarkBernstein, it should be imposed; otherwise, GoldenRing should be topic banned because the persistent chipping-away is disruptive. Johnuniq (talk) 06:56, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

Yet another statement from Harry Mitchell!

Gamaliel was within his rights to lift the topic ban. I wasn't privy to his conversations with Mark, but in my own email conversations I found Mark to be much more reasonable than he had been made out to be. We were able to reach a gentlemen's agreement that Mark would avoid personally directed comments and I commuted his block to time served, as is my prerogative as the blocking admin. Any fresh misconduct should be brought to AE with dated diffs and a concise explanation of the problem they show.

Meanwhile, BLPs in the topic area are still subject to drive-by attacks from autoconfirmed accounts, so litigating over minor squabbles on talk pages seems to miss the point. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 14:43, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

Statement by Strongjam

It seems like an inordinate amount of attention is being paid to MarkBernstein's editing. As Bernstien's editing hasn't been disruptive since the TBAN has been lifted there isn't any need for Committee action. — Strongjam (talk) 15:39, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

Statement by coldacid

Good grief. There may be nothing actionable in this ARCA request, but I'd be hard pressed to see anything but bad attitude out of Mr Bernstein's current behaviour on Wikipedia with regard to GG issues, even in this very ARCA request with his mocking poetry[76]. It's probably not necessary to point this out, but this doesn't seem to be the kind of behaviour that should be expected or encouraged of Wikipedia editors. I say trout MarkBernstein, warn GoldenRing, and just forget that this request ever happened. // coldacid (talk|contrib) 19:45, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

Statement by Newyorkbrad

In response to Harry Mitchell's statement, I suggest that BLPs in this topic-area be placed on pending changes. This was done for a handful of them when I suggested it on the workshop during the case, but it sounds like it needs to be expanded. Newyorkbrad (talk) 19:53, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

I endorse GorillaWarfare's decision to address clarification-and-amendment requests in haiku. Newyorkbrad (talk) 09:45, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

Statement by Bosstopher

As someone who has been very critical of Mark's action in the past, I think he's improved his behavior sufficiently for a topic ban to be unnecessary for the time being. While obviously a strongly opinionated person, he is no longer making unfounded attacks on other editors, and is instead taking the much more applaudable and rap battle-esque approach of rebutting their arguments in verse. I am now firmly of the opinion that all statements to Arbcom by involved parties should be written in verse, for the sake of fostering Wikilove, dispute resolution etc. So if we could have a motion declaring that, that would be great.Bosstopher (talk) 20:05, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

Statement by Liz

Just wanted to make the observation that looking at the sanctions log, at 2014 GG block log, not all topic bans issued were indefinite and some were just for a period of a week or a few months. Not all editors who were topic ban were included in the Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/GamerGate which clearly identified those editors whose topic bans were commuted into the standard topic ban. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:21, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

Statement by DHeyward

But then, just today, MarkBernstein does something to deserve this final warning. How many final warnings are there? Please at least log all these as previous sanctions so at least new admins know what they are dealing with. --DHeyward (talk) 20:58, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

Statement by {other-editor}

Other editors are free to make relevant comments on this request as necessary. Comments here should address why or why not the Committee should accept the case request or provide additional information.

GamerGate: Clerk notes

This area is used for notes by the clerks (including clerk recusals).

GamerGate: Arbitrator views and discussion

• AS I see it, Gamaliel's topic ban of MarkBernstein was converted into a discretionary sanction. Admins have the right to revoke a DS they have imposed at their own discretion. So, without fresh cause for a topic ban, I see nothing to do here. Courcelles (talk) 07:27, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
• Pretty well agreed with Courcelles. One means of appealing a discretionary sanction is to convince the sanctioning administrator that it's no longer necessary. In this case, that was Gamaliel's decision to make, and Gamaliel saw fit to lift the ban. Should Mark engage in new misconduct in the topic area, anyone can request enforcement and any uninvolved admin could reinstate the ban as a DS. If he doesn't engage in future misconduct, well then the ban really isn't necessary any more after all. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 10:30, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
• Per Courcelles and Seraphimblade. I'll just add that DS may be enforced by any uninvolved administrator, either by direct request or via a request for intervention at WP:AE. This page, ie WP:ARCA , is not the proper venue for WP:AE requests.  Roger Davies ^talk 11:04, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
  • A learned New Yorker named Brad,

    Thought unadorned plain prose too bad

    for use at ARCA

    though haiku are starker

    than sonnets or limericks. It's sad!
    
    An inventive young man from Japan

    wrote haiku-style

    limericks.

     Roger Davies ^talk 13:38, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

• Abstain. AGK [•] 11:18, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
• Per Courcelles, Seraphimblade and Roger. Procedurally speaking the topic ban was correctly lifted, and as there are explicitly no requests here for us to consider any action against Gamaliel that's the end of it as far as I'm concerned. If anyone thinks that MarkBernstein should be topic banned for conduct subsequent to the lifting of the topic ban then they should present the evidence for this at WP:AE. As we have not considered any evidence relating to MarkBernstein's behaviour here, this request should not be considered to limit what evidence AE can take into account if presented there. Thryduulf (talk) 12:51, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
• Per Thryduulf et al. Dougweller (talk) 14:49, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
• Thryduulf puts it very nicely; I've nothing to add to that. Yunshui ^雲_水 14:52, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
• (See Courcelles et al. 2015) --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 22:54, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
• For a topic ban,

File a request at AE,

ArbCom need not act. GorillaWarfare (talk) 23:35, 18 February 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.

Clarification Request (March 2015)

Original discussion

Resolved by the committee as noted. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:55, 15 March 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.

---

Initiated by MarkBernstein at 16:11, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

Case or decision affected

GamerGate arbitration case (t) (ev / t) (w / t) (pd / t)

List of any users involved or directly affected, and confirmation that all are aware of the request:

• MarkBernstein (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) (initiator)

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

Statement by MarkBernstein

On Friday, March 6, Think Progress published an article by Lauren C. Williams on The ‘Five Horsemen’ Of Wikipedia Paid The Price For Getting Between Trolls And Their Victims. Two days later, I was topic-banned by @Dreadstar: under the standard AE sanctions, over his concerns regarding this discussion [77] of that article at the Gamergate talk page.

I had requested clarification by email about the intended scope of the standard topic ban. Receiving no pertinent response, I asked on my talk page.

@Dreadstar: Is it your intent that this topic ban include pages relating to Campus Rape, which might conceivably be construed to be a controversy and arguably is related to gender? One might say that opposition to rape is uncontroversial, but doubtless campus rape has supporters, too, or controversy of some sort. (Then again, one might assume that commenting on other editors involved commenting on actual editors!) I ask only to advise an organization seeking my advice on promoting wider participation by women in the areas of its expertise in the wake of recent press coverage of Wikipedia.

This evoked a vituperative response by email, which I believe to have been sent to you as well, and which is now being discussed at AN/I, which I believe is the appropriate forum. I do not wish to enquire further into that here.

I do not believe the topic ban was proper, just, or expedient. I do not wish to enquire further into that in this place and at this time, though of course you may discuss whatever pleases you.

The underlying question remains: an activist had contacted me that very day, seeking advice for a Wikipedia initiative among her membership and concerned -- not unreasonably -- over the sort of repercussions that were detailed in Think Progress and previously in a number of other newspapers and magazines [78].

Is it your intent that the standard Gamergate topic ban include pages relating to Campus Rape, which might conceivably be construed to be a controversy and arguably is related to gender?

---

Administrator Masem makes an interesting proposal that the committee find that Campus Rape does not fall under the standard sanctions in general, but it does for me. DHeyward and Thargor Orlando apparently share this fascinating view. This is, of course, a bill of attainder, and is incompatible with the notion of the rule of law.

My question addresses your intent in writing the decision you wrote.

It's not clear to me that the assistance of third parties, involved or otherwise, is helpful for you to determine what you meant to say a scant six weeks ago. Nothing else is at issue here -- although now that the question has been raised so forcefully below, by such august Wikipedians, it might be useful to state whether Wikipedia policy applies alike to all, or whether it can be changed so flexibly to afflict our foes and benefit our pals.

---

Followup: If the sentiment of the committee holds that Campus Rape is a gender-related dispute under the Gamergate decisions, should the usual sanctions warning appear on its talk page? Should it be added to other such pages? If that addition is disputed and proves controversial, should that question be brought to AN/I or RFC or AE or here?

Similarly, for biographies of persons involved in gender-related disputes, should should the usual sanctions warning be added to those talk pages? For example, a case at AE today hinges on whether the biography of comedian Lena Dunham falls under Gamergate or not.

I understand from the committee's comments that these matters seem self-evident to some of you . From the perspective of a more academic setting, they seem less clear, and in any case clarity is good. I apologize for the trouble, but it may save vexatious misunderstanding. MarkBernstein (talk) 18:06, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

Statement by Beauxlieux

I’m the editor who asked for MarkBernstein’s perspective on editing the Campus Rape page after reading about the Wikipedia GamerGate debacle. So let me weigh in but I also ask you to be kind: I am new here. I don’t know all the protocols, lingo, and history, and it is a bit intimidating. I'm not even sure where to put this comment so I apologize if I'm putting it in the wrong place. I had hoped, perhaps naively, to at least begin editing the Campus Rape page in obscurity. I’m a bit horrified that it has now become inextricably linked to GamerGate in Wikipedia. The Campus Rape page and sexual assault coverage in general need a lot of help. Many prominent researchers and organizations do not have pages, and coverage is skewed. I would love for some of the experienced editors in this discussion to help.

I loudly echo In the case of Campus Rape, I think the letter, if not the spirit, of the sanction is unclear: Campus Rape is not a “gender-related dispute or controversy.” It is gender-related. That is clear. But, Campus Rape is not, in and of itself, a dispute or controversy. Rape is rape. Campus Rape is campus rape. There are, however, myriad disputes and controversies within the topic of Campus Rape. So, the ban might have have been better described as covering “any gender-related topic.” Such a ban would concede that gender-related topics will, most likely, end up having disputes and controversies, which given the gender imbalance issues that Wikipedia is confronting, seems, unfortunately, a fair assumption.

There's a lot of time and energy being spent debating the boundaries of the sanction. But, there’s a bigger issue here. Do sanctions work? I don’t think so. In the IdeaLab I suggested an alternative resolution to sanctions: apology. I would welcome your feedback on it. https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants:IdeaLab/Require_Apologies Beauxlieux (talk) 17:57, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

Thank you @Rhoark: for your offer to help. To clarify for @Cailil: and @Euryalus: -- I understand that I can edit. When I said that Campus Rape and GamerGate are now linked in Wikipedia, I just meant that for search, history, etc, this page now exists. I meant nothing more than that. Here's the chronology of events. After reading about GamerGate, I contacted @MarkBernstein: for his perspective. He generously offered to put Campus Rape on his watch list. Then, he got banned and asked for clarification. Why/how are @Squiggleslash:'s comments redacted? I thought they were really useful. Beauxlieux (talk) 21:15, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

I am tempted to undo the redacting of @Squiggleslash:'s comments, but since they did it themselves, I don't think that would be appropriate. I will respect their wishes. The point that they and I were making (and that they made better than I at https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AArbitration%2FRequests%2FClarification_and_Amendment&diff=650931140&oldid=650930666 ) is that if arbcon or whoever's responsible thinks that campus rape should be included in the ban, then the better wording would be "gender-related topic." That wording is clearer and avoids the debate in which we unfortunately now find ourselves. Can the arbitrators, or whoever it is that is responsible, change the wording of the ban? I do think @MarkBernstein: had a legitimate point that the ban is unclear. While there is a way, as some have argued, that campus rape has become, unfortunately, controversial, there is also, and many survivors would fall into this camp, an understanding that campus rape is not at all controversial and that it is delegitimizing to survivors' experience to call campus rape "controversial." Both interpretations have been articulated in this debate already so I'm not going to repeat them. If wikipedia wants to be welcoming to women, then acknowledging the unfortunate reality of many women that rape is rape would be better than debating whether that reality is controversial or not. So, rather than continue the debate, why not sidestep it? The easy solution -- the solution with integrity -- is to change the wording of the ban. I would hope that whoever can make that happen, does. And, thank you in advance for doing it. Beauxlieux (talk) 21:47, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

Statement by Bosstopher

This isn't actually related to what Mark's said, but it's such a minor and uncontroversial issue that I don't want to create a separate RCA for it. Apologies to Mark for partially hijacking his ARCA. ArmyLine's topic ban (despite what's incorrectly been written on the GG General sanctions page, was actually given under Arbcom's BLP discretionary sanctions. This means FoF13 is factually innaccurate, as is remedy 12. Could these be ammended to note that ArmyLine was banned under BLP discretionary sanctions, as opposed to GG general sanctions? Bosstopher (talk) 16:45, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

Statement by TheRedPenOfDoom

Given the overly broad topic area and the directive that it be "broadly construed", we were obviously going to be back here. This time around, I would hope that the ArbCom members carefully consider the actual ramifications of whether their actions are going to minimize disruption in the long term or will provide a blueprint for how outside canvassing can be used to disrupt Wikipedia to drive editors away. I hope that any support that comes their way in this dark hour will help them come up with a decision that is actually likely going to do the former while maintaining the basic principles of creating an encyclopedia that everyone, including women, can edit without fear of arbitrary sanctions.-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 16:53, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

Really @Courcelles:? that seems to lead down the path that @Guerillero: assured @Risker: wouldnt happen. [79] -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 00:41, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

But then again, we have already learned how much value we can put into what the ArbCom says on a PD talk page -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 00:45, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

So the NFL [80] /] [81] and the US Marines [82] [83] the US Congress [84] [85] Saudi Arabia and Sweden [86] are obviously covered as well, since they have well documented controversies involving gender? -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 03:11, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

For "topic bans" it may or may not be as clear cut as people seem to think, but per @Courcelles: "If something is covered by the DS, it is covered for all editors equally, there can be no "this set of topics for editor X, and this set for everyone else"." so, as soon as anyone mentions "the NFL cover up of wife beating by players" the DS tag goes on the NFL talk page and people get their alerts? -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 12:04, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

It seems to me that this is continuing to arm semi organized trolls to harass anyone working in feminist space. merely open up your throw away sock troll drawer and begin harassing editors until they snap and one gg topic ban later one less person able to work on any vaguely femist issue. Nice job! Gamergate thanks you again. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 17:03, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

Statement by Thargor Orlando

Not to speak for Dreadstar or the Arbs, but the topic ban, as written at MarkBernstein's talk page, is in part for "any gender-related dispute or controversy." This is an incredibly controversial topic anyway, and Mark's own intentions in this clarification is to drag the drama he continually creates within the Gamergate space into the campus rape disputes. The goal of the topic ban is to keep him away from inflaming these topics, not to try and drive him to other ones. I hope the arbs and admins here clarify that this article and his involvement would fall under the relevant sanctions, and perhaps extend this topic ban toward MarkBernstein indefinitely as it should have been back at the original ruling, as he has continually shown himself unable to collaborate constructively in the space due to his personal feelings on the relevant topics of Gamergate, feminism, and Wikipedia's governance. The continued allowance of MarkBernstein to disrupt the proceedings at the relevant articles is a problem that is in need of an overdue solution.

Also, this continued spamming of his blog posts and the ThinkProgress blog post is becoming exhausting and self-promotional, and is arguably becoming an issue of a conflict of interests in and of themselves. Since we're here, it is worth a mention. We wouldn't tolerate it from anyone else.

Statement by Strongjam

Clarification on the exact scope of the GG topic ban is needed. This isn't the first time this has been brought up, previously in the Spudt3r case this came up. Personally I feel the wording is too broad, but I appreciate that might of been intentional. — Strongjam (talk) 17:12, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

Statement by NorthBySouthBaranof

Thargor Orlando's statement appears to be yet another attempt to silence dissent and sweep this issue under the rug. It is hardly "spamming" to suggest that a significant media article be included in the In the Media section. The fact that the article is significantly critical of Wikipedia's processes and response to this issue derives the inevitable inference that Thargor's decision to engage in an edit war to remove it from the In the Media section is intended to cover up inconvenient truths. (I believe the usual term for that is Streisand effect.) While leveling accusations of a "conflict of interest," Thargor interestingly fails to note his own conflict of interest here, in that the article is critical of the position he has relentlessly pushed on-wiki. What he calls "drama" is no more and no less than a thoroughly-justified belief that the encyclopedia's own processes failed those who stood up to defend the project's basic principles from vicious, organized abuse. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 18:18, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom: There is a quite simple solution to these issues, and that is to acknowledge that you have made a mistake in imposing broad and indefinite topic bans on users who did nothing more than defend living people from slander. As the peak of Gamergate-related activities recedes further into the past, the reliably-sourced historical narrative about what it was, what drove it and what it intended is only solidifying, and the historical narrative of how Wikipedia responded can still be changed for the better. I challenge you to examine how you might turn about the public perception that your actions constitute a collective capitulation to an anonymous hate campaign. Injustice has been done to myself and others, and silencing those who would speak out against such injustice only compounds the problem. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 10:20, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

Statement by ForbiddenRocky

"Broadly construed" really needs to be explained better for this topic. The categories listed for Gamergate controversy currently : Category:2014 controversies, Category:2014 in video gaming, Category:Conflict of interest, Category:Conspiracy theories, Category:Criticism of journalism, Category:Cyberbullying, Category:Women and video games, Category:Hashtags, Category:Internet activism, Category:Internet trolling, Category:Internet vigilantism, Category:Journalism ethics, Category:Video game controversies, Category:Video game journalism, Category:Sexual harassment, Category:Misogyny, Category:2015 in video gaming, Category:2015 controversies Does a Gamergate controversy topic ban include articles sharing these categories? ForbiddenRocky (talk) 18:53, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

@Courcelles: So, a GGC topic ban does ban people from most feminist topics? ForbiddenRocky (talk) 01:05, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

From what I'm reading, if a topic becomes controversial, the topic ban will then also apply? ForbiddenRocky (talk) 18:06, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

Statement by Masem

I would argue that Campus Rape would not fall under the GG general sanctions as IDed by ArbCom, for any other editor. But I will argue that in the specific case of Mark, who in the past has been quick to label editors as "rape apologists" tied to the GG situation ([87], [88] that this clearly shows a strong COI in the area, and that in this specific case for Mark should be an area to avoid, if even voluntarily. --MASEM (t) 19:54, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

@Bishonen: The problem with " I hereby propose they be amended to support the efforts of editors who defend living people from slander, instead of thwarting and punishing these editors." is that from the GG arbcom case, there's a difference from enforcing BLP which is meant to prevent WP from introducing claims that are harmful to living person, and actively defending living persons to a point of taking a battleground attitude to anyone with a slightly contrary view, which several editors were doing during GG. We are not here to right wrongs, including when living persons are being negatively attacked off-site, as an an amoral work, we can't let that attitude that we have to defend them on WP override expected civility and consensus building. BLP is strong enough as it is (exempt from 3RR, strict admin actions for severe violations, etc.) that "defending" persons under BLP should not be done on WP. --MASEM (t) 01:20, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

@DD2K: "if there were an organized group tying certain Bronys to pedophilia, and said brony people had Wikipedia articles that were being attacked with off-site organization, you would feel much differently." absolutely not. In fact, there are articles that negatively call members of the brony fandom as creepy and approaching that, and those are in our article, but that's because they come from reliable sources and thus appropriate opinions to include to achieve neutrality. I know one can delve into far-less reliable sources and find more accusations, but just as we won't include accusations against BLP from weak RS for GG, we won't do that here, either.
The point of my statement is that fundamental civility and consensus-building policy cannot be overriden in the name of "protecting" someone or any other agenda, which is why ArbCom set up those topic bans (that worked on people pushing agendas from both sides) and the general sanction. BLP is not a shield or a bulldozer; it's a admin tool to prevent WP from introducing slanderous material where unfounded, and it works just fine as long with the strength and weight it had. --MASEM (t) 03:22, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

No, I know exactly what you are pointing at , and you're missing the point about the whole reason there was a GG case. We have tools at hand to deal with outside campaigns that are trying to introduce slanderous content even if that's being coordinated from off-site and thus a constant stream of newcomers saying "we have to include this fact about X". That was being handled just fine at the GG page once community based sanctions were put into place to deal with SPA accounts. However, there were other new editors that had suggestions for the articles that would not have gone against policy, but simply would require consensus building. There were editors like myself that do not align with the GG side but saw possible problems with the article within policy that needed discussion. Those concerns were being ignored, refused proper discussion, and otherwise washed away within the same breath as with BLP concerns by those editors that were sanctioned, treating these discussions as equivalent to defending BLP and defending the specific people that were the target of GG. There is no excuse for that. That is not consensus building or civil. There was page ownership and battleground mentalities that went far beyond the simple requirements of activity removing and avoiding clearly BLP violations, which is what ArbCom identified in their statements. It's fine if you have a strong drive to protect a living person or similar topic from outright libel/slander on WP and you do that without overzealousness, but you can't let that drive override basic operating principles of an open wiki. This is where COI comes into place: "Any editor who gives priority to outside interests may be subject to a conflict of interest." --MASEM (t) 13:51, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

Statement by (unrelated) coldacid

From the case remedies:[89]

(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.

Campus rape is a touchy subject in gender issues and civil issues groups, and because of the spectrum of opinions and how vehemently holders of those opinions can be when they are challenged on them, I think it's safe to say that it would fall under the (i)(b) subclause of the Discretionary sanctions remedy. Whether or not the GG discretionary sanctions should include pages on the subject of campus rape is another issue altogether.

Depending on the size and/or membership of the set of editors both active on pages regarding campus rape and those regarding GamerGate, it may or may not be worthwhile for the arbs to consider making an exception to the GG DS. Honestly I'm not interested in making that determination, nor suggestions towards it, but looking into that may be the way this request should go, if the arbs decide to take any action. // coldacid (talk|contrib) 19:56, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

@ForbiddenRocky: I'd argue that yes, GG topic bans do include feminist topics, and I'd even posit that (i)(b) and (i)(c) exist to prevent the GamerGate battleground from spilling out into those topic areas. // coldacid (talk|contrib) 01:54, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

@Masem: I'd love to know why you think that campus rape as a topic wouldn't fall under the sanctions. I agree that this is definitely an area that MarkBernstein should avoid, but unless I've been misreading something, somewhere, it seems pretty clear that campus rape would be covered under the areas included in the GG topic bans. // coldacid (talk|contrib) 01:54, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

@Squiggleslash: A topic that is prone to raising controversies is by virtue of the frequency of those controversies, controversial itself. As I already mentioned in my reply to ForbiddenRocky, it seems obvious that topics such as campus rape were intentionally scoped into the discretionary sanctions clause for the GG case to avoid the behaviour from the GamerGate controversy article spilling out further into articles covering gender-related issues. I didn't participate in the GG case, but I did observe it; from those observations I drew the conclusion that the DS scope was intended to keep sanctioned editors from disrupting anything gender issues related.

By the way, a look at your recent contributions, and especially this notice raises the question of whether or not you're back to actually contribute to Wikipedia. I hope the former, but that notice certainly implies the latter. // coldacid (talk|contrib) 15:11, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

@Squiggleslash: I'd actually argue that bringing the topic of murder into this is false equivalence. People don't debate whether or not there's a murder phenomenon, even if particular accusations can be considered controversial. On the other hand, there are groups that argue that campus rape is a large, widespread phenomenon and others who argue that isolated incidents of rape are being tacked together as one big issue. The subject itself is controversial because people are debating the actual meaning and/or the existence of campus rape as an issue or phenomenon in the first place.

By the way it's not those "first two words" that has me considering you as WP:NOTHERE. It's the rest of your statement that has me raising this flag, since it implies that you may only be here (or logged in) to make points about "sexist extremists". Perhaps if you hadn't phrased your notice in such a way that assumes bad faith, I wouldn't have seen it as an issue of note wrt your participation in this ARCA request and other edits you've made logged in since December. // coldacid (talk|contrib) 15:54, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

@Squiggleslash: Perhaps your language skills aren't up to snuff; perhaps mine aren't, either. That said, regardless of the intent of the notice you put on your user page, it certainly can be misinterpreted in a manner that follows the tack of my responses to you, and let's leave it at that. As for the murder vs campus rape comparison, Thryduulf has already said what I would have reiterated otherwise in his response to you; also please note the comment by Dougweller. // coldacid (talk|contrib) 17:52, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

@Beauxlieux: Squiggleslash redacted their own comments, as (based on the change) they felt that their opinion was being misinterpreted. Squiggleslash's comments still remain in the history of the page, however, even if not visible in the ongoing ARCA request. // coldacid (talk|contrib) 23:04, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

Statement by DHeyward

MArkBernstein's topic ban was for continuing to comment on contributors and not content. This was noted by two admins on his talk page and has been noted elsewhere. Notwithstanding his strawman argument about campus rape, of which I can find no substantial contribution by MarkBernstein, his topic ban has nothing to do with it. This is a canard put forth only to muddy the waters. MarkBernstein doesn't appear to be here to build the encyclopedia. --DHeyward (talk) 20:34, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

• There is a place that should be clarified as it was noted by Arbitrators that this is a topic ban and not an article ban. However, the wording of the sanction (Any editor subject to a topic-ban in this decision is indefinitely prohibited from making any edit about, and from editing any page relating to, (a) Gamergate, (b) any gender-related dispute or controversy, (c) people associated with (a) or (b), all broadly construed.) is that once gender-related dispute or controversy has been found, the entire page is off-limits. From the comments from DougWeller and others, it doesn't appear it was the committee's intent to make entire pages off-limits if only sections of that page related to the controversy. It appears that not everyone is interpreting that the same way and is the source of angst for editors that are under topic bans but feel they cannot edit any page where there might be a controversial section. I don't think there is any doubt the "controversial section" is off-limits. Bishonen, NorthBySouthBaranof seem to articulate this concern that a large portion of pages about women are now off-limits. 'In the narrow case of a "Campus rape" article, it would likely be totally off limits. In the context of a section in a BLP where a person was raped on campus, only that section would be off-limits, not the entire page.' If that's the intent of the committee, it's not clear in the wording of the sanction. --DHeyward (talk) 07:15, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

Statement by NE Ent

Since Campus rape references both "attitudes towards women" and Christian Hoff Sommers / gender feminism logically it would fall under the topic ban. NE Ent 23:22, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

Beauxlieux's query

Answered on their talk [90] NE Ent 00:06, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

Statement by Rich Farmbrough

I am very concerned that we should not waste the talents of someone like MarkBernstein. While he apparently has trouble disengaging from personalities, or at least understanding how others might perceive what he writes, when working in areas about which he feels strongly, he has a wealth of expertise in the statistical field which can be very productive on Wikipedia.

I don't see Campus rape as being the pacific topic which MarkBernstein hopes. There are fraught conversations about double jeopardy, the role of campus police, notable hoaxes, alleged rapists being "punished" by having to write an essay, how ill-suited campus committees are to understand even the mechanics ("I had to draw a diagram"), whether those who sue universities for wrongful punishment are "entitled", and on, and on.

If this is covered by the sanction under which MarkBernstein finds himself, it is not an area where I would imagine there is any guarantee that the conflict would not recur, especially so soon after recent issues, so a special dispensation would probably be unwise.

I would suggest that other areas such a medicine, climatology and pseudo-science might well benefit from MarkBernstein's statistical expertise.

All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 02:37, 11 March 2015 (UTC).

Statement by Cailil

I'm glad this kind of request has come to ARCA - there was a case recently at AE where admins expressed uncertainty as to whether the WP:ARBGG ruling applies to issues that, to my mind, fall within the definition of gender related controversies (in that instance it was the Men's rights movement, a controversial gender politics movement). I said it AE then and I'll say it here my reading of the WP:ARBGG ruling is that

...any gender controversy is covered - so controversial backlashes against Feminism, the USA bills/laws VWA & ERA, and other topics like Same sex marriage, as well as any future issues like the Chelsea Manning conflict etc etc are already preemptively covered. It is as I understand it a preventative measure so that nothing ever gets to the GG level of disruption on WP again. The Men's rights issue is highly controversial a) in RL and b) for the Men's rights online community's reaction to wikipedia's coverage (exactly like GG).

I (and frankly the reliable sources out there) see issues like campus rape (and a whole panoply of other gender issues that are given high profile in the media due to gender politics around them) fall into the category of gender related controversy.
Furthermore Thryduulf's contribution to that AE case seems to me to have muddied waters here[91]. Issues like Campus Rape or Men's rights or feminism or Women's studies are always already about gender, and any controversy about them or if they are a controversy, puts them firmly into the range of the ARBGG AC/DS. If I'm wrong about this I'd welcome correction by Arbs because as it stands the ARBGG ruling seems very clear to me--Cailil ^talk 09:59, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

Just further I understand where TRPOD is coming from and it would be my reading that topics like the NFL etc are not covered in total but just like any topic ban - sub issues relating to gender are. However my point above is that isssues that are ONLY about gender politics will always be covered if controversial, and there's no two ways about that under the current wording--Cailil ^talk 11:54, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

Beauxlieux (talk · contribs) - It seems to me that you've been misinformed by Mark. Campus rape or other gender conflicts are not "inextricibly linked to Gamer Gate". What's happen on wikipedia in the past 3 years is that ArbCom have (finaly) started to deal with protracted conflicts on gender related controversies (Chealsea Manning being one, Abortion being another, and GG being the latest). The ruling does not prevent anyone new to wikipedia from editing Campus rape etc. What is under probation is editor behaviour. As long as people play by the rules and don't disrupt articles to make a point - they have nothing to worry about at all. Discretionary Sanctions are like special speed limits in an area that has high traffic, with cops on standby to enforce them - the only people banned from editing them are those topic banned under the gamer gate ruling because they have a s history of escalating disputes in gender related controversies--Cailil ^talk 12:02, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

Statement by uninvolved editor Squiggleslash

(Redacted)

Statement by Rhoark

It would be very difficult to make any contribution to an article on campus rape that would not in some way intersect the controversial matters of statistical prevalence, risk factors, perpetrator demographics, definition of consent, false accusation, due process, or proposed remedies. The whole article must be regarded as a gender-related controversy, and as such MarkBernstein should not be permitted to interact with it. Fortunately, Beauxlieux and her organization need not be uniquely dependent on MarkBernstein to accomplish their goals. I'm sure any member of Wikipedia:WikiProject_Feminism, myself included, would be pleased to help them improve the encyclopedia. We shouldn't let them be used as a human shield against a justified topic ban, and they should consider themselves fortunate to be spared being weaponized for more pointy behavior. Rhoark (talk) 01:28, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

Regarding MarkBernstein's latest question, I think that since the purpose of the wide net over gender-related disputes is to prevent exporting proxy wars from Gamergate, it would not be necessary to add any notification to pages not obviously connected to Gamergate or notify contributors to those pages of Gamergate sanctions if they have never at any time made edits related to Gamergate. People who have been notified know what's up, and that's all that matters. Rhoark (talk) 20:29, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

Statement by Bishonen

Topic bans are always intended to be broad enough to avoid the possibility of disruptive editing. "Gender-related" and "controversy" are deliberately broad terms, says DGG. But how does such breadth affect an instance where, say, somebody is editing not disruptively, but helpfully, and the broadness of the terms lays them open to being taken to WP:AE for violating that deliberately broad topic ban, and likely enough sanctioned, as in this current AE case? Don't you people care, with your deliberately broad terms? Was that not foreseeable? Compare NorthBySouthBaranof's comment above. I agree with it; indeed, I find it eloquent. I see Thryduulf has responded to it by inviting NBSB to appeal his topic ban at the end of January next year (bah) or to Jimbo (bah) at any time. The gamergate sanctions are a trainwreck. I hereby propose they be amended to support the efforts of editors who defend living people from slander, instead of thwarting and punishing these editors. This is the page not only for clarification, but also amendment, am I right? Please don't tell me to submit a separate amendment case in triplicate, as Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy. Bishonen | talk 01:03, 13 March 2015 (UTC).

Statement by {DD2K}

@Masem:

...there's a difference from enforcing BLP which is meant to prevent WP from introducing claims that are harmful to living person, and actively defending living persons...including when living persons are being negatively attacked off-site,... "defending" persons under BLP should not be done on WP.

Absolutely disturbing. I have a strong inclination that if there were an organized group tying certain Bronys to pedophilia, and said brony people had Wikipedia articles that were being attacked with off-site organization, you would feel much differently. The same with some Arbs here, if the people being attacked weren't just some feminist women who act too big for their britches, the case would have looked much different. I don't know if it's the young age of some of the ArbCom members, or if they are just tone deaf. But when you compare the GGTF case and the GG case, it's absurd. Dave Dial (talk) 02:25, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

@Masem: - Your response shows that my comment either went right over your head, or you are being purposely obtuse. In fact, this whole episode from start till know shows exactly how systemic bias works on Wikipedia. Regular, good editors are biased and cannot see their own biases. The absurdity of it all would be funny were it not for the consequences involved. Dave Dial (talk) 13:33, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

Statement by Starship.paint

Can we now wrap up and close this request, given that nine Arbs, a majority, have pretty much unanimously declared that campus rape is "related to gender and the subject of controversy", thus being within the standard GG topic ban? I'm not very aware of the procedures - what's next and who can close this? starship.paint ~ ¡Olé! 05:26, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

Statement by {next person}

Other editors are free to make relevant comments on this request as necessary. Comments here should address why or why not the Committee should accept the case request or provide additional information.

GamerGate: Clerk notes

This area is used for notes by the clerks (including clerk recusals).

GamerGate: Arbitrator views and discussion

• I think the topic of campus rape quite clearly falls inside the scope of the DS authorization. I think we should also reject Masem's idea in his statement. If something is covered by the DS, it is covered for all editors equally, there can be no "this set of topics for editor X, and this set for everyone else". As to Bosstopher's comment, they are clearly correct, and we should correct this by motion. (rewritten slightly to clarify what I meant, but the substance is the same). Courcelles (talk) 02:09, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

• TheRedPenOfDoom, this isn't some dramatic expansion of DS, Campus rape is, to me, so clearly a gender-related controversy that it surprises me we even have to discuss it. As to what one arb says somewhere, it doesn't mean the other 14 agree or endorse it, that said, this particular issue of campus rape is not that broad, and is inseparable from gender controversies that the broadly construed language isn't even necessary to have it within the scope as written. Courcelles (talk) 02:09, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

• The question is the scope of "gender-related dispute or controversy," not the validity of the specific topic-ban or the issue of Gamergate itself. The scope is straight-forward - any article, or section of an article, which is controversial or in dispute and is fundamentally related to gender issues. By definition, "Campus rape" is a gender-related issue. Regrettably its prevalence, definitions and demographics are issues of societal controversy (I dont think they should be, but they are). Therefore "Campus rape" is covered by the Gamergate DS and people topic-banned under those DS should edit elsewhere. -- Euryalus (talk) 02:30, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

• Addendum: On this issue I also agree entirely with Rich Farmbrough. -- Euryalus (talk) 02:49, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

• @TheRedPenOfDoom:, where an article is only partly related to gender, the topic ban only applies to those specific parts of the article. So if there was a section in the US Congress article that was about (say) sexual harassment by Congressmen, that would be covered by the ban. The next section on (say) the hours of operation of the Congress, would not. But really there is no need for hair-splitting if the ban is observed in good faith. Anyone with a topic ban should simply not make edits about gender-related issues. There are millions of other articles to work on. -- Euryalus (talk) 03:37, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

• @Beauxlieux:, thanks for your post. You are perfectly welcome to edit the Campus Rape article. The relevance of this conversation to the article in Campus Rape is you probably shouldn't request editors who have been topic-banned from this area, to work with you on it. Not because you are restricted in any way, but because they are. -- Euryalus2 (talk) 22:08, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
• @Starship.paint:, agree re time to close. Closing is done by the clerks, one will be along fairly soon. -- Euryalus (talk) 06:16, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

• I'm puzzled about why we even have to discuss this. Is campus rape gender a controversy? Yes, obviously. Is that controversy related to gender? Yes, given many reliable sources about the topic focus on one gender and the rates of perpetrators and victims differ very significantly by gender, there is no way this could not be. As such campus rape is clearly within the scope of all gamergate topic bans (not just Mark's). @MarkBernstein: Rich Farmbrough offers good advice here. @TheRedPenOfDoom: Euryalus' reply is absolutely correct. Thryduulf (talk) 10:00, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

  @NorthBySouthBaranof: This is explicitly not an appeal of Mark's topic ban, let alone yours, merely a request for clarification regarding its scope. If you wish to appeal your topic ban from GamerGate you may do so at the end of January next year or to Jimbo at any time. Your comments as they stand are not helpful for determining whether the topic of campus rape is or is not a gender-related controversy. Thryduulf (talk) 14:40, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

  @Squiggleslash: your arguments are based on a false premise, specifically that the topic of campus rape is not controversial. Sure nobody agrees campus rape should happen, but given the controversy about what constitutes rape and how to deal with it there is no part of the topic which is not controversial. Thryduulf (talk) 17:08, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

  @Bishonen: It might seem bureaucratic, but it will be a whole lot easier for everyone to follow if you do wish to file an amendment request that you do it in a new section of this page. You will need to be a whole lot more specific than you have been so far if it is to stand any chance of success though. Thryduulf (talk) 11:09, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

  Actually, Bishonen, you cannot file an amendment request, because these sanctions can only be appealed after one year and because you are *not* the sanctioned editor. So, basically, your appeal would be a waste of time. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 11:23, 13 March 2015 (UTC) Added *not*. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 17:24, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

  @Salvio giuliano:. I think you mean "you are not the sanctioned editor." Courcelles (talk) 16:56, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

  You're quite right, thanks. I've just fixed my mistake. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 17:24, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

  @DHeyward:. The wording is standard with other topic bans, which have always been interpreted as applying to sections of articles where the whole page is not related to the topic, and anyway in the case of e.g. the BLP then the page is not related to (a), (b) or (c). No change is needed and this request can be archived when a clerk gets to it. Thryduulf (talk) 15:25, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

• What Euryalus said. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 10:01, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
• Yes, what he said, but also noting that it isn't whether anyone supports campus rape, it's that it is both gender related and controversial - a number of colleges have tried to cover it up in various ways. That's clearly controversial. Dougweller (talk) 16:12, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

  And to reinforce what some of my colleagues have said, this is a topic ban, not an article ban, although some articles would fall entirely within the topic. A BLP on someone which had a section relating to a gender-related controversy wouldn't be, as an article, under the topic ban, but anything related to the controversy would be covered. A topic banned editor would have to avoid that but could still edit the rest of the article. Dougweller (talk) 19:16, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

• I essentially agree with the above. Campus rape is a gender related issue in terms of prevalence, and is also a controversial subject, so it is covered by the topic ban. While it is true that reliable sources all agree it shouldn't happen, there is a great deal of social controversy over how to best address it and the like. As to a subject like the NFL, brought up by TheRedPenOfDoom, if a controversy that the NFL is involved in is gender related, that particular subject would be covered by the topic ban. If a controversy is not gender related (for a recent example, the controversy over its status as a nonprofit would be one such), that is not covered. And certainly, updating win-loss records for a given season would not be prohibited, since that's likely neither controversial nor gender-related. The entire subject certainly is not covered just because some facets could be, as is true of any topic ban. As MarkBernstein has indicated that he does not intend this to be an appeal to the topic ban itself, I intend this as general comment for anyone subject to such a topic ban, not an opinion on the validity of this particular instance. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 16:11, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
• I also agree with the above. Topic bans are always intended to be broad enough to avoid the possibility of disruptive editing. "Gender-related" and "controversy" are deliberately broad terms, and the includes them material in question. If it is disputed in good faith whether or not some material is controversial, that normally indicates that it is controversial for this purpose. And topic bans normally refer to topics, not only to entire articles. As with the other comments, this is intended a a general explanation, for the benefit of all editors concerned. DGG ( talk ) 17:53, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
• Campus rape, as a topic, is both related to gender and the subject of controversy. I have to admit, I struggle to even understand how someone could argue otherwise. Whilst it is not related to Gamergate, it still clearly falls under the topic ban. That said, Mark Bernstein is topic-banned on Wikipedia, meaning that he cannot edit the article or discuss it here. He stated in his orginal message that he was asking "only to advise an organization seeking [his] advice", and he is perfectly free to offer his advice and opinions to other organisations and editors outside Wikipedia. Yunshui ^雲_水 11:34, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
• I agree with my colleagues. The topic plainly falls within scope. AGK [•] 01:06, 14 March 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.

Amendment request: GamerGate (March 2015)

Original discussion

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.

---

Initiated by Rhoark at 04:08, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

Case or decision affected

GamerGate arbitration case (t) (ev / t) (w / t) (pd / t)

Clauses to which an amendment is requested

1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/GamerGate#Scope_of_standard_topic_ban_.28I.29

List of any users involved or directly affected, and confirmation that all are aware of the request

• Rhoark (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) (initiator)
• NorthBySouthBaranof (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
• MarkBernstein (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
• Example User (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

• [92]
• [93]
• [diff of notification Additional party clown car: @Ryulong: @Tarc: @The Devil's Advocate: @Tutelary: @ArmyLine: @DungeonSiegeAddict510: @Xander756: @TitaniumDragon: @Loganmac: @Willhesucceed:]

Information about amendment request

• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/GamerGate#Scope_of_standard_topic_ban_.28I.29

• Create an additional remedy, hereafter termed "standard topic ban (II)" constructed as follows: Any editor restricted per this remedy is indefinitely prohibited from making any edit about (a) Gamergate, (b) sexism in video games, (c) people associated with (a) or (b), all broadly construed. These restrictions may be appealed to the Committee only after 12 months have elapsed from the closing of this case.

Convert all existing restrictions under standard topic ban (I) or functionally identical to standard topic ban (I) to standard topic ban (II). Any uninvolved administrator may henceforth apply either standard topic ban I or II as a discretionary sanction, as seems most appropriate to prevent disruption.

Statement by Rhoark

Apologies if this request is improper in any way, but as an affected party I would like to request amendment to a sanction I believe is ineffective. The question of what constitutes a "gender-related dispute", and the continuing off-site attention to the matter is causing more disruption than I believe would result from a narrower topic ban on the affected individuals. Except for one of them, I doubt those that are not already indef blocked would actually disrupt other gender controversy pages due to sour grapes (especially after 3 months to cool off), so its mostly a WP:BEANS restriction. I've also heard it claimed the resulting off-site campaigning is further discouraging female participation in Wikipedia, which is a hot-button issue. I don't have firsthand knowledge of that. I share @TheRedPenOfDoom:'s concerns about setting a precedent of bending to campaigns organized off-wiki, but I think on the whole this will improve the collaborative editing environment. Rhoark (talk) 04:08, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

I've responded to Hipocrite's statements about my editing history, which he also made at AE. It would be helpful if everyone would centralize discussion on that to over there. Rhoark (talk) 15:22, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

I've tossed the ball and will try to avoid too much of trying to steer it by blowing on it, but I'd like to share the analogy I brought up in the other thread: the more you squeeze a handful of sand, the faster it slips through your fingers. There are problems at the root of the misbehavior that are fixable, but not by doubling down on the same strategy. This is not, as some have suggested, evidence of incompetence or malice at arbcom, so trying a different tack need not be considered an admission of such. No one in history has ever dealt with quite the same situation. Rhoark (talk) 19:19, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

I hope that tangential discussion of my editing history will not distract too much from the request for amendment. If anyone thinks it is a problem, please bring it to my talk page or a separate filing. I'm not upset by it, and make no demands upon Hipocrite in response to it. On the topic of the request, its natural to react to this as one would react to some reprobate trying to slip the terms of their ban and re-engage. I imagine the arbitrators see that a lot. This is something quite different. Comments supportive of this amendment have been from people quite independent of those sanctioned, and crossing the aisle with respect to the controversial area. Rhoark (talk) 21:56, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

@Cailil: I think this is about a different class of editor than you have concerns about. As shown by NBSB's request for clarification and the Spudst3r (talk · contribs) case, there is uncertainty about how to even apply GG sanctions to an editor that's operating in gender pages and hasn't touched GG. A different framework or clarification is needed regardless. I think this is something that should be raised for comment at WikiProject Feminism (but I don't want to bring it myself and look like canvassing.)

When people are obviously of no use to the encyclopedia they get indeffed. This never would have gone to arbcom if the editors involved weren't wanted in the community in any capacity. As such, I don't think the topic ban is really what's standing between them and battlegrounding non-GG gender pages. If I'm wrong it should still work out for the best under PBAGD.

As for what @DD2K: said, I took it as a facetious statement. We should let him clarify before drawing inferences. Rhoark (talk) 23:55, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

Statement by NorthBySouthBaranof

Statement by MarkBernstein

Statement by TKOP

• Support Amendment - A wise narrowing of the overly broad existing restrictions. Just narrow it to GamerGate, and if trouble brews again, widen a bit further. That some have been flirting the restrictions, and with the general malaise-ish support to the point that admins are letting things go is telling.Two kinds of pork^Makin'_Bacon 05:15, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
• To the arbitrators: Would one of you briefly explain why the sanctions are broader than GG? Was there something in the case that was the impetus for a gender controversy ban?. MRA perhaps?Two kinds of pork^Makin'_Bacon 21:30, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

Statement by TheRedPenOfDoom

• support the most sensible thing that has happened in the gamergate space in months. And I think what @Bishonen: had asked for the last time we were here and what @Risker: had suggested back at the proposed decision page. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 08:29, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

Statement by coldacid

@Thryduulf: My feeling on this is that it'll do nothing but promote further boundary testing. The rational part of me doesn't quite agree, but I'd certainly argue against converting the existing bans to the type II proposed above if it is added to the remedies. I'd say to Two kinds of pork's comment that general malaise-ish support to the point that admins are letting things go is not a fault with the topic ban's scope, but rather with admins who are putting the optics of the situation ahead of doing the right thing for Wikipedia.

I'm not entirely opposed to adding the additional topic ban scope, I'm just not sure if it'll actually result in the environment that Rhoark and TheRedPenOfDoom hope for. And I fear that reducing existing tbans to the lighter scope will only encourage those currently under the existing scope to cause further problems in the topic space. // coldacid (talk|contrib) 12:41, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

@Squiggleslash: Lena Dunham isn't covered under the GG topic ban scope because she's a woman. The article on her is covered because of controversies related to her book, including the rape allegations made by her as well as the part that has been interpreted as admission of rape of her own sister. Please don't go on with that canard that she and all other women with articles are in scope because of their gender. // coldacid (talk|contrib) 13:40, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

@Hipocrite: If Rhoark is such an obvious sockpuppet then why don't you report them to WP:SPI? That's what it's there for. Otherwise you're simply casting aspersions. // coldacid (talk|contrib) 14:46, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

@Thryduulf: Please note that Hipocrite has made the same accusation also on AE.[94] // coldacid (talk|contrib) 14:49, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

Courcelles makes a good point responding to a comment by Salvio giuliano below, regarding subclause (i)(c) of the discretionary sanctions clause in the case remedies. However, it seems that the prevailing interpretation is that parts of biographical articles that don't deal with GG or gender-related disputes are acceptable areas for edits by people currently under the GG topic ban. Perhaps if there's any clarification or loosening of the topic ban restriction to be done, it should be to codify this interpretation only. // coldacid (talk|contrib) 01:42, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

@Cailil: Hear hear! // coldacid (talk|contrib) 11:57, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

@Bishonen: Is it really so hard to believe that someone might, you know, do some research before beginning to contribute to Wikipedia, or that they'd prefer to not have an account? That they might not be a logged out editor, but someone genuinely editing from an IP address? Because I actually know some such editors. Perhaps you need to remember to assume good faith before blocking people without having any evidence other than that they disagree with you. // coldacid (talk|contrib) 20:22, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

Statement by squiggleslash

Makes sense to me, especially as admins seem to be stretching what constitutes a controversy or gender related (Lena Dunham is a woman, therefore gender related; some universities have controversies related to their sexual assault policies/some women have falsely accused men of rape on campus therefore Campus Rape is controversial despite nobody mainstream actually being in favor of it)

I would replace the existing topic ban with this, not add it as an option, and see about creating a more broader topic ban with better language. But given that suggestion will be ignored, I agree with adding it as an option as proposed by the initiator of this proposal. --Squiggleslash (talk) 12:57, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

@Coldacid - You're explaining the justification for Lena Dunham being a "controversy" which wasn't in dispute.

@GorillaWarfare - I wouldn't interpret this as narrowing the scope as creating a well defined scope. The current scope is highly open to interpretation, a sizable gulf exists between what editors (and most people outside of Wikipedia) think is meant by "Gender based controversy" and what admins/Arbcom does. What supporters of the status quo are calling "boundary pushing" isn't boundary pushing, it's people who believe they're on the outside of the boundary.

@GorillaWarfare and other admins now forming views similar to those expressed - OK, well just be aware that this amendment is being proposed to deal with a significant issue, and that it seems likely that unless addressed the relevant Wikipedian disciplinary bureaucracy seems likely to continue to be abused, day in, day out, by the usual suspects bringing in attempts to harass editors whose edits they disagree with. This fix would not, by itself, completely solve it, but the issues can't be solved without this type of fix. As far as the topics under discussion go: I would hope admins and Arbcom recognize there's a difference between personally believing that something fits a particular definition, and believing that everyone else must share the same views. Unfortunately it sounds, from comments like "Toeing the line not attempting to steer clear of the topic area" that this isn't the case, that you can't imagine why anyone would disagree with you, and that you're assuming bad faith in anyone who expresses an opinion on the subject you disagree with. (And for reference, I don't think either topic can be described as either - one isn't controversial, the other isn't gender related) I hope this is not the case and I'm simply misunderstanding this.

@Seraphimblade - It doesn't sound like the specific abuses you're concerned about, people finding excuses to talk about Gamergate, would be affected by placing them under this topic ban. I'm also a little concerned that much of the opposition to this proposal focuses on whether the right message is being sent by "narrowing" the ban, rather than trying to ensure the right thing is done. Is it a problem if an established, reputable, editor who was sanctioned and topic banned for being slightly uncivil and reverting a few consensus-opposed edits on the Gamergate page, corrects problems on the Lena Dunham page? Is this really what you're trying to prevent?

It seems that the current consensus is "We think Lena Dunham is a gender-related controversy and it's impossible for anyone to disagree with us and not know we think that", and "We can't allow there to be a clearer, tighter, standard topic ban because in some unspecified way that would be rewarding people who are confused by the current ban." I respectfully ask those of you stating those positions to review whether or not they make sense. --Squiggleslash (talk) 20:10, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

Agree with Tarc here. Hoping the next group of people who make up Arbcom have a better handle on how to prevent drama, and the sanity of punishing its victims. Unwatching. --Squiggleslash (talk) 13:02, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

Statement by Beauxlieux

First, the restriction should be for the GamerGate Controversy, not GamerGate, that's the ant, which as far as I know isn't an issue.

Second, the way Wikipedia archives arbitration, the history is not included so @Squiggleslash:'s valuable comments which they chose to redact aren't included after the IMHO inappropriate comments, but the comments are in the history here: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification_and_Amendment&direction=prev&oldid=651502323 (and yes, I'm a new editor, and if I spend all my time trying to figure out how to make all these fancy links, I won't write this) The inappropriate questioning of Squiggleslash's integrity, however, remains in the arbitration archives, and I'm glad about that.

So, @Rhoark: in terms of your concern, "I've also heard it claimed the resulting off-site campaigning is further discouraging female participation in Wikipedia, which is a hot-button issue." The behavior here is what is discouraging female participation. Exposing that behavior isn't the problem. Women appreciate knowing what they may be getting themselves into and making informed decisions based on the reality of what is actually happening in the forum. Calling rape "a gender-related controversy" is disheartening to many women. It is not validating survivors. Rape is rape.

Furthermore, I think these bans and sanctions should be accompanied by a requirement of an apology as I outline here: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants:IdeaLab/Require_Apologies That would help create a more civil environment which would be welcoming to women.

Beauxlieux (talk) 16:14, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

Statement by Hipocrite

Why is Rhoark, an obvious sockpuppet participating in administrative spaces unblocked? Hipocrite (talk) 13:48, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

An editor who joins in late 2014 doesn't know about WP:REICHSTAG. SPI takes too much time for me to deal with right now. If that's a problem for you, feel free to remove this. Hipocrite (talk) 14:44, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

Statement by TenOfAllTrades

(ec) @Thryduulf: I assume that Hipocrite noted that Rhoark is a sockpuppet, based on the very conspicuous behavioral clues. Demanding a full noticeboard discussion and bureaucratic performance before being allowed to acknowledge the obvious is unproductive and unhelpful. I'm not involved in this area at all and I'm only commenting because I saw your response go by on my watchlist, but even I can see that Rhoark was not a new user when he created his account.

• His first edit (Undid revision 635259463 by Susanpoops (talk)) was an undo.
• His fourth edit (less than two hours later) (Added citations, excised original research, improved encyclopedic tone) was a massive revision demonstrating a firm grasp of Wikipedia formatting (including references) and jargon.
• His fifth edit [95] was to bluelink his user page.
• Essentially every single edit by Rhoark has been to GamerGate- or gender-related topics.

When an obviously-experienced editor creates a new account solely to work in a controversial area, it legitimately raises eyebrows. Even if no one can be bothered to formally analyze and report the duck, it's silly and disingenuous to pretend that we can't hear it quacking. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 15:18, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

@Bosstopher: Hell, I've been around since 2004 and I still don't fully grasp what happens inside <ref> tags. The fact that he was using that markup at all (rather than just, e.g., bare inline links) is indicative of significant experience.

I will also note that I made no suggestion as to the identity of the original account, and don't know if they're from 2006 or 2012. I don't know who it would be, and I wouldn't expect to know; as I said, I'm not at all involved in this area (either as an editor or administratively). Since SPI won't do "fishing expeditions", we're left with the situation we have here—an obvious alternate account (albeit one without an obvious master), created exclusively to edit in a contentious area, is now participating in (and initiating) administrative processes. If the ArbCom wants to encourage and defend such shenanigans, that's on them. But it's definitely not misconduct or inappropriate for Hipocrite to take note of the situation. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 15:58, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

Statement by Tarc

Placeholder, lack the time to make a full comment atm.

Note that I revised the "party clown car" header above; there's a level of decorum I expect from editors with whom I have no prior relationship. This did not meet it.

Thryduulf, et al, this isn't so much about boundary testing as it is about people wanting to know where the flippin' the boundary is. The only way to ensure complete safety for oneself is to pull a TDA and stop editing altogether. So you either issued a) de facto sitebans or b) set us up to fail with an impossibly broad and vague topic ban. No one in their right mind would think "campus rape" is a "gender dispute". Gender touches every aspect of daily life, it is everywhere and anywhere; you simply cannot use that broad of a brush. Can we edit Susan B Anthony? The Birdcage? Murder of Du'a Khalil Aswad? Bra burning? How about sub-sections, Dolce_& Gabbana#Gay adoption controversy? Tarc (talk) 17:49, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

Arbcom; they never miss an opportunity to miss an opportunity. Un-watching and climbing back into the clown car. Tarc (talk) 02:07, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

Statement by Bosstopher

Please accept this ammendment Arbcom. The purpose of a topic ban is to prevent disruption. The current scope of the standard Gamergate topic ban only serves to cause disruption. Bosstopher (talk) 15:38, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
@TenOfAllTrades: So we're meant to believe that Rhoark, a supposed sock puppet of someone who's been around since 2006, at no point in his decade of wikipedia editing, learnt that you're not meant to use bare-refs as citations? Knowing that policies like OR exist before editing, is a sign of responsible editing that should be encouraged.Bosstopher (talk) 15:38, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

Statement by Sappow

It seems like what's really needed is clarification and enforcement; it does not necessarily have to be done by narrowing the scope, but it really does seem like a good idea to do it by some means, perhaps even just making a mission statement for what your desired outcome is. This process of enforcement-by-swarm-of-bees is really not a positive one for any outcome that involves the controversy cooling off and not giving everyone constant headaches, and the ambiguity of how the ruling can be interpreted does not help.

I don't know what your preferred outcome would be, but maybe you should just make a statement along the lines of "just stop participating in controversial zones at all, look at all these articles about census data in Kazakhstan that need the attention of an experienced editor, why don't you go help touch up those some? Chill.", if that is the intended goal of the sanctions.

It may also make sense to have some sort of contagion rule applied to the sanctions, because the way people keep pursuing sanctioned individuals like Mark Bernstein around to look for minor violations to open (yet another...) complaint and filing seems like a form of behavior that should be flat out punished itself, if the goal is to have the controversy cool down so good articles can be written. Essentially, if people persist in following around the sanctioned individuals and being hypervigiliant to bring the controversy to their actions anywhere for the slightest mis-step, they should catch some full bore sanctions themselves. Sappow (talk) 21:50, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

Statement by Metamagician3000

The topic ban is intended to be broadly construed. The editors concerned need to accept that - as do any other editors who might be tempted to assist them - instead of trying to test the boundaries. Admins also need to understand the broad nature of the topic ban and enforce it. Editors against whom adverse findings were made, with sanctions such as topic bans, should not be given areas in which they are free to keep warring: they should understand that battleground tactics and non-neutral approaches to editing are unwelcome, and they should err on the side of keeping away from any articles that push their emotional/political buttons. The outcome of the case was clear, so I suggest that the request be rejected. If it's accepted, it should only be for the purpose of underlining the broad nature of the ban. Metamagician3000 (talk) 02:52, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

Statement by Floq

When dozens of new or long-dormant accounts crawl out of the woodwork, all to take one side in a controversial issue, including starting and participating in Arb-related issues, having an Arb insist that we assume each new one is legit unless all the forms are filed is disappointing. The solution is not to insist on SPI's, the solution is to block them or topic ban them as soon as they show their colors. I have blocked or topic banned a couple such accounts, and I'm not even active in the area. I suggest ArbCom pass a motion that no new arbitration requests or clarifications or modifications or enforcement requests or anything are allowed from single-purpose accounts who don't significantly edit anything other than GamerGate articles.

A single-purpose account dedicated to editing about snails, or 16th century Japanese poetry, is helpful. Several dozen single-purpose accounts dedicated to pushing one side in a controversial area, not so much. --Floquenbeam (talk) 15:14, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

Comment by Bishonen

@Thryduulf: @TenOfAllTrades: This is in re Thryduulf's rebuke to Hipocrite below, where he orders Hipocrite to either withdraw the accusation of sockpuppetry or produce SPI-worthy evidence. (Floquenbeam's comment above obviously refers to that as well, though Floq seems to have become outrageously polite in his old age.) In a recent request for enforcement of the GamerGate sanctions, MastCell indeffed the OP as an obvious sock.[96] And I blocked an IP on the same ground, see User talk:76.64.12.157. Neither MastCell nor I could suggest obvious, or any, sockmasters; we blocked because these were obviously people hiding behind respectively an account and an IP to evade scrutiny and stir shit in the GamerGate area without getting their experienced-editor persona in trouble. That is a block reason IMO. But if anybody would like to propose a motion to desysop MastCell and me, I'm fine with that too. Thryduulf, I hope you'll find the time to reply to my comment, and Floquenbeams, as you still haven't to Ten's (an extremely respected admin). That is not meant as a crack; I realize wikitime is precious for arbs. Still, I'm not sure my priorities would be the same as yours in this instance. Bishonen | talk 16:33, 18 March 2015 (UTC).

@Thryduulf: Indeed I didn't ask you a question; I criticized your magisterial reproof to Hipocrite and thought you might have something to say to that. I thought the question was implied, but if you're going to blow me off with a formality, I'll put my concern in the form of a question, or several questions. Do you think MastCell and I misused our tools in the actions I described immediately above? Are you going to propose we be desysopped, or admonished, or advised? If not, why not? Bishonen | talk 18:14, 18 March 2015 (UTC).

@Thryduulf: And I don't believe you noticed my statement that "MastCell indeffed the OP as an obvious sock. And I blocked an IP on the same ground" (my italics). Nor clicked on my links, inserted in order to further clarify that we blocked them as socks. But I'm done here. Bishonen | talk 20:58, 18 March 2015 (UTC).

Statement by Kaciemonster

Considering that the problem here is endless wikilawyering from editors trying to get their opponents blocked or topic banned, the impossibly broad sanction wording opens up more opportunities to continue those same disputes elsewhere on wiki, especially AE. It should be obvious that the current sanctions aren't working the way they were meant to, since the current wording is meant to prevent the problems on the Gamergate article from traveling to other gender-related articles. We're dealing with complaints on these boards that people are editing articles that technically fall under the scope of the sanctions, so they're obviously not living up to their purpose and just causing more drama.

Narrowing the sanctions would allow for editors to edit topics that have nothing to do with Gamergate without the fear of breaking their topic ban on a technicality. I don't think the issue is editors testing the boundaries of the topic ban, I think the issue is that the topic ban isn't intuitive. I'm pretty sure that technically the Girl Scouts of the USA article would count under the current topic ban, because of the whole "girls can't be scouts" thing. Also, any time a woman does anything and gets pushback just because she's a woman, it would count under the topic ban. Should we start issuing sanction notices for articles like that? Or do these sanctions only count if the editor has edited Gamergate and a sort of almost gender-related article? Confusion about the scope of the topic ban has been expressed since the proposed decision was posted. Since there's still confusion, consider that the problem isn't the editors, it's that the current topic ban isn't clear enough.

If the scope is narrowed, Gamergate editors begin editing gender-related topics, and problems start popping up on those articles, it'll become obvious who the editors are that are causing trouble, and they can be dealt with. Kaciemonster (talk) 15:34, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

Statement by Liz

While I think I understand what the committee intended by the phrasing "gender-related dispute" or "gender-related controversy", in practice, it is overly broad and, for instance, could cover the biographies of any man or woman who is deemed controversial. For example, rape is a criminal act, it is not a "controversy" and an article on campus rape shouldn't be covered by an editing restriction that is focused on the GamerGate controversy and its associated subjects. It might be in some people's minds, gender is associated with feminism but gender is a social and cultural construct that is an aspect of any and every individual person, man, woman or child. If the AC meant "feminism" and/or "sexism" than restrict the topic ban to these specific subjects, not any article that touches on aspects of gender. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 16:55, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

Salvio, I think I'm pretty familiar with Lena Dunham's bio and it's still not clear to me what part is gender-related controversy and, as such, be subject to GamerGate DS. Are you referring to aspects of her bio that deal with sexuality? Because that is not gender. Gender is ones identity as a man, woman, transgender person or queer and the social, cultural and biological forces that help shape that identity. Gender is not synonymous with sexuality or feminism or women in general. Campus rape is not a gender-related controversy, it's not about identity, it's about sexual violence against men and women. Chelsea Manning case would be covered in this instance because the dispute was about gender identity.

I think most of the editors here that I agree with think that "gender-related dispute", broadly constructed, is imprecise and ill-defined and there isn't agreement on the scope of what articles this would apply to. This vagueness can only lead to MORE cases coming to AE, not fewer. This request for clarification is an opportunity for arbitrators to narrow the scope to exactly what troublesome topical areas you had in mind. This action would settle a lot of questions, in advance and reduce the frequency that you will see GamerGate cases returning to AE and ARCA for additional decision-making and fewer sanctions against editors because the boundaries would be clear, not fuzzy. Unfortunately, it appears that the majority of arbitrators are refusing to reconsider the scope of the DS so I imagine you will continue to receive GamerGate-related questions on a regular basis. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 18:50, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

Statement by EChastain

Absolutely agree with the statement by Liz. GorillaWarfare, doesn't "gender" related equally to men and women (males and females)? Potentially almost any article could fall within "broadly construed", or even WikiProjects as has happened in a "broadly construed" interpretation in another ARCA case. Courcelles, Salvio giuliano, the problem with "the current scope needs to be enforced, and boundary testing dealt with", as you say below, is that many editors don't understand what "the current scope" is. If people like me knew the "current scope", then we could take a stab at the "broadly construed" part. EChastain (talk) 21:20, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

Statement by Hell in a Bucket

I agree with others, GorillaWarfare has a conflict of interest that she denies is a problem but it clearly is an issue in her judgement. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 21:48, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

• User:GorillaWarfare, one such is Echaistain above. I don't recall saying you need to recuse but it does colour your judgement. I think that you are on the uber sensitive side. You've made unfounded personal accusations, you've attempted to duck process in banning TKOP, you even jumped all over your fellow Arb in the latest quasi-related bro-hahaha and practically accused that individual of sexism as well merely for pointing out some of the problematic behaviors they had seen. (I attempted to word that carefully so as not to breach my Iban but if that reference is a problem let me know and I will strike it). Asking you what sexism is or isn't or possibly gender related is like taking a match in a powder store house, it causes more issues then it's worth. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 16:47, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
• User:GorillaWarfare I'm sure almost everyone with an entrenched COI would say the exact same thing. They don't see the problem it's a reason why it's so nec a person to exercise caution in those areas. You have failed to do that in a few of the things I've mentioned but you seemingly glossed over in your reply. I don't think you are doing things to just do things, I believe you truly see things in those lights but I think your view on what is and isn't is a bit skewed. I don't support suppression of participation in discussion I think it's a cowards way of answering and or suppressing open dialogue which is vital to Wikipedia's goal but I would urge caution in acting as an arb because you have half fired a few half cocked shots from the hip then pleaded ignorance about the processes. I find those odd that an Arb of your tenure would not know this much about the arb processes which if we assume good faith is that is all it was, but if we look at a darker view you did those things, ie TKOP banning proposal among other things because you allowed your conflict of interest rule your actions and then that was your card to play for lessened responsibility. Those actions don't scream out a whole bunch of reason to have confidence in your reasoning at least in these situations. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 17:31, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

Statement by Cailil

• "The road to hell is paved with good intentions", and however well intentioned the lobbying to reduce the scope of the ARBGG bans it's missing the point. The GG fiasco was due to the complete lack of tools for the community to deal with organized and semi-organized politically motivated trolling. Whether you like it or not the internet is crawling with highly motivated ideologues who froth at the mouth when it comes to gender issues. And Wikipedia's tolerance for bad behaviour in the area of gender is very high - for example Dave Dial made a comment only in the last ARCA request (a few days ago) saying "if the people being attacked weren't just some feminist women who act too big for their britches, the case would have looked much different"[97], and nobody batted and eyelid.
  The problem is an off-wiki issue of hatred and it is not specific to GamerGate. Limiting any solution to the narrow area of GG flies in the face of evidence of the long standing problem of battleground attitudes & meatpuppetry and off-site organized trolling at other Gender related pages, i.e Feminism, Men's rights, Domestic violence, as well as the demonstrated willingness of these trolls (of various political hues) to use wikipedia as a battleground for their offsite agendas. The ruling needs scope to be effective, just like any other ruling in an RfAr related to politics or ideology--Cailil ^talk 11:24, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

Statement by (anonymous)

Contrary to User:Bishonen's claims above, I have never had an account. And contrary to User:Hipocrite's reasoning, I, too, am well aware of WP:SPIDERMAN (since the canonical name seems to bother some people) and have been for quite some time. Wikipedia is kind of a big deal for many habitual internet users; Google often privileges information from Wikipedia by setting up a sidebar for it, and customized Wikipedia search comes built into modern web browsers. It is not unfathomable that a new editor, or a WP:HUMAN like myself, would have been browsing Wikipedia for years before making any edits, and come across various bits of policy material. Some people like to immerse themselves in the documentation of an Internet culture before attempting to become part of it, you know. After all, there's a pretty universal trend in such cultures of denigrating people for failing to do so - it's absurd that Wikipedia seems bent on persecuting those who actually get the hint because they "know too much".

Wikipedia is IMX a lot more "accessible" than the sock-puppet witch-hunters seem to think - at least for the technologically savvy, and those who have experience with other wiki systems and fora with their own various and sundry markup languages. I've learned how people do things like {{tq}} and {{u}} and {{ping}}, and even {{subst:WikiLove-cookie}} simply by looking at existing page source and using Google.

And as for WP:SPIDERMAN itself, a bit of research shows me that it was explicitly mentioned in Dariusz Jemelniak's Common Knowledge? An Ethnography of Wikipedia. It's also not unfathomable that new editors would have read such a book and that it might even have been their inspiration for beginning to edit.

70.24.6.180 (talk) 17:45, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

Note. This IP acknowledges above that they're the same person as 76.64.12.157 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), which is currently blocked for disruption. (They also made that pretty clear in these posts at the Teahouse page.) I have therefore struck out the post and blocked the static IP they're using at the moment. No doubt we'll hear from them again, from some other proxy. I advise WP:RBI, but since I'm attacked by name above, I won't myself delete the post. Bishonen | talk 18:54, 19 March 2015 (UTC).

Statement by DHeyward

As I said on the other request, I think it needs to be clarified that articles like Lena Dunham are not completely off-limits and should clarify using real language ((not "standard language") that it's a "topic ban" not an "article ban". I do however believe that rape of any form is gender related. Rape is overwhelmingly a violent act committed by men against women. The view of rape as a crime against women (and not their husbands or fathers) has certainly evolved along with the struggle for gender equality. "Date rape" became a topic beginning at least in the 1980's as violent crime against women with "No means no" campaigns and the increase in awareness and prosecutions. "Campus rape" is certainly gender related and we now have "Yes means yes" campaigns. To the extent that Lena Dunham's biography article covers the details of her experience as a rape victim is, at its core, a deeply personal and overwhelmingly female experience. The purpose of the topic bans is to keep editors from disrupting that section because of a previous pattern of being unable to do so. The battle that occurred/occurs at GamerGate does not need to spill over to every article with gender or sexual overtones due to the personalities or strongly held views that inhibit collaboration or consensus. It is certainly the case in the Lena Dunham article that it's not her article, per se, that was at issue or her gender or sexuality. Rather the personalities that got involved in writing about those issues "brought their bags with them", so to speak. Bishonen blocked a few. BLP issues were fixed but now we have another WP:BATTLEGROUND because of GamerGate baggage. GamerGate topic bans should include both gender and sexuality as both are/were GamerGate battleground topics from the beginning. Topic banned editors will bring their doppelganger when they edit topics that touch on their ban. Ultimately enforcement should be judged by disruption and an overly broad sanction that makes entire persons off-limits creates disruption with frivolous complaints. The topic ban language should reflect that it's only the topic as it relates to the person that's an issue, and not the person as they relate to the topic. "Toeing the line" should be met with warnings and sanctions as it shouldn't be tolerated as the purpose of clarifying the language is to let TBanned editors edit areas unrelated to gender or sexuality, not inch closer to the abyss. --DHeyward (talk) 22:52, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

Statement by {other-editor}

Other editors are free to make relevant comments on this request as necessary. Comments here should address why or why not the Committee should accept the case request or provide additional information.

Gamergate: Clerk notes

This area is used for notes by the clerks (including clerk recusals).

Gamergate: Arbitrator views and discussion

• I've read the statements so far and I'm so far undecided on the request's merits, so I'd like see more opinions. Particularly I really don't want to be sending a message that encourages boundary testing, so any thoughts on that would be particularly welcome. Thryduulf (talk) 12:21, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

  Having given this more thought and read the additional comments, I'm going to agree with my colleagues and decline to narrow the scope. The correct way to deal with the disruption evident here is for the topic banned editors to steer well clear of the topic area (and read the definitions given by arbitrators, such as Salvio below, not what someone happens to have written on a blog somewhere) and spend time improving the many areas of Wikipedia and/or sister projects that need work. If you don't do this then you will find yourself unable to edit anywhere on Wikipedia and you will have only yourself to blame. Thryduulf (talk) 21:36, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

  • @Hipocrite: If you have evidence that a user is a sockpuppet editing in violation of the relevant policy, then present that evidence at the appropriate venue (e.g. WP:SPI or WP:AN/I). If that evidence shows that they are a sockpuppet their contributions will be dealt with accordingly, if the evidence does not show that they are an editor who has been blocked or banned from participating here then their contributions will remain. Casting aspersions without evidence, as you have done above, is not permitted so either back up your accusation with evidence or remove it. Thryduulf (talk) 14:37, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
    • @TenOfAllTrades: If you believe someone is a sockpuppet, then you need to deal with that in an appropriate forum (Which is not here), if you haven't got any evidence (technical or behavioural) to even explain your suspicions then do not make the accusation. Unless and until someone is blocked as a sockpuppet then accusing them of being one without evidence is not acceptable. Asking why someone hasn't been blocked as a sockpuppet without having presented evidence to demonstrate that they are in fact a sockpuppet is not acceptable. See WP:ASPERSIONS. Unless and until someone is blocked from editing Arbitration pages (specifically or otherwise) they get to participate here without being harassed in the same way as every other editor in good standing. Thryduulf (talk) 17:15, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
    • @Bishonen: you don't appear to have asked me a question. Thryduulf (talk) 17:15, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
    • @Bishonen: I don't believe that someone of your experience doesn't understand the world of difference between accusing someone of being a sockpuppet, without presenting any evidence, and blocking someone for being an obviously disruptive account. I generally do not find it a productive use of my time to respond to such fallacious commentary. The answer to the question "Why is X not blocked" is almost always because no administrator has seen sufficient evidence that they both can be blocked in accordance with the blocking policy and should be blocked. If you think that someone who is not currently blocked should be blocked, then either block them yourself (if you can and it is clear enough from their username and/or contributions that only that and the block summary is needed for another admin to verify the block is correct) or present the evidence in an appropriate forum. Thryduulf (talk) 20:45, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
• Indeed, avoiding boundary testing was the main concern, but it does not seem to have altogether avoided it. Probably for most subjects, not just this one, any subject-based restriction will always do that if people involved are greatly devoted to the general topic area and not willing to switch interests altogether, or if the people involved are likely to do boundary-testing because they think they have been treated unjustly and see this as the most effective way of challenging the decision, or if they are people who would find the process intrinsically attractive. The insistence above that some topics are not related would seem to indicate the broad bans are needed, (not, for example, that anyone is in favor of Campus Rate, but there are extremely strong disagreements both about the way of dealing with the problem and about individual cases). However, they do place a possibly over-extensive degree of discretion upon individual admins. On balance, I would not narrow the bans. DGG ( talk ) 14:16, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
• Continued disruption in the topic area is a terrible reason to narrow the scope of the topic bans. GorillaWarfare (talk) 16:32, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
  • @Squiggleslash: Changing the restriction from "any gender-related dispute or controversy" to "sexism in video games" is unequivocally a narrowing of the topic ban. I understand that there has been some uncertainty about the exact boundaries of the topic ban (some of which appears to be in good faith, some of which is probably not), but I always feel that the best approach with "broadly construed" topic bans is to leave a wide berth. The topics mentioned in this CaAR, Lena Dunham and campus rape, appear to me to be toeing the line, not attempting to steer clear of the topic area. GorillaWarfare (talk) 17:21, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
  • @EChastain: The topic ban restricts editors from "any gender-related dispute or controversy," not from "gender." GorillaWarfare (talk) 16:21, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
  • @Hell in a Bucket: I agree with others, GorillaWarfare has a conflict of interest... Perhaps I've missed something, but where have others brought this up here? And which topic area is it you feel I should recuse from, and why? GorillaWarfare (talk) 16:27, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
    • I assumed that "you have a conflict of interest" meant "you should recuse." I disagree that being willing to point out sexism when I see it, disagreeing with another arbitrator, or proposing a motion is indicative of COI, nor do I think I'm just causing issues here. GorillaWarfare (talk) 17:04, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
• Agreed with GorillaWarfare, the current scope needs to be enforced, and boundary testing dealt with, not the scope narrowed in response to it. Courcelles (talk) 17:14, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
• What they said. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 17:18, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
  • We think Lena Dunham is a gender-related controversy. No, we don't think Lena Dunham is a gender-related controversy; we believe that a part of her biography deals with a gender-related controversy and edits to that part, and only that part, of her biography are covered by discretionary sanctions and by the various topic bans imposed during the GamerGate case. The rest of Dunham's biography is only covered by WP:NEWBLPBAN, but then again all biographies of living people are covered by it. Regardless of what Bernstein wrote, biographies of living women disliked by the American Right are not covered by the GG discretionary sanctions; and neither are the biographies of lesbian, gay, transgender, or gender-queer people. Specific parts of their biographies may be covered, if they deal with gender-related disputes, but, other than that, those biographies are only covered by WP:NEWBLPBAN. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 20:18, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
    • @Salvio giuliano: I'm afraid that's not accurate. The last clause of both the DS and the topic bans is "...(c) people associated with (a) or (b)...", b referring to "any gender-related dispute or controversy" That would cover the Lena Dunham article in the entirety. Courcelles (talk) 01:24, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
      • You're right. Please, disregard what I said. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 09:47, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
        • For the record, I agree that "biographies of lesbian, gay, transgender, or gender-queer people." are not covered merely by being LGBT, but can be covered if involved in gender-related disputes. That involves a judgment call, but once part of a person is covered, their entire biography is. Courcelles (talk) 13:45, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
          • However, the more I think about it, the more I feel dissatisfied with it; I'd like to amend it to: (a) Gamergate, (b) sexism in video games, (c) people associated with (a) or (b) and d) gender-related disputes and controversies, all broadly construed. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 13:55, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
• I'm absolutely not inclined to narrow the scope of any restrictions here. Having watched several discussions over this issue, I've seen topic banned editors continue to blatantly engage in general discussion about GamerGate, let alone peripheral issues. This is normally done under the cover of an enforcement thread not against that editor, or clarification requests that are taken well beyond asking for legitimate and good faith clarification into lobbying and general discussion. If the disruption is still that ongoing, that is if anything an argument for more severity in the sanctions, not less. A topic ban means to drop the related items off your watchlist and stop having anything to do with them altogether, and if something is in a grey area, preferably, stay away, and at most, ask for clarification before touching it. This boundary testing must stop, but it certainly must not be rewarded by moving the boundaries. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 18:18, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
  • It's a bit far afield on the discussion of admin actions, but I don't personally see any trouble with robust administrative actions against new accounts whose only activity is to edit provocatively or disruptively in sensitive areas. That being said, such areas might also be ones that attract legitimate newbies, so we can't just say new editors may not participate in those areas at all, but we certainly can tell them they better tread very carefully. It's a hell of a balancing act, and as far as the questions asked by @Bishonen:, I'm very glad we have admins willing to wade into a mess like that. I certainly haven't seen anything I'd classify as anywhere near abuse of tools. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 18:19, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
• I'm also absolutely disinclined to change the topic ban. With 4 700 000+ articles to choose from on the English Wikipedia, it's not as if there's a shortage of other stuff to edit. Also, unless people stop dwelling on the topic ban (and I include the endless requests here and at WP:AE), we'll need to introduce more robust measures to make people disengage.  Roger Davies ^talk 08:36, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
• Topic bans need to be broad by their very nature. Broadly defined, broadly construed; the whole point is to get editors to move totally away from the areas which have been causing them problems, not to allow them to nit-pick and sea-lawyer their way into editing as closely to the issue as they possibly can. Steadfast oppposition to any narrowing of scope from this quarter. Yunshui ^雲_水 13:56, 18 March 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.

Clarification request: GamerGate (September 2015)

Original discussion

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.

---

Initiated by The Devil's Advocate at 22:16, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

Case or decision affected

GamerGate arbitration case (t) (ev / t) (w / t) (pd / t)

List of any users involved or directly affected, and confirmation that all are aware of the request:

• The Devil's Advocate (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) (initiator)
• Future Perfect at Sunrise (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

• [98]

Statement by The Devil's Advocate

I was blocked for two weeks by Future Perfect at Sunrise as a result of this edit-warring report. The cited reason in my block log was "breach of topic-ban at WP:AE, disruptive wikilawyering over blatant abuse of BLP" because I removed an unsourced claim about a living person. As can be seen from the noticeboard discussion, the material I removed claimed an individual was an expert in a certain area, despite no sources or evidence backing up the claim that this person was an expert in that area. One user cited an article claiming the individual was an expert in other matters, but not the specific matter where expertise was being claimed.

There appears to be no dispute from the admins that the claim itself was unsourced nor any dispute that it was a contentious claim. According to WP:3RRNO and WP:BANEX that would seem to make my removal a valid claim of exemption on its own. What the admins who commented seem to be arguing is that because claiming someone is an expert in not egregious or libelous I can't claim an exemption. However, my expressly stated reason for invoking the exemption was not simply the claim of expertise, but why the claim was made. The user who made the claim was trying to use it to back up an accusation this claimed expert made against another person. It was a very serious accusation, but it was mentioned in a reliable source so it was not something I could validly remove. However, the unsourced claim about the person making the accusation was being used to present this as some sort of expert evaluation when it was not presented as such in that source or any other source.

What I am seeking clarification on is whether I am correct that claiming someone is an expert on a specific subject without backing from sources, especially when said claim is being used to back a serious accusation against another person, was the kind of BLP violation where I can validly invoke an exemption. If so I would like some note either in my block log, in the sanction log, or both, that this was a wrongful block. Admittedly, I would have preferred to handle this privately through my block appeal given some aspects of why this is a serious BLP issue cannot be discussed publicly, but as my block's expiration before the appeal could proceed has rendered that moot I am seeking this as a form of relief. I think at the very least the Committee should be able to clarify whether my claim of an exemption was valid and therefore the block invalid.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 22:16, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

Seraphim, both 3RRNO and BANEX only say it needs to be an obvious BLP violation, which is any unsourced or poorly-sourced contentious material, and the two admins who actually commented on it seemingly agreed the material was both contentious and unsourced in this case. Their disagreement appears to be based on either a misunderstanding of how BLP exemptions work, a misunderstanding of why I was reverting it, or both. My revert of the first editor was because the editor cited a source that did not back the specific claim made and I noted as much when reverting the editor. Given that the second editor is a new editor who appears to have a singular focus on the topic area (as was the last editor to revert me), I did not regard the editor's objection the same way I would regard an uninvolved third party's or even that of an involved editor with a diverse and well-established editing history. Once it was reported by an established editor and an admin objected, I ceased reverting and tried to explain in more detail to that admin. Eventually, I was able to convince the editor who was the second to revert me that my removal was valid. At the time I was blocked no one was pushing for it, not even the admin who objected.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 23:51, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

Hullabaloo, the reality is conduct noticeboards are not places for discussing content and it is not clear how the claims being made were relevant to the conduct issues raised. It is also the case that ArbCom has taken a more restrictive view on BLP and that is evidenced in their endorsement of topic bans over more minor past BLP violations on conduct noticeboard pages that are relevant to a content discussion in the GamerGate case. One of Future Perfect's own actions on a much more indirect alleged BLP violation on the talk page itself was endorsed in a finding of fact in the original case. Given that ArbCom believed these actions were severe enough to warrant rather harsh sanctions on the basis of BLP, there is no reason to believe the claims I removed are not to be considered BLP violations. I would suggest the common element in my case and those cases is concern about libel. To suggest an expert on a subject has evaluated someone's conduct and determined it qualified as a rather severe form of misconduct is potentially libelous if there is no indication that person is an expert on the subject and, in this case, such a claim has harmful implications for ongoing legal proceedings where the accused's constitutional rights may be at stake.

Guerillero, clearly the issue I am raising is the allowance all of those restrictions make for addressing obvious BLP violations. Other editors sanctioned on this issue have been allowed considerable leeway by AE admins as it concerns BLP exemptions, more leeway than I am asking for as no one here seems to dispute that the claims were unsourced and contentious, it was not an issue that had already been resolved, and I am not attempting to sanction anyone. I have similarly used the exemption on several occasions as it relates to GamerGate and connected issues, including instances where I was talking to admins or admins and others plainly supported my actions. My restrictions allow me to do such things to address BLP issues and that is what I believe is the case here as well.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 05:25, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

Thryduulf, all of my restrictions very explicitly state they are subject to the usual exceptions and cite WP:3RRNO, which means BLP violations are a valid exemption. WP:BANEX is not even remotely meant to limit the number of times BLP violations can be reverted.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 19:46, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

Since Mark Bernstein has made the point of mentioning many of the specifics I have avoided mentioning, let me point out the problem more explicitly. Nowhere in the Guardian article is Anita Sarkeesian claimed to be an expert and certainly not in the area of domestic violence, which is what Bernstein was asserting at AE with the clear intent that her inflammatory accusation against another living person be taken more seriously. Anyone who read his comment in full would discern that unduly legitimizing that accusation from an involved party as an expert opinion was the intended effect. Even if some sources suggest she is an expert in feminism or harassment that does not make her an expert in domestic violence and she was definitely not sought out as an expert on that subject or any other, but rather was sought out as a prominent figure in the GamerGate controversy. To assert that she is an expert in the area of domestic violence without any basis as a way to make her inflammatory attack seem like an expert evaluation is so egregious that I find it baffling how anyone can not immediately see the problem with it from a BLP perspective.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 05:10, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

Thryduulf and Yunshui, I was able to explain the BLP violation in one edit summary and despite all the administrative wikilawyering over BANEX, the standard is obviousness and it is obvious that this was an unsourced and contentious claim about a living person and thus an obvious BLP violation.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 13:58, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

@MarkBernstein: You were plainly claiming Anita Sarkeesian is an expert on domestic violence to present her domestic violence accusation against another living person as an expert opinion. Saying there is no basis in any sourcing to claim her as an expert on domestic violence is not saying she is not an expert. Whatever I may think of it, she is stated in many sources to be an expert on gender representation in popular culture, but that is fundamentally different from being an expert on domestic violence.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 17:32, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

@MarkBernstein: Anita Sarkeesian has been regularly interviewed as a victim of harassment or online abuse, not as an expert on it, and the Guardian interview is a continuation of such interviews. Even if she were considered an expert on harassment, she has certainly never been regarded in any source as an expert on domestic violence. This "unimpeachable" source that interviewed her as a victim of harassment presented a serious unsubstantiated allegation against the same person as fact in the same paragraph where Sarkeesian's accusation is included. It is an outlet that has made demonstrably false claims against that person as well.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 18:25, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

@Guerillero: I have no personal conflict with Bernstein. Only reason I responded to him is to address his revisionism regarding what he claimed and hopefully better illustrate with my response why I felt the claims were an obvious and egregious breach of BLP.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 21:36, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

@Cuchullain: Far as I know the sole "BLP violation" had nothing to do with Anita Sarkeesian and was about how I imperfectly raised a BLP issue. Only reason I mentioned Sarkeesian by name here is because Bernstein did it to repeat everything I was trying not to say. All I have said is that there is no indication she is an expert on domestic violence, which is hardly badmouthing her.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 04:01, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

Statement by Future Perfect at Sunrise

Statement by Cuchullain

This is pretty clear cut on the face of it. TDA is banned from the drama boards and GamerGate, and he came in "redacting" another editor's comments. Then he proceeded to edit war over his redactions and make the rather outlandish claim that this was a BLP issue. Here is his first edit containing the alleged problematic material. This was a good block on Future's part, and given the fact that TDA is still trying to squeeze drama out of it it's probably time to revisit the question of a site ban.--Cúchullain ^t/c 16:06, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

It should be reiterated that BLP violations and other disruption related to Anita Sarkeesian was one of the major factors in the Committee banning TDA from GamerGate, revert warring, and noticeboards.[99] He is now using this noticeboard discussion, which most have recognized as being opened on weak premises, as a pretext to badmouth Sarkeesian some more on Wikipedia. This is a camel's nose situation if I ever saw one. This discussion ought to be closed as soon as possible, and the community should turn its energy toward determining whether the positives of allowing this editor to remain on Wikipedia outweigh the serious disruption that seems to accompany him everywhere he inserts himself.--Cúchullain ^t/c 02:22, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

Statement by Jbhunley

I saw this discussion when it originally happened and thought a fair point was being made. I did not comment there because... well... Gamergate. I hope it is a bit safer here. To be clear I am addressing only the concept of BLP violations occurring due to an indirect unsourced claim and I intend no comment on any other issue.

There is, to use an analogous example, a huge difference in the way these two statements will be read and the potential damage to John Smith's reputation:

• Jane Doe, an expert on sexual harassment, says Mrs. Roe was sexually harassed by John Smith
• Jane Doe says Mrs. Roe was sexually harassed by John Smith.

While both may damage Smith's reputation, one is just someone spouting off the other is from an expert. The claim of expertise leans both weight and authority to the harassment claim because a reader will assume a statement by an expert has more weight and is likely to be true. Most people assume an expert knows what they are talking abut. By removing the un-sourced claim Jane Doe is an expert and thereby the extra weight of authority given to her words, the potential extra damage to John Smith's reputation is mitigated. Just as BLP intends.

I do think that the concern expressed is a valid BLP issue in regards to Smith even though the un-sourced material related to Doe. This is just the kind of thing BLP is intended to protect against and I think if it had happened on a non-Gamergate article more people would have chimed in to discuss the issue rather than being terrified to dip a toe into that toxic hellpool. Jbh^Talk 20:16, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

Statement by The Big Bad Wolfowitz

And, once again, we begin to see ArbCom twisting itself into knots to evade the terms of community-established policy that it has not authority to alter or grant exceptions to. WP:BLP covers all types of claims, whether "negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable". WP:BANEX is quite clear and straightforward -- it refers simply to "obvious" violations, not (as @Seraphimblade: would have it, "blatant, obvious, and noncontroversial violations" involving grossly negative material. Jbhunley is pretty much on target, and I'm baffled by the fact that no one involved in the underlying dispute, not even TDA, seems to have noticed that saying "Notable Person A has accused Living Person B of domestic violence", without referencing, is ordinarily a textbook BLP violation, whether or not Notable Person A is an expert in a relevant field.

More important, though, is that this is an area that no one needs to get into in order to resolve this matter. If the disputed material was in articlespace, or otherwise presented in Wikipedia's editorial voice, no reasonable editor would dispute that it failed BLP and needed to be removed. BLP applies generally to all material outside articlespace -- except material "related to making content choices". Editors are allowed a reasonable degree of freedom in discussions of what should be included in articles, and are not subject to the rigorous sourcing requirements of BLP in those discussions. This both facilitates useful discussion and prevents the infinite regress that would result if a disputed claim were immediately removed from talk page discussion under the same standards that would be applied to statements in articles.

Saying that Anita Sarkeesian is an "expert" on "sexual harassment" is contentious. (Whether it should be is a very different issue, as is whether she is sufficiently familiar with the subject to comment on it reliably.) The statement, without sourcing, doesn't belong in a Wikipedia article. But it wasn't in an article, and it was part of a discussion relating to content choices, albeit at some remove. If the disputed statements had been made in a talk page discussion related to inclusion of Sarkeesian's statements in a Gamergate-related article, it is unlikely they would be seen as objectionable, in part because it's clearly an editor's opinion about Sarkeesian's reputation/stature. "Researcher X's opinion on the link between vaccines and autism can't be trusted because he makes big bucks as an expert witness for one side in the dispute" doesn't belong in an article, but we can't have useful discussions on whether Researcher X is a reliable source if we insist, in effect, that a case must clearly be proved before it can be argued.

Now I don't know just how closely the discussion that led to the block is related to a content choice. It comes from an arbitration discussion related to a talk page discussion of media commentary on Gamergate. What should be clear, however, is that it's not obviously unrelated, and therefore isn't an obvious BLP violation. BLP isn't limited to articles, but it also isn't intended to stifle reasonable content-related discussions. There are limits, but the content at issue here doesn't remotely approach them. FPAS got the outcome right, even though I wouldn't agree with their "outrageously lame" description, but if there was a BLP violation (which I doubt), it certainly wasn't obvious. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 01:50, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

Statement by IP editor

Echo Jbhunley. This is nothing like the situation described by The Big Bad Wolfowitz, in which a researcher - whose work is being considered for inclusion in an article - is accused of having a conflict of interest. That's still something that ought to be sourced, but in the present situation, we have an individual being accused of a serious crime by proxy. And not just any individual, not a potential source, but instead a party to the controversy being argued about. There is no article on Wikipedia about him (although there is about the purported victim of his alleged wrongdoings), and in fact as far as I can tell no representation anywhere on Wikipedia of his views or his side of the story. Further, (I only follow suit out of a paranoia that I would violate some unstated rule by doing so) everyone seems reluctant to even name this person. Yet apparently it is okay to say for established editors to say anything negative they like about him, in the current climate. Isn't that kind of treatment precisely what BLP is meant to prevent? Is perhaps the avoidance of his name meant as an end-run around BLP policy? Because if that's all it takes, then I submit that the whole endeavour is meaningless, as it takes no effort to determine his name with simple, obvious Google search terms. 74.12.92.201 (talk) 09:57, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

Statement by IP editor

TDA, I think Thryduulf's point is that they aren't viewing this as a viable WP:BANEX. You may have thought it was, but if the powers that be don't agree with you, that puts you in violation. It's a risk you run when you wade into an area you are banned from, rather than just notifying an admin. 76.93.226.132 (talk) 00:13, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

Statement by MarkBernstein

Some appear to think that the underlying passage might conceivably have been a violation of WP:BLP. This seems far-fetched; that it was thought a clear or unmistakable violation seems incomprehensible.

In the August 29, 2015 issue of The Guardian, Jessica Valenti wrote a 3000-word story about Anita Sarkeesian, titled in the Web edition "Anita Sarkeesian interview: 'The word "troll" feels too childish. This is abuse'" [100]. The Guardian is an old, large, and revered British paper, and I remind the committee that Britain’s laws regarding newspaper defamation are famously strict. A major newspaper devoting such a lengthy interview on the subject of abuse and internet harassment to Anita Sarkeesian is itself a strong argument that Anita Sarkeesian is considered an expert on the intersection of internet harassment and abuse. Sarkeesian’s many interviews and lectures provide further evidence if evidence is desired.

That interview includes the following paragraph:

She is frustrated by the way GamerGate has been covered in the media. “All the stories kept decentring the fact that it was domestic violence,” she says. Indeed, the movement was born when a 25-year-old software developer named Eron Gjoni posted a 10,000-word blog about his ex-girlfriend, video game designer Zoe Quinn. In the blog, he recounted the minutiae of their relationship and outlined her supposed wrongdoings and infidelities. Quinn has said, “It is domestic abuse that went viral, and it was designed to go viral.” (Gjoni linked to the blogpost in forums such as 4chan, well known for vicious online harassment.)

That is the paragraph under discussion at the start of this edit war, which a topic-banned editor undertook lest a Wikipedia talk page mention material that had, hours or days before, appeared in one of the world's great newspapers, and which was clearly attributed to its source in the paper and in my paraphrase thereof. (I believe the same quotations were used, in opposite sequence, in a second essay that appeared in a different publication about this time; we can resolve that if you think it useful.)

Bending over backwards (as this committee seems to insist we do), we might walk through the criteria outlined at WP:BLP.

• explicitly attributed to a reliable, published source: the source was already used in Gamergate articles and should have been familiar to all active editors; it was impeccable. Talk pages typically assume a general familiarity with well-known sources. In any case, there has never been any question raised that Sarkeesian did not say what I attributed to her, or mean precisely what I reported.
• tone: this captures the precise tone or the Sarkeesian and Quinn quotes by repeating their simple language verbatim. If the committee can do better, I would be interested to see their work.
• balance: this is precisely the point Sarkeesian has made, repeatedly, and with which virtually all reliable sources concur. The statement is simple and clear; I paraphrase it simple and clearly.

It should go without saying, but apparently cannot, that Sarkeesian and Quinn use the terms "violence" and "abuse" metaphorically to describe the impact of written or spoken words; we are referring here to hurtful writing, not to literal kicks and punches. The use of this language should be familiar to all members of the committee and indeed to all Wikipedia editors, and I will forbear (for once!) to catalog any of the innumerable examples in literature, law, and criticism. If the committee really wants examples, ask me or consult any Womens Studies department or department of literature, beginning perhaps with The Man Of Property.

I conclude that it might have been nice to see a defense from this committee of a hard-working editor who has been careful to adhere closely to BLP, whose work was termed a violation of WP:BLP to gain a narrow and temporary advantage in a dispute, and whose reputation has again been unjustly and uncaringly disparaged for upholding Wikipedia’s supposed policies. Whether the committee is any longer guided by policy is certainly open to doubt. I will not write more without invitation, as the committee seems disinclined to hear me, but if I can be of service I will be happy to do what I may.MarkBernstein (talk) 02:19, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

---

@The Devil's Advocate: Speaking of BLP violations, let’s review the bidding:

• The Guardian published a 3000-word interview with Anita Sarkeesian
• The headline of that interview was: "The word "troll" feels too childish. This is abuse"
• In the interview, Sarkeesian cites a specific example of abuse.
• Sarkeesian is indeed an expert on feminist criticism, as indicated by her many lectures and interviews. In any case, The Guardian clearly regards her as an expert.

The standard here is a "blatant and obvious BLP violation". Can repeating Sarkeesian’s own words, as quoted both in the headline and the body of perhaps Britain’s leading newspaper, constitute an obvious BLP violation? Can it be a blatant and obvious violation to say that Sarkeesian is an expert if major newspapers regard her as one? Compare this page's decision to condone an administrator’s claim that he knew of a named individual’s sexual misdeeds but could not write about them on-wiki "at this time"; the standard that apparently applies here is that widely-published and expert opinions that criticize guys are obviously BLP violations, but sexual innuendo against their victims is not. Indeed, this page is used to defame the reputation of a professional critic who is accused above of not being an expert -- simply a woman "involved" in Gamergate. Shameful. MarkBernstein (talk) 14:54, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

@The Devil's Advocate: It is widely known that Sarkeesian has written and spoken extensively on online sexual harassment, which is in fact the topic of this interview. She was asked whether a specific, widely-discussed online act was abusive. She gave her answer, which may not be the answer you would have given. It is not Wikipedia's place to substitute the judgment of individual editors for the judgment of reliable sources: an unimpeachable source here said "this expert has stated that this act was abusive", and you maintain that not only is reporting the unchallenged statement in The Guardian a BLP violation, but you continue to maintain that it is a blatant and obvious BLP violation while continuing to use Wikipedia to denigrate the reputation of the subject. For reference, Sarkeesian holds an MA in Social and Political Thought (York) and

...has been interviewed and featured in publications such as Forbes, Wired, The Boston Globe, The Wall Street Journal and The New York Times. She was the recipient of the 2014 Game Developers Choice Ambassador Award, she was given a 2013 honorary award from National Academy of Video Game Trade Reviewers and was nominated for Microsoft’s 2014 Women in Games Ambassador Award.

This is the person whose credentials are so weak that her opinion on online abuse is blatant and obvious BLP, and whose claim to expertise myst be redacted? Seriously? That this is countenanced by the arbitrators beggars belief. MarkBernstein (talk) 17:48, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

@Guerillero: Sorry: my conflict remains with an Arbitration Committee who, apparently, consider repeating an uncontroversial headline from a feature article in The Guardian to be a "blatant and obvious" violation of BLP; I'm defending my own professional reputation since -- unlike many others -- I take responsibility for what I write here. I think the increasing capture of Wikipedia by right-wing anti-feminists is a shame and a concern not just for the project but for society; my experience has also been that, regrettably, one has to shout in order for Arbcom to notice. MarkBernstein (talk) 18:52, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

Statement by Sitush

@MarkBernstein: Sarkeesian is a noisy person in a narrow walled garden within the estate of feminist studies. Her "expertise" is dubious, although she is certainly a "talking head" and is entitled to her opinions like everyone else. In so far as her expertise exists, it seems to have an element of self-perpetuation through a cycle of promotion.

I've no idea on what grounds you think that The Guardian is perhaps Britain's leading newspaper, although it is certainly the daily newspaper in Britain that most stridently supports feminist politics of all shades, and it does like to quote so-called experts who quite often turn out to be little more than exceptionally good self-publicists and/or highly opinionated loudmouths championing various pressure groups etc. Some are even regular op-ed columnists. This - "perhaps Britain's leading newspaper" - is yet another example of you making vague suggestions to bolster supposed authority. FWIW, I read The Guardian pretty much daily and have done so for over 30 years. I like it but, well, most people read other papers.

I suggest that the arbs ignore what you say, as you seem to think they are doing already. They can make their minds up without it. - Sitush (talk) 16:29, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

Statement by GamerPro64

Should this request be closed since TDA got blocked for a month? I noticed he got blocked at 16:06, 22 September 2015 so it doesn't make sense for this to still be up if he can't continue here. GamerPro64 00:42, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

Statement by {other-editor}

Other editors are free to make relevant comments on this request as necessary. Comments here should opine whether and how the Committee should clarify or amend the decision or provide additional information.

GamerGate: Clerk notes

This area is used for notes by the clerks (including clerk recusals).

GamerGate: Arbitrator views and discussion

• The BLP ban exemption is for blatant, obvious, and noncontroversial violations of BLP ("John Doe is a child molester" type stuff). If the matter is more nuanced, and especially if it's controversial, banned editors shouldn't be touching it, as they've already been excluded from the area for less than optimal judgment or conduct in that area. And certainly, if other editors in good standing disagree and revert, the matter is at that point controversial, so edit warring at that point isn't be acceptable at all. I can't be clear enough that BANEX is for dead obvious, totally uncontroversial cases of vandalism or BLP violation, and it is not meant in a way for the topic banned editor to reinsert themself into controversial areas or discussions. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 21:09, 18 September 2015 (UTC)
• We can impose stricter remedies than WP:BANEX if we want to. We didn't at this juncture but that is neither here nor there. As for the issue at hand, TDA should start making a case why he shouldn't be banned for edit warring on a noticeboard about gamergate. Decline --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 02:32, 19 September 2015 (UTC)
• Decline. TDA, you managed to breach all three of your restrictions in one go - you are lucky the block was not longer. Even ignoring the fact that you shouldn't be anywhere near noticeboard discussions about Gamergate, WP:BANEX does not permit you to edit war under any circumstances. If you do this sort of thing again then we will very likely remove even the standard exceptions (if you are not indefinitely blocked before then). Thryduulf (talk) 19:19, 19 September 2015 (UTC)
  • As noted by Seraphimblade above, the exemptions are only for "blatant, obvious, and noncontroversial" violations of the BLP. When other editors in good standing disagree with you about whether something is a BLP violation or not then it is by definition none of those and exemptions do not apply. If it takes a paragraph to explain why something is a BLP violation it's not obvious and the exemption does not apply. Thryduulf (talk) 11:24, 21 September 2015 (UTC)
• The BLP violation was not sufficiently blatant to be exempt from the scope of the sanction. The block was valid. Yunshui ^雲_水 11:30, 21 September 2015 (UTC)
• Decline Doug Weller (talk) 12:30, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
• Decline -- Euryalus (talk) 12:50, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

• @MarkBernstein and The Devil's Advocate: Please stop using this as a place to further, what looks like, a personal conflict. --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 18:29, 21 September 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.