---

Statement by Cla68[edit]

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)[reply]

Statement by marginally involved EvergreenFir[edit]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Statement by still uninvolved Hasteur[edit]

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)[reply]

Statement by (uninvolved) Desine[edit]

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)[reply]

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

Statement by Mr. Random[edit]

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)[reply]

Statement by Halfhat[edit]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

@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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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[edit]

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)[reply]

Statement by SirFozzie[edit]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Statement by Cs_california[edit]

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)[reply]

Statement by Avono[edit]

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)[reply]

Statement by User:Thargor Orlando[edit]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

@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)[reply]

Statement by uninvolved Liz[edit]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Statement by Akesgeroth[edit]

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)[reply]

Statement by A Quest for Knowledge[edit]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Statement by Jehochman[edit]

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)[reply]

Statement by Robert McClenon[edit]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Statement by Volunteer Marek[edit]

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)[reply]

Statement by Dave Dial(DD2K)[edit]

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)[reply]

@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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Statement by uninvolved John Carter[edit]

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)[reply]

Statement by Protonk[edit]

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)[reply]

Statement by Rich Farmbrough (GG)[edit]

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[edit]

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)[reply]

Statement by AuerbachKeller[edit]

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)[reply]

Statement by Tony Sidaway[edit]

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)[edit]

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)[reply]

Statement by very marginally involved user xaosflux[edit]

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)[reply]

Statement by Kurtis[edit]

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)[reply]

Statement by previously involved Bosstopher[edit]

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[edit]

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)[reply]

Statement by Hustlecat[edit]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Statement by Resolute[edit]

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)[reply]

Statement by MarkBernstein[edit]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

@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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Statement by uninvolved Obsidi[edit]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

---

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

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

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)[reply]

@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)[reply]

@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)[reply]

Statement by MarkBernstein[edit]

Statement by Gamaliel[edit]

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)[reply]

@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)[reply]

Statement by Johnuniq[edit]

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)[reply]

Yet another statement from Harry Mitchell![edit]

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)[reply]

Statement by Strongjam[edit]

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)[reply]

Statement by coldacid[edit]

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)[reply]

Statement by Newyorkbrad[edit]

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)[reply]

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

Statement by Bosstopher[edit]

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)[reply]

Statement by Liz[edit]

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)[reply]

Statement by DHeyward[edit]

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)[reply]

Statement by {other-editor}[edit]

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[edit]

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

GamerGate: Arbitrator views and discussion[edit]

• 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)[reply]
• 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)[reply]
• 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]

• Abstain. AGK [•] 11:18, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• 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)[reply]
• Per Thryduulf et al. Dougweller (talk) 14:49, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Thryduulf puts it very nicely; I've nothing to add to that. Yunshui ^雲_水 14:52, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• (See Courcelles et al. 2015) --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 22:54, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• For a topic ban,

File a request at AE,

ArbCom need not act. GorillaWarfare (talk) 23:35, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

---

---

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

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 · filter log · block user · block log) (initiator)

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

Statement by MarkBernstein[edit]

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)[reply]

Statement by Beauxlieux[edit]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Statement by Bosstopher[edit]

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)[reply]

Statement by TheRedPenOfDoom[edit]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Statement by Thargor Orlando[edit]

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[edit]

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)[reply]

Statement by NorthBySouthBaranof[edit]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Statement by ForbiddenRocky[edit]

"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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

Statement by Masem[edit]

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)[reply]

@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)[reply]

@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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Statement by (unrelated) coldacid[edit]

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)[reply]

@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)[reply]

@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)[reply]

@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)[reply]

@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)[reply]

@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)[reply]

@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)[reply]

Statement by DHeyward[edit]

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)[reply]

• 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)[reply]

Statement by NE Ent[edit]

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)[reply]

Beauxlieux's query[edit]

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

Statement by Rich Farmbrough[edit]

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[edit]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Statement by uninvolved editor Squiggleslash[edit]

(Redacted)

Statement by Rhoark[edit]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Statement by Bishonen[edit]

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).[reply]

Statement by {DD2K}[edit]

@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)[reply]

@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)[reply]

Statement by Starship.paint[edit]

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)[reply]

Statement by {next person}[edit]

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[edit]

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

GamerGate: Arbitrator views and discussion[edit]

• 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)[reply]

• 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)[reply]

• 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)[reply]

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

• @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)[reply]

• @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)[reply]
• @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)[reply]

• 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)[reply]

  @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)[reply]

  @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)[reply]

  @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)[reply]

  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)[reply]

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

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

  @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)[reply]

• What Euryalus said. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 10:01, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• 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)[reply]

  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)[reply]

• 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)[reply]
• 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)[reply]
• 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)[reply]
• I agree with my colleagues. The topic plainly falls within scope. AGK [•] 01:06, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

---

---

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

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

@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)[reply]

Statement by NorthBySouthBaranof[edit]

Statement by MarkBernstein[edit]

Statement by TKOP[edit]

• 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)[reply]
• 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)[reply]

Statement by TheRedPenOfDoom[edit]

• 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)[reply]

Statement by coldacid[edit]

@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)[reply]

@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)[reply]

@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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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

@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)[reply]

Statement by squiggleslash[edit]

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)[reply]

@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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Statement by Beauxlieux[edit]

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)[reply]

Statement by Hipocrite[edit]

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

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)[reply]

Statement by TenOfAllTrades[edit]

(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)[reply]

@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)[reply]

Statement by Tarc[edit]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Statement by Bosstopher[edit]

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)[reply]
@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)[reply]

Statement by Sappow[edit]

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)[reply]

Statement by Metamagician3000[edit]

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)[reply]

Statement by Floq[edit]

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)[reply]

Comment by Bishonen[edit]

@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).[reply]

@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).[reply]

@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).[reply]

Statement by Kaciemonster[edit]

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)[reply]

Statement by Liz[edit]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Statement by EChastain[edit]

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)[reply]

Statement by Hell in a Bucket[edit]

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)[reply]

• 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)[reply]
• 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)[reply]

Statement by Cailil[edit]

• "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)[reply]

Statement by (anonymous)[edit]

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)[reply]

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).[reply]

Statement by DHeyward[edit]

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)[reply]

Statement by {other-editor}[edit]

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[edit]

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

Gamergate: Arbitrator views and discussion[edit]

• 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)[reply]

  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)[reply]

  • @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)[reply]
    • @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)[reply]
    • @Bishonen: you don't appear to have asked me a question. Thryduulf (talk) 17:15, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • @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)[reply]
• 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)[reply]
• 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)[reply]
  • @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)[reply]
  • @EChastain: The topic ban restricts editors from "any gender-related dispute or controversy," not from "gender." GorillaWarfare (talk) 16:21, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • @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)[reply]
    • 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)[reply]
• 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)[reply]
• What they said. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 17:18, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
    • @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)[reply]
      • You're right. Please, disregard what I said. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 09:47, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
        • 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)[reply]
          • 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)[reply]
• 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
• 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)[reply]
• 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)[reply]

---

---

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

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 · 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[edit]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

@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)[reply]

@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)[reply]

@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)[reply]

@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)[reply]

Statement by Future Perfect at Sunrise[edit]

Statement by Cuchullain[edit]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Statement by Jbhunley[edit]

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)[reply]

Statement by The Big Bad Wolfowitz[edit]

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)[reply]

Statement by IP editor[edit]

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)[reply]

Statement by IP editor[edit]

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)[reply]

Statement by MarkBernstein[edit]

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)[reply]

---

@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)[reply]

@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)[reply]

@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)[reply]

Statement by Sitush[edit]

@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)[reply]

Statement by GamerPro64[edit]

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)[reply]

Statement by {other-editor}[edit]

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[edit]

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

GamerGate: Arbitrator views and discussion[edit]

• 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)[reply]
• 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)[reply]
• 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
• 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)[reply]
• Decline Doug Weller (talk) 12:30, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Decline -- Euryalus (talk) 12:50, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• @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)[reply]

---

---

Initiated by Rhoark at 14:54, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Case or decision affected

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

Clauses to which an amendment is requested

1. [101]"The Gamergate controversy article and its Talk page are not editable by accounts with fewer than 500 edits and age less than 30 days, pursuant to this WP:AE request. Zad68 14:08, 17 May 2015 (UTC)"[reply]

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

• Rhoark (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (initiator)
• Zad68 (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

• diff of notification (Zad68 has been apparently inactive since May Rhoark (talk) 14:58, 13 October 2016 (UTC))[reply]

Information about amendment request

• [102]"The Gamergate controversy article and its Talk page are not editable by accounts with fewer than 500 edits and age less than 30 days, pursuant to this WP:AE request. Zad68 14:08, 17 May 2015 (UTC)"[reply]

• The 500/30 restriction should be removed from the talk page and replaced with standard semi-protection.

Statement by Rhoark[edit]

The 500/30 restriction on Gamergate controversy and its talk page came at a time of much higher press attention on the topic. While unregistered contributions were disruptive more by their quantity than content, the restriction was helpful in tamping down the recycled arguments repeatedly brought by people unfamiliar with the already extensive talk page archives. The situation today is quite different. The discussion, which has been described as "stalled" and "moribund", is more impeded by a lack of participation than an excess of it. Several experienced but particularly disruptive editors have also been banned from the topic since then, smoothing talk page interactions considerably. Being as this is the "encyclopedia that anyone can edit", no form of page protection should persist beyond the circumstance it was intended to address. The recent related request for comment demonstrated no need for any kind of page protection, as the few IP editors contributed nothing worse than snark. There is every reason to believe the Gamergate talk page could remain civil and productive while merely semi-protected. Rhoark (talk) 14:54, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Zad68[edit]

Statement by Dumuzid[edit]

I certainly can't deny that circumstances have changed a great deal since the restriction was introduced, though I confess I am still wary. I think the suggestion of removing the restriction from the talk page is worth trying, at the very least. I am hopeful it won't be a problem, but I won't be terribly surprised if it quickly turns in to an imbroglio. Here's to positive thinking! Dumuzid (talk) 15:07, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Masem[edit]

Support on removing the 500/30 restriction on the talk page only, but if the talk page turns out again to suffer from offsite brigading or contining hostility from IP/SPAs, a reasonable consensus determination of administrators should be sufficient to re-engage that protection (rather than having to re-engage arbcom/AE). --MASEM (t) 16:29, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by The Wordsmith[edit]

It is no secret that I strongly dislike the use of 500/30 outside of the article namespace, as it is used here to censor feedback and discussions from new editors and our readers, the very people we write this encyclopedia for. The Gamergate controversy seems to have mostly died out on Wikipedia, likely as a result of removing problem editors through blocks and topic bans. I think it is a good idea to downgrade to semiprotection on the Talkpage (but not the article itself), as it is unclear that the heightened level is still needed. If disruption resumes and semiprotection is unable to eliminate it, I would be willing to swiftly reapply the protection as a Discretionary Sanction. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 18:52, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Bilby[edit]

Removing it makes a lot of sense to me. When this was first applied I went digging to see if there had been a problem with editors who would have fallen under the restriction, and couldn't find any. Semi seemed to be doing the job, and the occasional not-particularly-useful comment was being handled by standard editing practices. I don't see why that wouldn't be the case now - GamerGate is still active, even though it is pretty much a shadow of its past, but any problems are likely to still be stopped by semi-protection, and if anything more happens we have the eyes to handle it. I'd like to leave the restriction on the article proper, though - I'm more concerned about locking people out of a discussion than I am with direct editing of the article. - Bilby (talk) 08:22, 14 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by MRD2014[edit]

I agree with this proposal. I feel that the talk page of the Gamergate controversy should not be extended confirmed protected, but should still be semi-protected, like how the article on Anita Sarkeesian is extended confirmed protected and the talk page of that article is semi-protected. —MRD2014 (talk • contribs) 02:19, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by ForbiddenRocky[edit]

I generally support removing 300/50 from the GGC talk page. And if it becomes a problem, it can be put back easily. ForbiddenRocky (talk) 04:59, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Rich Farmbrough[edit]

I have always felt that this went a little to far. It would be good to see it removed. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 20:01, 19 October 2016 (UTC).[reply]

Statement by {other-editor}[edit]

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 amendment request or provide additional information.

GamerGate: Clerk notes[edit]

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

GamerGate: Arbitrator views and discussion[edit]

• Personally I've no issue with the discretionary sanction imposing 500/30 on the talk page being removed. Given that Zad68 hasn't editing for 5-ish months I'll propose a motion to remove the discretionary sanction element of the imposition of 500/30 to the talk page, unless there are dissenting opinions from other arbs in the net day or so. From there admins are free to change the protection level per the protection policy. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 07:49, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Seems reasonable enough to remove it. If that doesn't work, it can be fixed. Doug Weller talk 16:20, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• I pressed the button last year, so, I'm obviously out of this one. Courcelles (talk) 16:34, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

GamerGate: Motion regarding Talk:Gamergate controversy[edit]

Enacted: Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 00:47, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

For this motion there are 11 active arbitrators. With 2 arbitrators abstaining, 5 support or oppose votes are a majority.

Majority reference

Abstentions	Support votes needed for majority
0–1	6
2–3	5
4–5	4

Support

1. Really, all this motion does it allow admins to change the protection level of the talk page without risking desysoping. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 00:47, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
2. I guess we can try this --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 01:22, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
3. "Sure, I guess" is about where I am on this too. Opabinia regalis (talk) 05:57, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
4. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 09:08, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
5. Ok, we'll see how it goes. Doug Weller talk 09:51, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
6. GorillaWarfare (talk) 23:22, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
7. kelapstick^(bainuu) 21:17, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

Abstain

1. Still heaven't followed up on the original Gamergate issues. It would be irresponsible for me to try and vote on this. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 05:33, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Recuse

1. Turns out I didn't press the actual button, just saw my name in the protection log. So, yep, landing here. Courcelles (talk) 02:18, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

---

---

Initiated by NorthBySouthBaranof at 07:40, 4 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Case or decision affected

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

Clauses to which an amendment is requested

1. 4.1) NorthBySouthBaranof (talk · contribs · logs · edit filter log · block log) is indefinitely restricted per the standard topic ban.

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

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

Information about amendment request

• 4.1) NorthBySouthBaranof (talk · contribs · logs · edit filter log · block log) is indefinitely restricted per the standard topic ban.

• Amend topic ban to topic probation

Statement by NorthBySouthBaranof[edit]

I am writing to request that the topic ban imposed upon me in the above case two years ago be reduced to a probation, so that I may demonstrate that I can successfully edit in those areas. In the two years since the sanction was imposed, I have, in good faith, abided by the requirements of the sanction and I have not been subject to any other sanctions for any other reason. Rather, I have accepted the lessons from my experience which led to the arbitration case, I have continued to contribute useful content in a variety of areas and I have continued to uphold fundamental content policies in contentious disputes. I believe that I should have the opportunity to demonstrate that I can productively participate in those topic areas again, and if any issues recur, I accept the consequences that will surely follow.

NYB, I don't intend to leap back into the middle of any fracas. But I would like to be able to productively edit and contribute to articles such as Same-sex marriage in the United States, the Women's March on Washington and the Women's Rights National Historical Park, to name a few, without constantly worrying that I might be violating the terms of a very broad topic ban. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 03:17, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

NYB, as I said, I don't have any intention of hurling myself into past disputes and I'm not going to immediately leap in and make 80,000 edits in the topic space. At some point in the future might I want to fix a typo on the biography of a GamerGate victim, or add some reliably-sourced facts about their current activities? Probably. But as far as I can tell, all those related articles have all been stable for quite some time and I can absolutely promise that I'm not going to run headlong into battle for the sake of battle. I have learned that lesson from the arbitration case and I don't have any interest in being involved in another one. Frankly, my primary reason for this request is to remove the topic ban's Sword of Damocles from over my head, where it has been poised for two years. I do not want to have to constantly wonder if someone's going to leap out of the shadows and drag me into an enforcement proceeding for the sake of causing drama, or use the topic ban as a cudgel in entirely-unrelated issues, as occurred as recently as December. I accept my past mistakes, I have continued to edit productively and I would like the opportunity to demonstrate that those mistakes will not be repeated. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 22:52, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Drmies, I have tried to stay far away from even the possible fringes of where the ban might be precisely because I have no interest in stoking drama, and the last time I got anywhere remotely near the topic (to do nothing more than submit a poorly-sourced BLP to AFD) someone dragged me into an enforcement action for no reason other than creating drama. As a result, I have no desire to make even the most non-controversial of edits on any article that anyone might remotely interpret as covered by the topic ban until I can do so without looking over my shoulder. Are those articles covered under the topic ban? I don't know, but I'm guessing someone could make an argument that they are, and that's not an battle I have any interest in fighting. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 06:07, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A current example is Linda Sarsour - she is one of the organizers of the 2017 Women's March, and I began editing that article in good faith several days ago in an effort to ensure sourcing standards and fairness (removing negative claims sourced to blogs, for example); this morning, another user added the "American feminists" category to that article. Am I now prohibited from editing Linda Sarsour under the topic ban, because now she's in a "gender-related disputes" category she wasn't in a week ago? NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 18:05, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Sir Joseph: You are misinterpreting it, because I have never suggested any such thing. I will be happy to continue to discuss sourcing issues with you on that appropriate talk page. Thank you. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 20:48, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Beeblebrox[edit]

Since I'm here anyway. This case was such a nightmare. I supported restrictions against NBSB at the time and do not believe they were a mistake. That being said, they were hardly the worst actor in this mess and have stayed out of trouble for quite some time. I would support relaxing the restriction. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:08, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Sir Joseph[edit]

I just want to point out that on the Sarsour page, he seems to be implying that a Jewish source is not reliable, merely for it being Jewish. I hope I am misinterpreting that, otherwise I don't think a relaxation of bans is wise considering that we'll just have more drama in the future. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 20:13, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

OID, your bias shines through like the beautiful sun. Just one point to correct, it's the Jerusalem Post, not the Jewish Post. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 21:01, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by OID[edit]

Ah once again Sir Joseph jumps in where if something could possibly be considered anti-Jewish then it totally must be. What NBSB said was, that the right-wing Daily Thinker and the Daily Caller (which was cited by the Jerusalem Post) was an unacceptable source for extremely defamatory claims against a living person. And to be honest even if the claim had originated with the Post, a quick perusal at BLPN will find that editors in general take a dim view of highly partisan press making extraordinary claims - in this case a Jewish newspaper claiming a Muslim activist has links to Hamas. Really just to add that Sir Joeseph's comments shouldnt be seen as some sort of negative, when NBSB was clearly acting in the best interests of the BLP by removing violating material contributed by a user who had gamed the system to gain Extended Confirmed status in order to edit in the IP area. (Subsequently the NYTimes has discussed the accusations - clearly in the context of what they were, baseless smears/attacks against the subject.) Only in death does duty end (talk) 21:00, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Oh what bias would that be Sir Joseph? The bias towards not having biographies filled with smears? Guilty on that one. Only in death does duty end (talk) 21:05, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by {other-editor}[edit]

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 amendment request or provide additional information.

GamerGate: Clerk notes[edit]

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

GamerGate: Arbitrator views and discussion[edit]

• NorthBySouthBaranof, please explain in a bit more detail what sort of edits you would like to make if you return to this topic-area. Thank you. Newyorkbrad (talk) 23:12, 4 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am inclined to grant this request. Newyorkbrad (talk) 20:29, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • @NorthBySouthBaranof: Just clarifying, are you planning to resume editing on the topic-area of "GamerGate" itself, or just in the much broader area swept by the topic-ban? Newyorkbrad (talk) 22:33, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Hmm..."gender-related dispute or controversy"...I am not sure that the women's marches fall under that topic; same-sex marriage might (it's under American politics 2), but have administrators really used DS on those articles? So I'm not convinced that that topic ban was that broad. Anyway, I am not opposed to NBSB's return on probation, and things seem fairly quiet in GG. Drmies (talk) 05:14, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • For the record, let me chime in with "per Beeblebrox", and let's hope some kind soul will help him heal the wounds of that case. I for one, have sent him a care package with some chamomile tea. How about you? Drmies (talk) 03:56, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• I'll support a return on probation. Doug Weller talk 19:33, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• I agree with Beeblebrox. Mkdw ^talk 20:32, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Given passage of time, support rescinding remedy 4.1. Don't particularly care about a probation period. -- Euryalus (talk) 23:16, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Sounds reasonable. I don't see what a probation adds given that there are DS with the same scope, though; might as well just get rid of the restriction and leave matters to AE if any problems should come up. Opabinia regalis (talk) 04:28, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Motion: NorthBySouthBaranof[edit]

The topic-ban placed on NorthBySouthBaranof in the GamerGate case is terminated. Discretionary sanctions remain authorized to address any user misconduct in the relevant topic-area.

Enacted: Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 02:55, 8 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support

1. Per discussion above, including NorthBySouthBaranof's own comments. Newyorkbrad (talk) 15:42, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
2. Doug Weller talk 16:23, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
3. Opabinia regalis (talk) 16:34, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
4. GorillaWarfare (talk) 19:04, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
5. Euryalus (talk) 20:04, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
6. Ks0stm ^{(T•C•G•E)} 20:42, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
7. Mkdw ^talk 23:32, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
8. Kirill Lokshin (talk) 01:22, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
9. Drmies (talk) 05:34, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

Abstain

Comments

---

---

Initiated by Salvidrim! at 03:54, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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:

• Salvidrim! (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) (initiator)
• SlimVirgin (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
• Headbomb (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

• SilmVirgin notified
• Headbomb notified

Statement by Salvidrim![edit]

This is a request for clarification of the scope of the Gamergate discretionary sanctions, particularly the second segment about its appplicability to any gender-related dispute or controversy. There arose a situation where there is a dispute (and slight edit warring) on the article philoSOPHIA (a feminist journal named after a goddess of feminity) over the inclusion of a list of advisory board members (original dispute on article talk). The dispute itself rests on arguments mostly about the weight WikiProject essays have, with WP:OWN-like issues within WikiProjects, with precedent and common practice for other journal articles, and with WP:UNDUE/WP:PROMO/WP:OR and other content policies. The article, by itself, is gender-related. During the course of the dispute, SlimVirgin added a DS tag to the talk page, which led Headbomb to react by opening the AN thread linked lower. These are generally agreed upon, unambiguous facts.

To my neutral eye, this could be summed up as "a dispute unrelated to gender, on a gender-related article". The content dispute itself is being hashed out on WP:AN and is not the focus of this ARCA. The issue requiring clarification is whether the placing of the DS tag on the article's talk page was appropriate: the DS applies to "gender-related disputes", not "gender-related articles" (a journal article is not intrinsically a dispute), but does "broadly construed" mean that, in practice, it is applicable to any gender-related article topic?

This ARCA flows right off of this AN thread: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Dispute over philoSOPHIA article, in which I have done my best to act as mediator. I ultimately consider myself neutral on the topic of the applicability of DS to this article (I can see it from both sides). In order to de-escalate and in the spirit of BRD, I have requested that SlimVirgin remove the DS tag temporarily pending this ARCA, but she declined to do so. I'm hoping Headbomb will calmly leave it as status quo while this is pending clarification.

The questions to clarify here are:

1. Whether this type of article falls within the DS (in which case a refining of the DS wording might be examined), or at least whether this specific article does.
2. Whether it was appropriate for an editor involved in a content dispute to add a DS tag to the talk page

I'd also personally like to see it clarified by what process the addition of a DS tag, once disputed, can be discussed or appealed. My instinct and experience says "ARCA" but that is not really mentioned anywhere on WP:ACDS and ArbCom procedure, of all things, benefits the most from clear directions. Perhaps the clerks can chime in on that.

The parties will be notified (although I've spoked to them both about the referral to ARCA beforehand anyways) and will surely present their positions in their own sections in due time. A short summary of both sides (direct quotes only, so as to not misrepresent):

• SlimVirgin: You're reverting two women who are trying to write an article about a feminist journal, and you keep removing the names of the women who run it. It doesn't get more gender-related than that.

• Headbomb: Admin User:SlimVirgin wants to put me under discretionary sanction by shoehorning a content dispute into a gender issue, when they themselves are involved in said dispute. (...) Having lost consensus, they now slap me with horseshit discretionary sanctions, saying this is somehow a gender-related dispute.

---

• RE: Johnuniq - As outlined above, the content dispute included an element of edit warring, as I've already pointed out on AN everyone involved should be trouted for that (edit warring should never be part of dispute resolution, etc.) but I don't think the dispute nor warring over the list of advisory members to be particularly relevant to either of the questions asking for clarification here. I've deliberately chosen not to rehash the content dispute or the warring to focus this here on the DS tag itself, as that is all ArbCom should concern itself with. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 05:02, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• RE: MjolnirPants - And yet the text of the DS does not include "gender-related articles" as you say. It includes "gender-related disputes and controversies". If in practice this is understood as including all gender-related articles where dispute may occur, I suppose it should be clarified indeed. RexxS provides good insight into the nuance of the wording of the DS and I suspect his inference of ArbCom's intended usage of the DS is probably going to turn out accurate. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 16:59, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• RE: Gorilla Warfare - This confusion between the "editor action of adding a DS tag or issuing DS alerts" and the "admin action of enacting discretionary sanctions" is not very clearly resolved by reading WP:ACDS. I think adding clarification there as a result of this ARCA would be the best way forward. However there is already a clear division of opinion amongst ArbCom as to whether an "involved editor adding a DS tag" is appropriate or not, so that needs to be settled amongst yourselves first, and then written into WP:ACDS. It might also be worth it to clarify how to "appeal" (so to speak) a contested DS tag (revert, AN, AE, ARCA, whatever else) and mention it on WP:ACDS as well because in this case I've opted for ARCA based on instinct since WP:ACDS doesn't provide explicit guidance. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 18:26, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by SlimVirgin[edit]

Headbomb arrived at the article—a new article about philoSOPHIA: A Journal of Continental Feminism—wanting it to be deleted, calling it a "special snowflake", and being aggressive and insulting. He removed the names of the editorial board five times between 31 May and 3 June, reverting against three editors. [103][104][105][106][107]

Headbomb based the removal on WP:JWG, an essay he and RandyKitty wrote for WikiProject Journals that says editorial boards need independent sources that discuss them in more than just passing, and that using the journal itself or the publisher isn't enough. It was Randykitty who added those words to the essay. Randykitty arrived at the article on 4 June and removed the names three times in under eight hours. [108][109][110] On 5 June Headbomb removed them again, [111] after which Randkitty slapped two tags on the article, [112] and Headbomb removed a secondary source that a new editor had mistakenly placed in External links. [113]

This is disruption. Because of the reverting, I posted a DS alert on talk, to Headbomb and to Randykitty, which led to more insults from Headbomb on WP:AN: "utter fucking horseshit", I should be desyopped, I'm engaged in "toxic feminism". He alleged that by posting the alerts I had abused the tools, but informing editors that a page is subject to DS is not an admin action. Anyone can do that ("Any editor may advise any other editor that discretionary sanctions are in force for an area of conflict"), and must do it if a complaint under DS might be made.

As to whether this is a "gender-related dispute or controversy ... broadly construed", it's gender-related in every sense: male editors arriving to tell female editors how they're allowed to write about women, in an article that references the exclusion of women from philosophy. The names they keep removing include women known for their work on gender and sexism, including Judith Butler, Kelly Oliver, and Linda Martín Alcoff—and specifically on how philosophy has been affected by its treatment of women. There's an enormous dispute about this in academic philosophy: because of sexual harassment, the type of material that is taught, and the way it is taught. [114][115] The article refers directly to this, citing one of philoSOPHIA's articles: "one of the functions of the journal is to ask what the daughter's responsibilities are toward the father: 'Must the daughter be patricidal?'"

I created the article as part of an effort to improve the coverage of women in philosophy. I recently improved ((Feminist philosophy sidebar)) and created ((Feminist philosophy)). The other editor working on the article, Hypatiagal, is a newish editor, a woman with a PhD in philosophy, who should be encouraged, not put through this. We would like to include the names of the editorial board in that article, and I plan to write about their ideas using the journal as an RS. Headbomb has decided that this isn't allowed. I am therefore invoking the gender-related DS as part of dispute resolution in the hope that it will end the disruption. SarahSV ^(talk) 07:05, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

kelapstick, you're confusing the content with the behaviour. The content issue can be resolved with an RfC, but the behaviour (the serial reverting, the aggression) cannot. SarahSV ^(talk) 08:39, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

One thing that would help is if the committee were to reorganize the gender DS alert so that Gamergate isn't mentioned first. Editors involved in gender-related dispute have regularly wondered why they're being told about Gamergate. This would be less confusing: "(a) any gender-related dispute or controversy, (b) pages related to GamerGate, (c) people associated with (a) or (b), all broadly construed". SarahSV ^(talk) 08:49, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

kelapstick, every aspect of this dispute oozes sexism from my perspective. Two women are not allowed to write an article about a feminist philosophy journal, and include the names of the women who run the journal, without three men—who know nothing about feminist philosophy—arriving with instructions about what kind of sources they will allow, two of them edit warring very aggressively to impose their preference. One of the men uses sexist language: "special snowflake" and "toxic feminism". This is sexism and "gender-related, broadly construed".

One of the big issues causing the content gender gap has been the type of sourcing we require, which can have the effect of excluding women. In this case, Headbomb and Randykitty have come up with an especially stringent rule: that editorial boards must have independent sources that discuss them in detail, not just in passing. That is going to exclude all but the most notable, which places journals run by women and people of colour at a disadvantage. SarahSV ^(talk) 09:16, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Headbomb[edit]

There is zero gender component to the dispute, it is purely and solely about on whether or not editorial boards should be listed on journal articles since those usually violate WP:PROMO (we allow them when we have WP:IS discussing the role of the editorial board/specific members, otherwise we restrict ourselves to editors-in-chief and equivalent positions). I'll offer User talk:Randykitty#A request as material to consider here. I feel it was highly inappropriate of SV to shoehorn the dispute in a a gender-related issue so she could add the tag, placing the article under discretionary sanctions via admin fiat despite being WP:INVOLVED, and threatening to take us to WP:AE if we removed the tag. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 04:13, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If there is indignation User:Johnuniq, it is because I do not appreciate being lumped with troglodyte cavemen GamerGaters, or because SV abuses her authority to deny my rights and that of others as editors, or being generally being bullied into submission because of my gender by sexists. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 04:46, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Ks0stm: WP:ACDS states "Discretionary sanctions may be placed by administrators within specified topics after the Arbitration Committee has authorised their use". If an article doesn't have discretionary sanctions, then an admin places ((Ds/talk notice)) which states in plain bold "This page is subject to discretionary sanctions", how is this not putting the article under discretionary sanctions??? Or a violation of WP:INVOLVED? Especially since normal editors can't remove the sanctions, and admins can't without consent of the original admin? Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 05:31, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Re to SV

"Headbomb arrived at the article—a new article about philoSOPHIA: A Journal of Continental Feminism—wanting it to be deleted, calling it a "special snowflake", and being aggressive and insulting.

This is patently false. I made a comment in the AfD that I didn't understand how the keep !votes were based in policy, and argued that this journal should follow WP:JWG because it was not a special snowflake, unlike SV who pleaded that because the journal was small and feminist, WP:JWG did not apply. I insulted no one. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 12:18, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

SV is so intent on winning this that now I'm being faulted for "Headbomb removed a secondary source that a new editor had mistakenly placed in External links". Or you know, cleanup. And lastly saying your deployment of discretionary sanctions while being WP:INVOLVED is horseshit is not an insult, and I find you making this somehow a gendered-debate just so you can at the same time abuse your admin position to stiffle debate, and depict myself and other editors of absolutely impeccable pedigree as User:Randykitty and User:DGG as some women-hating cavemen ("male editors arriving to tell female editors how they're allowed to write about women, in an article that references the exclusion of women from philosophy.") is the very embodiment of toxic feminism. You claimed my interest in this journal was non-genuine because I was a man. I became interested in the journal because it popped in WP:AALERTS for WP:JOURNALS, of which I'm a highly-active member (see User:Headbomb/My work#Academic serials and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Feminism/Archive 4#WP:JCW needs help, amongst others). You claimed that I bullied people/disagreed with editors because they were women. The first time I learned/realized anyone of them were women was when you brought it up. Hell, I didn't even realize you were a women until I noticed you had updated your signature to SarahSV. I simply gives zero fucks about what gender people are/identify as, and before accusing me of assuming everyone are men, no I don't do that. Hell, I even used the singular they to refer to you initially because I couldn't be arsed to look up which pronoun to use. It is way more efficient and effective to think of everyone as anonymous amorphous blobs of flesh. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 12:34, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

And again, I have not decided that the inclusion of the editorial board is not allowed, the community has over many many discussions with several editors concerning several journals across many years. You were made aware of this many time, especially at User talk:Randykitty#A request. It's not looking like it'll be any different this time either. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 12:42, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Re to GorillaWarfare

If there is a restriction because of gender-related crap, then that's solely on SV. She's the only one that brought gender into this, made arguments based on gender, and tried to exclude people from participation based on gender. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 17:44, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The only part where I'm alleging toxic feminism is in SV's action (and only hers, not SV et al) of shoehorning a non-gender dispute into a gender dispute, so she can as an admin put the article under a gender-related discretionary sanctions (a tag which as a non-admin I am not allowed to remove, and which WP:AC/DS states only admins may put under sanctions), with threats to take me to AE if I did remove it, alongside multiple claims that I and other editors cannot opine on things because we are men. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 17:59, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

((Ds/talk notice)) states black-on-white "This page is subject to discretionary sanctions". Not may be covered by, it says that it is (and what those are is quite unclear, but "I'll block you if you disagree with me again" is not an unreasonable reading of that when the sanctions are placed by an involved admin). If this is not what is meant (and that is exactly what SV meant by it, backed with threats), then there is a gross failure to communicate clearly somewhere. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 18:13, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If there are no sanctions, then SV's behaviour and claims are then completely misleading and grossly inappropriate, both as an editor and as an admin who should know way better than this. Can ARBCOM opine on whether or not SV should be allowed to make such claims in the future / put those templates on articles where she's herself involved in disputes? Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 18:31, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Re Opabinia regalis

The template says "This page is subject to discretionary sanctions", SV who placed the template said it's under sanctions with threats to bring me to AE if I did remove the template, and WP:ACDS says "No administrator may modify or remove a sanction placed by another administrator without the sanctioning admin's consent / other conditions". You'll forgive me if I take those things at face values. Or express consternation that SV is judged to be not-guilty of admin abuse because but failed to actually impose sanctions because of a technicality even thought the intent was clearly there.

As for the "gendered" component of this, I find if this is to somehow fall under the gamergate shit, that is a gross abuse of the scope of that resolution. There is absolutely nothing in the Talk:PhiloSOPHIA dispute that has any grounds whatsoever in gender. The gendered component was started and caused by, and solely by, Slim Virgin and the rest is a meta-level "well is this actually a gender-related dispute or not?". This is like if

• A dispute at Climate of Mars concerning the mention of dust devils arised
• Someone slaps the Climate change discretionary sanctions on the article because the dust devil claims are supported by a meteorology journal
• A meta dispute on whether or not Martian climate is covered by the climate change sanctions ensues

Then on the basis of

• The sanction imposer having made those claims
• Those who think it is ludicrous for climate change sanctions to apply to the planetary climate science

ARBCOM decides Climate change sanctions apply to a dispute on martian dust devils because "see, both sides talked about climate changes". Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 14:07, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Johnuniq[edit]

If Headbomb is confident about being on the correct side, why all the indignation? Indignation often indicates that there is an underlying issue responsible for the enthusiasm with which arguments are presented. Headbomb removed the text six times (1 + 2 + 3 + 4 + 5 + 6) and should know that if he is correct, the best procedure would be to wait per WP:NODEADLINE rather than harass good editors with belligerence. 04:42, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

Statement by OID[edit]

Discretionary sanctions apply to topic areas. An article may be covered by the topic area and so be subject to potential sanctions in the event of a dispute, but applying the DS template as an Admin (which Headbomb correctly points out, a non-admin cant remove) while in a content dispute about a non-gender issue - then templating the people you are in dispute with - this is a clear attempt to chill any opposition and is sub-standard admin behaviour. If as an admin you take an action that a non-admin cannot revert while in a content dispute, its textbook involved. Its using your advanced permissions to win an argument. And frankly if SV doesnt want her actions to be described as 'toxic feminism' she should spend less time escalating bog-standard minor disputes into 'this is because I/we are women (or) you are not a woman' territory. Only in death does duty end (talk) 09:34, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by MjolnirPants[edit]

It seems to me to be fairly clear-cut that this article is a gender-related article (being about a journal of feminism). So as to whether it falls into the topic area in which these DSes are authorized is not really much of a question. However, it has been disputed (because it's also an academic journal, I believe is the reason), so I suppose this needs clarification. I'm completely uninvolved in this, but it's apparent to me that tempers are high, and so I'd like to offer some free beer and a sympathetic ear to any party on either side of this issue. Just swing on by my talk page. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 15:54, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Salvidrim!: I think several others (including some arbs) have already addressed that. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 01:59, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by RexxS[edit]

It would be helpful to concentrate on policies, not personalities, if we are to move forward. Salvidrim! asks two questions: (1) Whether this type of article falls within the DS (in which case a refining of the DS wording might be examined), or at least whether this specific article does; (2) Whether it was appropriate for an editor involved in a content dispute to add a DS tag to the talk page.

The wording of the GamerGate Remedy 1.1 is "standard discretionary sanctions ... are authorized for all edits about, and all pages related to ... any gender-related dispute or controversy ... broadly construed." I believe that the essence of that is to defuse the Finding of Fact concerning "Battlefield conduct". It should be clear therefore that ArbCom felt that disputes and controversies where gender can enter into the debate ought to be amenable to discretionary sanctions. In that case, an article about a feminist journal seems quite likely to be susceptible to precisely those problems of Battlefield conduct that the Arbs envisaged. Looking at what has already occurred, I think they were quite prescient.

My view, for what it's worth, is that a non-gender-related dispute on a gender-related article is always likely to veer off onto a gender-related tack. From that, I would argue that having an uninvolved admin apply discretionary sanctions to an editor who transgresses the accepted standards outlined by AC/DS would be a good thing. That effectively answers both questions. The act of informing another editor that an uninvolved admin may arrive and impose sanctions at their discretion, is a neutral action, and definitely not an admin action. In fact, many might consider it doing them a favour. If the argument remains that such a notice may have a 'chilling effect', I would counter that an involved editor placing such a tag cannot be making even an implied threat, because they may not take any admin action in a dispute where they are involved anyway. --RexxS (talk) 16:01, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Capeo[edit]

Wait a second here. Is the contention of SV and some of the arbs here that DS cover more than the article subject and discussion of the article subject? That a "gender-related dispute", as described in the DS, can literally be a man and a woman in a content dispute? Because, frankly, that's absurd. That's so wide open to gaming it's ridiculous. Gaming like this from SV: "it's gender-related in every sense: male editors arriving to tell female editors how they're allowed to write about women, in an article that references the exclusion of women from philosophy". Especially on a site where it's nobody's business what your gender is and where your gender, excluding editors that have to disclose their identities, isn't even verifiable. That an admin would even write that is shocking to me.

It's hard to even parse the implications of that reading of the DS. So on any article, where the subject is related to women, deference has to be given to editors that claim to be women? That was the intention of this DS? That seems to be SV's interpretation: "Two women are not allowed to write an article about a feminist philosophy journal, and include the names of the women who run the journal, without three men—who know nothing about feminist philosophy—arriving with instructions about what kind of sources they will allow, two of them edit warring very aggressively to impose their preference." Again, an admin said this? It's so contrary to basic editing policy that it's a bit hard to fathom. Not to mention, wildly presumptuous.

To be more on the point of the clarification, the templates need badly to be clarified. So anyone can put a Ds/talk notice on a page and start throwing around threats? Or in SV's case directly claim that page IS now under DS because they said so? The simple fact that even the responding Arbs aren't even sure if only admins are supposed to apply the template shows how discombobulated this system is. From SV's own words, "Yes, it is under discretionary sanctions. Initiating DS has nothing to do with being an admin," shows how ridiculous the current situation is. What does "initiating a DS" even mean if it holds no actual weight? I agree with SV that the DS alert, however you fashion it, should not mention Gamergate outside of the link to the actual case. It's confusing and has no relatable bearing on what, whatever interpretation you apply to the DS, is the presumptive point of the DS. Capeo (talk) 00:19, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• @GorillaWarfare:, you get the heart of my question when you say the dispute is gender related to the editors themselves, when it's my understanding DS apply to subject matter, not editors' interpretations of content disputes. I know that sound the same but there's a subtle distinction. Due to this article's subject matter I believe it should fall under the GG DS, but you seem to be saying that the DS could possibly apply anywhere there's a dispute. Is that the case? Because that's contrary to how I've seen other DS used in the past. Stuff brought to AE gets tossed all the time because the article where the dispute is taking place doesn't fall under a particular DS. We don't go around templating editors that have fringe views on their user or talk pages. Only if they try to force those views into an article that is subject to DS. Similarly with all the editors that have very strong views regarding the PI conflict. If that is the intent/interpretation of this DS then it is extraordinarily broad.

Specifically, I took "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" to mean the subjects of GamerGate, gender-related disputes or controversies, and people associated with them. Not any dispute, anywhere on WP, where one side "feels" like the conflict has some gender-related component, regardless of what the dispute is even about. If someone is being a sexist ass, outside of a GG or gender related article, then that's a behavioral issue easily handled at AN/I. I don't believe most editors would think to take it to AE. By the same token, I believe most, if not all, admin regulars at AE would say the DS doesn't apply and toss it to AN/I anyway. At least as it's currently interpreted. Capeo (talk) 14:20, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• After perusing the DS related pages I see, even after years being here, I didn't even quite understand how DS work. Now that I've read it all I find it strangely confusing. So there's three templates. Two, the alert and talknotice, can be placed by anybody. The editnotice can only be placed by an admin. I was always under the impression that the TPs of all pages subject to DS had to have the editnotice placed on them to show they are subject to DS before bringing someone to AE. The reason being the other two templates, that anyone can place, claim that the page is under DS. So we have a situation where any editor can claim an article is subject to DS, whether it is or not. If there's no editnotice then, say, it goes to AE where admins decide is the page does fall under a DS topic. So does the alert or talknotice count as being "alerted" to the DS and leave an editor open to sanctions? Even though the page hadn't been positively confirmed to fall under a DS topic prior to that?

Not to mention, editors shouldn't be able to throw templates around that make a positive claim that hasn't even been confirmed. The templates don't say DS might apply, it says they do. I know it's not feasible for admins to go around and place editnotice templates on every page on WP that is included in a topic that's subject to DS. That's pretty much impossible. As it is right now though we have a system where editors can make claims about the stiffest sanctioning system we have without any confirmation that the claim is true. Half of this current conflict stems from Headbomb reacting to these alerts as confirming that SlimVirgin just made the page subject to DS and, the way the templates read, I can't blame them. I mean, can't we have a template that says "may be subject to DS", for those pages that haven't been confirmed, and a template that says what the current ones do that can only be used by editors when it involves pages with an editnotice on them? On top of that, anything brought to AE or ARCA where the consensus is that a page is subject to DS should have an editnotice added as part of the closing process.

Side note: along the lines of what Ks0stm mentions, the pages that describe DS, and the process surrounding them, suffer massively from a constant use of the word "sanction". It's needlessly difficult to parse if the use of the word is in reference to a topic subject to DS or if it's referencing the sanctions that can be applied by an admin. Capeo (talk) 23:30, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Masem[edit]

Only to comment that my reading of the DS is that the gender-related dispute or controversy should be as related to only what the topic is about, and not what happens behind the scenes between editors of WP; as I read this specific case, there's no gender-related dispute with the actual publication involved, but only editors' debate over it. Allowing the "dispute or controversy" to apply to talk pages or other behind-the-scenes areas (even things like edit summaries) opens up a potentially slippery slope not just in the GG area but other DS like American Politics (how many non-political pages have mentioned Trump in talk page discussions, thus flagging them under that DS?) Also, in the context of Capeo/GW's discussion, just saying that if one or more editors take offense to edits considering them "gender-related" , that again that a potential slippery slope that would allow people to game how DS are applied to influence how a talk page discussion occurs. There certainly are gender-based disputes between editors that are over content on pages that have no gender-related disputes, and I can see that if the dispute is heated enough, that the GG DS should be applied to the talk page, but that should be something determined by a consensus of uninvolved admins so that involved editors aren't gaming the system (not just in GG but in other areas) where the topic itself clearly doesn't broadly fall into the DS area. --MASEM (t) 14:40, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The key word is "dispute or controversy", not so much "gender-related". Outside of WP editors, there's nothing controversial at all about the journal in the real world, the dispute is strictly about the behavior of two editors that one has turned into an issue over gender (arguing that men should not be instructing what to do on a journalism devoted to feminism). There's bad behavior all around, but this specific aspect is completely inappropriate to force into the discussion about the article and would make a way to game DSes across a wide range of topics that can effectively eliminate voices from discussion if they go all the way to 500/30 that some DS (like GG DS) has. The gender of the WP editors should never have been raised in the first place. --MASEM (t) 13:26, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Alanscottwalker[edit]

The parade of horribles above by Masem is wholly unconvincing -- there is no "slippery slope", in putting a modern feminist journal talk page on the DS list for gender related. Alanscottwalker (talk) 14:58, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Kingsindian[edit]

It has been asserted many times in the past that the reason for expanding the Gamergate sanctions to "gender-related" articles was to prevent the people importing conflicts into related areas. This area has absolutely nothing to do with Gamergate, nor has anyone said so. I fail to see how the use of the Gamergate discretionary sanctions is appropriate here. This just seems like WP:CREEP to me. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 01:27, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by ForbiddenRocky[edit]

1. The lede for philoSOPHIA reads "A Journal of Continental Feminism". Doesn't get more gender-related than that.
2. The GG sanctions have been broadly construed against other areas and editors: WP:AEL. If this is not "(b) any gender-related dispute or controversy [...] all broadly construed", then those other sanctions should be reviewed.

-- ForbiddenRocky (talk) 02:13, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

On the other hand, given that GG is now 3 years past. Perhaps the scope of the GG sanctions should be limited to things that are tainted by GG. However, determining what is tainted would be a nasty rabbit hole go down.

On the other other hand, there could be an asymmetry created by a bad modification of the GG sanctions because editors that have been dealing with GG could trigger something being under GG sanctions simply by showing up.

-- ForbiddenRocky (talk) 02:25, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

On another other other hand, perhaps drop redo the the GG DS, and have it be primarily about about "any gender-related dispute or controversy". Again, this being 2017 looking back at 2014. ForbiddenRocky (talk) 16:48, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by DHeyward[edit]

I'm concerned about scope creep. Having seen the original GamerGate ArbCom case and articles, it's pretty clear that making a case that an article is covered by GamerGate will escalate tension and conflict. It's a last resort. It should be limited to articles that are already tainted with GamerGate conflict. Unless I'm missing something, this article has nothing to do with GamerGate but GamerGate is invoked because GamerGate topic area articles are covered by gender-related discetionary sanction. It is a huge mistake to look at remedies first and then searching for an ArbCom case that can be slapped on the article. I ran into this earlier in the week when someone tried to put the London attack in AP2 simply because AP2 has a 1RR restriction option and Trump commented on the bombing. It didn't fly there and that should be taken to heart here.

Gamergate is toxic. It should be invoked only after GamerGate toxicity has infected it. Simply using GamerGate because it has a desired remedy is a poison-pill tag that escalates conflict rather than a remedy being applied to existing conflicts. If the conflict in this article is to GamerGate levels, file the appropriate arbitration case. If it's not at arbitration levels of conflict, then it certainly is not a GamerGate article. --DHeyward (talk) 02:18, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

GorillaWarfare why GamerGate? There are other ArbCom cases that cover gender. It's my understanding is that "broadly construed" is contained with content covered by the case. If it's not, then there are very few, if any, admins that are uninvolved in an unconstrained "gender related dispute." Manning is gender related. The Matrix/Wachowski's are gender related. Jenner/Kardashians are gender related. Wonder Woman is gender related. Bill Cosby is gender related. A broad interpretation that these would fall under GamerGate because gender is a main topic seems to create the exact opposite construct and would involve all admins to some degree. We would be much better off constraining the articles subject to GamerGate AC/DS to articles that are within the GamerGate topic area. GamerGate in no way defines gender or a gender related dispute. Rather, GamerGate highlighted misbehavior that was gender related within the GamerGate topic area. Admins enforcing GamerGate AC/DS only had to be uninvolved in GamerGate topics, not broadly construed gender related topics. How would applying GamerGate AC/DSs to all gender related disputes allow for any admin to claim they are broadly uninvolved in any gender related content area? We run the risk of creating "involved" classes of admins by fiat of overly broad interpretations. Are admins that have edited any gender related articles now "involved" in GamerGate disputes? --DHeyward (talk) 08:16, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Jytdog[edit]

It is hard to think clearly about identity politics. Here is my effort.

• Yes, the WP:GENDERGAP issues are real, and important. Nobody disputes this.
• There is a difference between a topic and editors who work on it being subject to DS, and DS actually being applied through some uninvolved admin placing them, or one editor bringing another to AE and DS being applied there. No DS have been applied to the article. (Headbomb appears to be confused about this)
• The Gamergate DS were made available to deal with poor behavior generated in hot disputes over specifically gender-related content. What we are seeing here, is indeed poor behavior in a hot dispute over gender related content.
• In my view, the behavior of SlimVirgin (disclosure - the two of us have tangled) is an example of why DS are useful on gender-related topics --- in the edit warring she has done, her stated intentions with regard to content (apparently intending to turn the article about the journal into a COATRACK for topics covered by the journal), and arguments she has made for exceptions to policies and guidelines for content in this article. And the argument that people who claim they are gender X should be given deference when they are editing about topic X is anathema to this project, and frankly appears to me be just an ugly effort to get what she wants. Identity-based privilege is not the way to address the gender gap.
• In my view, Headbomb is generally aggressive (even moreso than me) and too quick to descend to personal attacks (disclosure - the two of us have tangled). They have done all that here, and that behavior in this context was especially unproductive. As an example, Headbomb made a good argument about advocacy in the AfD, here. But just 2 minutes later, in this diff they came back put an ugly point on it with the "not a special snowflake" comment (reacting too strongly to SlimVirgin's obvious advocacy). I have never heard the phrase "special snowflake" used without a denigrating intention, and Headbomb's response on that issue is off point. (This is the kind of thing that WP:CIVIL is actually about - that 2nd comment did nothing to advance the discussion but was just pouring sand into the gears of getting work done; they had already made the advocacy argument well enough in their 1st comment, and the article was obviously not going to deleted by the point in the discussion). But the availability of DS and notices of it, are useful to help people think twice before they save edits like that one.
• So yes, this article is within the scope of the Gamergate DS and both editors should be acutely aware of that, as both of their behaviors have been objectionable.
• I urge the committee to explicitly reject SlimVirgin's argument about identity-based exceptions to content and behavior policies and guidelines.
• I agree that these DS being referred to as the "Gamergate DS" is unfortunate, but that is how we name DS as far as I know. If Arbcom could provide a way to refer to them otherwise, that would be great. Jytdog (talk) 04:19, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by isaacl[edit]

Recently there was an editor who claimed that an article on one the terrorist attacks in Paris (if I recall correctly) was authorized for discretionary sanctions for American politics because it contained a statement quoting American Vice-President Pence (in particular, edits to that sentence). A discussion subsequently ensued on whether or not this should be the case. I believe the community should be allowed to reach a consensus on the scope of discretionary sanctions, when possible, and a clarification sought on this page if an agreement cannot be reached. I do not think it is wise to automatically accept any single editor's claim that discretionary sanctions have been authorized for a given article. isaacl (talk) 03:09, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by {other-editor}[edit]

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[edit]

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

GamerGate: Arbitrator views and discussion[edit]

• Without (yet) speaking to their applicability in this particular situation, it's currently my thoughts that:
  1. Actions which do not have to be logged at the arbitration enforcement log, such as placing ((Ds/talk notice)) on talk pages and/or ((alert)) on user talk pages for the purpose of notifying editors that discretionary sanctions have been authorized for a topic area, do not constitute an administrative action and may be done even when involved
  2. Any actions that must be logged at AEL, such as using the discretionary sanctions system to place restrictions on pages or editors, constitute an administrative action and may not be done while involved.
• My thoughts are not set in stone, so I look forward to hearing what my colleagues have to say on this ARCA before I come to my final conclusions. Ks0stm ^{(T•C•G•E)} 05:24, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Headbomb: It's a bit of an unfortunate collision in wording, to be honest. The talk page notice states that the page is subject to the system of "discretionary sanctions", but does not actually place any "discretionary sanctions", if that makes sense. "Discretionary sanctions" refers to both the system that can be used to enact sanctions as well as to the actual sanctions enacted under the system. ((Ds/talk notice)) and ((alert)) merely notify that the system applies, and placing them does not require logging at AEL. They do not actually enact any sanctions under the system, which can only be done by uninvolved administrators and must be logged at AEL. It's like warning someone for edit warring versus actually blocking for it: The notification can be done while involved, while the administrative action can only be done by an uninvolved administrator. Ks0stm ^{(T•C•G•E)} 05:47, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Only in death: My understanding is the same as GorillaWarfare's: "

    The template is just to ensure that editors are aware that uninvolved administrators may be allowed to place additional types of restrictions with regards to a page (protections, topic bans, etc.) because the page (or parts of it) falls under a DS topic. ... As far as I'm aware, there's no rule that only administrators may add or remove that warning template, though I could be wrong.

    " Ks0stm ^{(T•C•G•E)} 19:12, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• While the subject of the article could (very) easily become the subject of a "gender-related dispute", every content dispute on the article is not inherently gender-related. Superficially (i.e. simply the removal/re-addition of the content) this dispute does not appear to be gender-related. What does drive this in that direction is Headbomb evoking the snowflake clause and referencing to toxic feminism. Noting that both examples are taken (somewhat) out of context (and that is a large assumption of good faith towards Headbomb), they do largely point to motive. Having said that, both DGG and Randykitty appear to be siding with the removal without resorting to such arguments, and under no such motivation. In fact, the arguments for removal are all this is the way we write articles about journals on Wikipedia (noting that Wikipedia works on consensus not precedent). As such, we can't simply say that the removal by all parties in an effort to remove them because they are women advising on a journal about feminism. The proper way to curb disruption/edit warring would have been to request full protection (which you would not have been allowed to edit through) until consensus was reached on the talk page. And while I don't doubt that you may see this as a gender-related dispute, in my opinion it is not. It is an editorial dispute, which can be remedied by the RfC which has been started on the talk page.--kelapstick^(bainuu) 08:22, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• In answer to your second question Salvidrim!, as a general rule (to which there will always be exceptions) I would say no, a user shouldn't tag an article as being under discretionary sanctions on an article in which there is a content dispute in which they are involved (in an effort to further their position). However, as SlimVirgin has not replaced the material since the addition of the template, I would say no-harm no-foul in that respect in this particular instance. --kelapstick^(bainuu) 08:43, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• SlimVirgin, this ARCA was asking two specific questions, if the article should be subject to discretionary sanctions, and if an article should tagged by someone involved in a content dispute. To which my views are "no (or at least not yet)" and "not usually". Serial reverting and behaviour can usually be taken care of without resorting to applying DS as the first step. Regarding your wording reorganization suggestion, that seems sensible. --kelapstick^(bainuu) 08:59, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• SlimVirgin, if you would like me to state on the record that I believe that Headbomb has acted like a jackass, than yes I believe he has. However your desire to change sourcing requirements in order to bridge the content gender gap (noble an effort as it may be) is not a matter for the Arbitration Committee. As an aside (related to the comment three men—who know nothing about feminist philosophy), I wrote the article Henriette Alimen, which is about a woman who was a paleontologist. Should I not have done that because I am not a woman, and know nothing of paleontology? (Rhetorical question of course, there is no need to answer that, unless you really think I should not have, in which case a more appropriate venue would probably be my talk page). --kelapstick^(bainuu) 09:40, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• (edit conflict)I agree with Ks0stm. Being placed "under" sanctions or being alerted to sanctions is not actually sanctioning anyone. As ((Ds/talk notice)) says, "This template warns people on the talk page that arbitration discretionary sanctions have been authorised." I see this as the same as placing an alert on another editor's talk page. Anyone can do that but only uninvolved Administrators can sanction editors. Note also that WP:ACDS#Alerts states that "Any editor who issues alerts disruptively may be sanctioned." I don't see evidence that's what's happened here. It's unfortunate that WP:ACDS doesn't have a section on placing talk page notices but it doesn't, nor does it restrict placing such notices to Administrators. The default is that anyone can place talk page notices. We don't seem to have set a procedure for removing a sanctions talk page notice although we have amended ((WP:ACDS]] specifying that editors may request the removal of restrictions at WP:AE. Doug Weller talk 08:29, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Adding that I agree that placing this article under discretionary sanctions is reasonable given the conflict. I'll also note once an editor has been given an alert or a ds notice has been placed on a talk page, "behavioural best practice", although always hoped for, is required and that "Discretionary sanctions can be used against any editor who repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process." Doug Weller (talk • contribs) 18:07, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• @Doug Weller: I've just moved the above comment of yours that got somehow inserted between mine. GorillaWarfare (talk) 18:29, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• I do think that this dispute should be considered to be covered by the GamerGate discretionary sanctions. I might normally question whether it's appropriate to apply them to a dispute like this (even though it focuses on a list of women advisory board members, all of whom are active in gender- and sexism-related topics, on an article about a journal of feminist theory) because that requires the judgment that the dispute itself is gender-related. However, I think since people on both sides of this dispute have brought feminism, sexism, and gender into their arguments, and because the scope of these discretionary sanctions is meant to be broadly construed, it's appropriate to warn folks involved in the dispute about the discretionary sanctions, and for an uninvolved administrator to use them in the future if things escalate.

@Headbomb: Regarding the application of discretionary sanctions, and the warnings: I agree with others that simply placing the warning on an article or users' talk pages is not an admin action. It's also not an accusation that you or others involved in the dispute has done something wrong, nor is it a sanction against you. My recommendation to you when you see such a notice on an article or on your talk page is to familiarize yourself with the issues that led to discretionary sanctions being authorized in the topic area (if you are unfamiliar), then continue with your constructive editing without much worry. GorillaWarfare (talk) 17:41, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• @Headbomb: You are also calling SlimVirgin et. al. sexists and "toxic feminists", and arguing that at least some of the dispute is based on your gender. Regardless of how your participation in the dispute began, it has certainly by now become a gender-related dispute. GorillaWarfare (talk) 17:52, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• @Headbomb: I think you are still misunderstanding discretionary sanctions and the role of that template. The template is just to ensure that editors are aware that uninvolved administrators may be allowed to place additional types of restrictions with regards to a page (protections, topic bans, etc.) because the page (or parts of it) falls under a DS topic. Placing the template is not placing a sanction; it's just noting that administrators are authorized to do so if disruption occurs. The bit you link to, about removing sanctions, is referring to the removal of sanctions that an uninvolved administrator has actually placed on the page or on editors, not referring to the removal of warning templates. As far as I'm aware, there's no rule that only administrators may add or remove that warning template, though I could be wrong. GorillaWarfare (talk) 18:09, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• @Headbomb: The template should perhaps be reworded to more closely match the longform version, which reads "The Arbitration Committee has permitted Wikipedia administrators to impose discretionary sanctions on any editor editing this page or associated pages. Discretionary sanctions can be used against an editor who repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process." As yet, no discretionary sanctions are in place regarding that page, the template is meant to be a warning that there are additional sanctions available to administrators. Look at the WP:AC/DS policy page: there aren't default sanctions that are applied when a page or topic area is authorized for discretionary sanctions, and the authorization of discretionary sanctions on a page alone does not change how you may edit the page. You're arguing that page is now somehow restricted because of SlimVirgin's addition of the template, or that you are somehow now restricted in your editing of that page; I'm saying that that's impossible because no restrictions have been placed. GorillaWarfare (talk) 18:22, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Salvidrim!: Good suggestions. We should consider where we can clarify this, since it's obviously confusing. I'll put some thought into it later this evening. GorillaWarfare (talk) 18:42, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, now that it's later this evening: I feel like there should be no restriction on placing a DS notice on a page or an editor's talk page regardless of whether the person placing the template is involved in the dispute. The discretionary sanctions page is clear that an alert is purely informational and neither implies nor expresses a finding of fault, and I feel like restricting these alerts to only be used by uninvolved editors would only make sense if the alerts are meant carry more weight. There are a lot of topic areas under discretionary sanctions, so it's easy for folks (even those who are very experienced) to start editing a page without knowing. I don't see placing an alert as being much different from telling an editor you're in dispute with about a policy that they may not be familiar with. As an example, I've been around for a while now, but if I suddenly took up editing medical articles and got into a dispute with someone over a source, them pointing me to WP:MEDRS would be a reasonable choice, since it would be a very reasonable assumption that I didn't realize that there was additional guidance on sourcing medical articles.

Certainly if an involved administrator not only placed a DS notice, but then also imposed sanctions, it would be a different matter. That doesn't seem to be under argument here, except for some misunderstanding about the distinction between placing an alert and placing a sanction, but the DS page is already clear that administrators may not impose a sanction when involved.

Regarding where a final decision can be made on whether an article/dispute/section/etc. falls under sanctions... That's a good question. The only real guidance about whether a page falls within discretionary sanctions is in the section on "broadly construed", and that's not particularly useful when it comes to how to handle disagreements. I'd suggest that editors who disagree with a page notice follow the same advice for escalation given to sanctioned editors: speak with the person who placed the notice, then request review at AE or AN, then file a clarification request here at ARCA. Would welcome any thoughts on that, though, and perhaps we can codify it. GorillaWarfare (talk) 23:52, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Capeo: I haven't said (nor do I believe) that the DS authorized in the GamerGate case apply to any dispute between Wikipedians simply because they differ in gender, and I don't think any of my colleagues have either. But, as far as I'm concerned, when people on one side of a dispute start to say that an argument is gender-related, it is gender-related for them. When people on the other side start referring to the folks they're disagreeing with as "toxic feminists", saying that they are being kept from editing an article based on their own gender, and start saying that their opponents are classifying them as "women-hating cavemen", it is gender-related for them. I am not saying that either party is at fault or needs to be sanctioned for their participation in the dispute; I think that's something the rest of the community can adeptly handle. I'm just saying that this dispute has clearly become gender-related, even if it perhaps was not to begin with.

I'm getting the impression (though perhaps I'm mistaken) that some folks here are assuming that as soon as discretionary sanctions are applied to a gender-related dispute, the men will automatically be sanctioned and the women will waltz off elsewhere to continue to insist that men are garbage. We've certainly had issues with misogyny being introduced into Wikipedia articles, and that is why some of these additional sanctions have been authorized, but there's certainly no "if men and women are in a gender-related dispute, the women win" rule. I'm at least confident enough that if there's a gender-related dispute where men are editing within acceptable behaviors and women are not, it will be handled fairly for the men. GorillaWarfare (talk) 02:45, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@DHeyward: This is one of the cases where the scope of the sanctions authorized in the case was broader than the case name implies. This is fairly rare, but there are a few other examples: alternative medicine is under DS, despite the case being called Acupuncture; Afghanistan is under DS, despite the case being called India-Pakistan. GorillaWarfare (talk) 15:18, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• The practical question here seems to be about whether this notion that editorial boards are verboten in articles really has broad support, and whether a list of members is useful information in this specific article. Most of the discussion around this dispute has been about peripheral things, with a high level of rhetorical excess compared to the very anodyne underlying issue. The article in question is about a feminist philosophy journal, so on that basis I have no trouble seeing it as subject to DS, but specifically not on the grounds of the (stated) genders of the participants. (Yes, I realize that gendered social dynamics don't just stop happening because we're in an environment where typical gender-identity signals are less clear, but that doesn't mean that's what DS is for.) There seems to be a lot of misunderstandings here about how DS work. Notifications are explicitly not "sanctions", so Headbomb's argument that "normal editors can't remove the sanctions" with a wikilink to Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions#Appeals by sanctioned editors doesn't make sense. On the other hand, SV referenced "initiating DS", which isn't a thing either. It's not immediately clear that these misunderstandings are widespread enough to necessitate formal clarification, though. Opabinia regalis (talk) 07:44, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • The extreme case of the case-scope issue is surely the ancestor of the BLP DS being authorized in a case called (at the time) "Footnoted quotes" ;) I am rethinking this a bit now - in most of these instances where DS were authorized over a much wider scope than the specific incident that led to a case, mentioning the incident was not itself a potential source of disruption. Nobody is offended at being lumped in with those dastardly footnote-quoters (or was it quote-footnoters?) if they get a warning about BLP. Gamergate, though, is such a narrow and toxic issue that bringing it up has the potential to cause disruption in its own right, and is almost certain to be a distraction in a dispute about something gender-related that wasn't about Gamergate to begin with. We may well need DS over the subject of "gender-related controversies" - and I have no serious doubt that a journal about feminist scholarship should meet that description - but I suspect there is a case for separating Gamergate DS from a broader "gender controversies" category. Opabinia regalis (talk) 05:50, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• I consider myself recused from this discussion, because I was involved in the dispute about the article. DGG ( talk ) 16:17, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

---

---

Initiated by Fæ at 14:08, 2 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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:

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

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

Statement by Fæ[edit]

The GamerGate case superseded, and by my understanding of procedure, took on the covers the original motions and amendments of Sexology. In particular "Standard discretionary sanctions are authorized for all pages dealing with transgender issues ...". This request is a clarification to Arbcom to confirm the interpretation of "transgender issues", along with the practical expectations of how implementation can be possible in cases where the requestor is concerned about the likely hostile experience of taking any gender, and especially transgender, related case to a public English Wikipedia forum like ANI in order to request enforcement, based on past cases.

I am requesting that to avoid doubt, Arbcom confirm by motion that use of discussion pages on Wikipedia to state or imply that trans people are part of a transgender conspiracy, agenda, ideology or similar defamatory "gay agenda" type conspiracy theory, shall be considered a breach of the discretionary sanction. This does not and need not impede or censor the use of valid civil discussion on Wikipedia in order to create and improve articles about these or related topics.

This request is that to avoid doubt, Arbcom confirm by motion that anti-trans or transphobic language, shall be considered an immediate breach of the discretionary sanction. This does not and need not impede or censor the use of valid civil discussion on Wikipedia in order to create and improve articles about these or related topics. Anti-trans language includes the use of TIM (trans identified male) to refer to trans women, TIF (trans identified female) to refer to trans men and other deliberate use of misgendering terminology that may be established through case precedent, such as deliberately referring to a known trans woman as a man or a 'biological male' during Wikipedia discussion when trans woman is correct and accurate.

This request is that Arbcom lay out how individuals may best raise an enforcement request, without being first required to exhaust dispute resolution processes just because they are observing the incident. Given the topic, and the likely practical experience that LGBT+ contributors have when "fronting" initial complaints and later requests, it is unrealistic to expect requesters to be so expert in process and dispute resolution methods that their complaint about, say, the inappropriate use of transphobic language, that they will ever want to go through the hostile opposition research and open trolling and pillorying that is the recognized norm for gender and LGBT+ related disputes. It is also unlikely that any LGBT+ identified editor wants to seek out confronting someone who is deliberately misusing Wikipedia to be offensive about trans people; our experience is that doing so is likely to lead to being accused of causing a two-party dispute and be the subject of immediate hostile counter-allegations. A failure of cases to make it to a discretionary sanction stage, is not evidence of Wikipedia's policy implementation working.

My expectation is that given Arbcom's confirmation, it will become far easier to gain a consensus for the creation and improvement of guidelines that relate to civil discussion on Wikipedia for LGBT+ topics and issues, especially if external best practices such as GLAAD are used to inform and educate contributors to LGBT+ related topics.

Though I am raising this request based on my related experiences in the past two years editing trans-related biographies and topics, I have named no other parties. This is a technical request, not one relating to an active dispute. I am confident Arbcom members are aware of relevant examples without having to call people out in this clarification.

@Mendaliv: My request is based on reviewing https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?oldid=812091637#Sexology:_Motion_2 and the prior motion on the same page. I doubt that the original GG parties are directly relevant to this specific amendment, even if they might wish to make a helpful comment. I may be missing the point but naming them here seems overly wikilawyerish, probably.

With regard to the later points, sure, you are making Arbcom related procedural points that can be clarified. However the DS exist, and are supposed to apply to "transgender issues" today (see Template:MOS-TW for example). The problem being raised here is how Arbcom expects them to be enforced, because they just ain't. If Arbcom wants to clarify that they are uninterested in ensuring the current DS help to reduce disruption or harassment of transgender editors, and thinks someone else should do it, fine, but I really do not believe that's what the committee intended or indends the Wikipedia community to read in to a lack of implementation by administrators and a lack of requests for implementation. --Fæ (talk) 14:50, 2 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Struck part of the opening statement, thanks to the clarification by clerk that GG is considered to include but not technically have superseded the Sexology "transgender issues". This case request for GG is correct in this sense. --Fæ (talk) 15:26, 2 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Masem: Sexology was specifically amended to apply to "all pages", not just articles, for the reasons you put forward. The focus here based on experience is more about article related POV comments that you infer, for example stating that a trans ideology exists during discussions, appears and can deliberately demean Wikipedia contributors, if not strictly stated in the context of directly quoting a source for an article about this topic rather than an editor making this statement in their "own voice". Even then, abusive quotes can be used abusively, so editors on these topics benefit from very clear Arbcom level directives about how DS can and should be interpreted (c.f. Arbcom Fram case, where use of the n-word should never happen casually in discussion space).

WRT "I have several RSes here that identify ...", is fine. There's no attempt here to stop discussion of sources, as my words "not impede or censor the use of valid civil discussion" are intended to make clear. If you can think of a different way of framing an Arbcom motion that better addresses your potential censorship concern, while making it easier to ensure that DS are applied for clearly inappropriate or uncivil transphobic language, please post it. Again, compare with the n-word being used as a rhetorical trick, sanctioning against casual racist abuse can be done without hampering the valid discussion of historical racism. --Fæ (talk) 16:34, 2 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Pyxis Solitary: If anyone wishes to create a trans ideology article, based on the anti-trans myths found in various anti-LGBT+ publications, that great, it benefits the encyclopaedia.

What is a problem is a statement that a BLP subject notable for their anti-trans hate speech is not "trans-exclusionary" if all they are doing is fighting the "trans ideology", because that rationale is the same thing as using Wikipedia talk pages to promote and validate the existence of a "trans ideology". That ANI is not a workable venue for raising a Discretionary Sanction request about this (for most people) complex issue of transphobic language, is raised in this request. The alternative, as I have been advised several times off-wiki in the past, is to report all such cases to WMF T&S, which is part of why I would like Arbcom members to suggest better on-wiki processes. Note that you were not named as a party to this case, as we have no ongoing dispute and this request was procedural in nature. --Fæ (talk) 08:29, 3 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@AGK: If your intention is to restrict GG Discretionary Sanctions to article space and talk directly about articles, then this withdraws the motions agreed by Arbcom in Sexology which were amended to apply to all pages. For this to be true and enforced in this way (as currently it is not the community's interpretation of the existing DS as they apply to transgender related or any BLP page discussions), then Arbcom should consider a motion to make this explicit. Specifically this appears to mean that the Arbcom clerk's advice that the withdrawn Sexology motions are covered by GG is not the case. Obvious consequences of your statement, should Arbcom agree this as fact, is that enforcement requests based on Arbcom DS provide no protection from casual use of transphobic language, such as calling an openly trans woman Wikipedian a trans identified male, rather than a woman, or casually or repeatedly using Wikipedia discussions to promote the view that a gay agenda or a trans agenda exists, because anti-LGBT+ publications say so. For many Wikipedians, this is not a question of accepting free speech, but accepting casual transphobic language as the potential norm in Wikipedia discussions in a way that would never be acceptable with casual racist language or casual misogynist language.

(Responding 'to the room') As for the advice that people observing or being targets of this language should go to ANI, sorry, that's a joke. Nobody on the target end of this wants to be pilloried at ANI for having a thin skin, being a "gender warrior" (as one current Arbcom member neatly puts it), told they lack a sense of humour or repeatedly threatened with a topic ban for being "disruptive". Case histories already available, new ones not needed, as you are aware. --Fæ (talk) 12:38, 3 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Mendaliv: Your assertion that I am failing to go to dispute resolution seems to ignore the fact that I am not in any current dispute needing dispute resolution. There are plenty of past cases I can point to of previous LGBT+ related cases where I have taken up dispute resolution, making your statement false whichever way it is read. Please focus on the case request, not hypothetical tangents. Your "7 million edits across all foundation projects" comment is unhelpful and appears to be an attempt to dismiss this request on the basis of my number of edits, which I fail to understand. --Fæ (talk) 17:05, 3 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Mendaliv: This is a Clarification request, not a case request. This has never been a requirement for Arbcom to only accept clarifications if there is an active dispute. I know, having posted past clarification requests where there was no active dispute. --Fæ (talk) 17:58, 3 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@EdChem: Your advice would be the equivalent of telling newbie LGBT+ contributors to "grow a thicker skin". It does not work, unchallenged bullies become bolder. Unless we choose to improve the hostile environment that exists today, Wikipedia will continue indefinitely as a publisher of lockerroom type transphobic and homophobic language which is protected as "humour" or "free speech". --Fæ (talk) 08:37, 4 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Greenrd: Being a trans person is not equivalent to being a Republican. A Republican being lobbied to change parties, is not equivalent to a trans person having to debate whether they have a right to exist, or being accused of being part of a "transgender ideology", just because they are alive. --Fæ (talk) 16:04, 4 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Greenrd: Your views come very close to a rationale to automatically topic ban all openly trans Wikipedians from gender related topics, that way we instantly solve the problem of all those automatically biased "trans people" causing problems. Alternatively nobody ever, ever gets presumed to have bias because of who they are, does that sound like a good interpretation of WP:5P4, and an interpretation that I should not have to ask that you apply to me? --Fæ (talk) 20:08, 4 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Vanamonde93: Your question was answered already, it is perfectly legitimate to expect those making statements in a clarification request have read the requestors section before repeatedly asking the same duplicated questions. Cut & paste from 4 paragraphs above: Your assertion that I am failing to go to dispute resolution seems to ignore the fact that I am not in any current dispute needing dispute resolution. If your question was hypothetical for future events, sure I may try it, if I want to be the target of hostile opposition research, yet again, but so far the opinions from the one Arbcom member are not encouraging that DS would be enacted rather than AE devolve into debate. As we have shifted to hypotheticals: given the choice for a trans woman observer, would you expect her to enter into an adversarial debate by reporting transphobic language on AE or ANI and risk becoming a target, or would she be better off writing secretly to WMF T&S? --Fæ (talk) 19:49, 4 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@SilkTork: With regard to your opinions, how would that stop an editor dismissing and deriding another as a "gender terrorist warrior". Asking because of course you set a precedent that this is acceptable for Arbcom members to use, when the editor has not identified as any such thing. Thanks --Fæ (talk) 12:15, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Corrected, sorry for the accidental misquoted example. --Fæ (talk) 19:04, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Worm That Turned: I have perfectly good reason to be cautious as has been explained. Asking for clarification from either you or Risker about your off-wiki correspondence or coincidental actions, (i.e. on a related page with no edits in 2 years, then edited within hours of off-wiki correspondence is hard to presume in good faith is entirely improbable coincidence), so that I might contribute freely to an open request is not an attack against you or Arbcom. --Fæ (talk) 18:16, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Sitush: You are correct, the quote should have been "diversity terrorist" which is more extreme language than I recalled.diff The reasoning that "gender warrior" might be a good thing, is virtually impossible to apply to calling someone any sort of terrorist, nor is "martyr" helpful. As a thought experiment, consider the repercussions if you were to argumentatively make the same allegations like this about an Arbcom member during a case. --Fæ (talk) 19:00, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Risker: Please check your email to me in 2016, and the correspondence that you may have lost and have not mentioned here. Recall that you wrote to me, not the other way around. Your final email in 2016 was conciliatory, and gave me the very reasonable expectation that I would not be forced to enter into off-wiki correspondence with you again. I can provide a copy if you have deleted it. --Fæ (talk) 19:43, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Andy Dingley: Please revisit your statement it makes demonstrably false claims about my motivation. This clarification is unrelated to the BC tribunal case, this was never in my mind as the BC tribunal case is completely unrelated to the issues of the use of transphobic language on Wikipedia by Wikipedians. Further this clarification request was created by me on 2 August 2019, while the article you link to was created by an indefinitely blocked user using a sockpuppet account on 3 August 2019, a day later. Further you are linking to sources which contain blatantly transphobic abuse and your remarks about these sources have been exhaustively addressed in detail as failing to meet the reliable source requirements of WP:BLP, with one of the sources you are defending containing hearsay which is under discussion at BLPN, a request that was posted over an hour before you chose to post to this Arbcom case. The Fiona Robertson twitter quote tangentially mentioned in an article not about the BC tribunal case is unrelated to the problematic hearsay allegations, Roberton was commenting on the BC tribunal case itself, nothing else, this is not evidence to support the inclusion of any other material other than Robertson's opinion about the BC tribunal case (which is remarkably tangential even for that). Your unnecessarily repeating the full legal name of a non-notable trans woman in the BC tribunal case, is "unhelpful" for Wikipedia and continuing repost these links to damaging hearsay in multiple forums is a matter of serious concern against WP:BLP which applies to this page as much as anywhere else. In no way does this censor factual and encyclopaedic material to understand the BC tribunal case, such as including the plaintiff's use of racist language reported in the press and raised as part of the case. In no way is this a threat, these are facts of policy. --Fæ (talk) 12:40, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Greenrd: It has been stated clearly, repeatedly, unambiguously and accurately that "This does not and need not impede or censor the use of valid civil discussion on Wikipedia in order to create and improve articles about these or related topics." Your statement is false and states that it does the precise opposite of these words. Please revisit your statement.

You have made a personal allegation against me that there is a "trans ideology" that you espouse. I do no such thing and a "trans ideology" does not exist, neither does a "gay agenda". Please strike this unsourced and dangerously misleading personal attack. Wikipedia discussions are not a platform to promote harmful personal views about minority groups, or to promote myths about minority groups outside of the context of an academic discussion to improve Wikipedia articles that includes these topics.

It is not a transgender "ideology", for any Wikipedian to pursue the enforcement of Wikipedia policies, nor is it an "ideology" for any Wikipedian to make statements of verifiable fact and logic. In Wikipedia's voice, trans women are women. A transgender ideology is not a verifiable fact, it is a populist myth promoted by anti-trans lobbyists. A Wikipedian using Wikipedia to promote or air their personal anti-trans views, rather than presenting verifiable evidence for article improvement, is misusing Wikipedia, breaking consensus agreed policies and breaching the website terms of use. It is not a personal attack, an ideology or a blockable offence to state these facts about Wikipedia.

It is a verifiable fact, that the current Wikipedia editing environment is hostile to any Wikipedian seeking to enforce policies in the area of respectful treatment of transgender Wikipedians and transgender people generally. As an illustration, see this "joke" made today diff, this is normal for Wikipedia and any objections to it will be a cause for derision and an excuse to pile on abuse. On this topic, Wikipedians can and do suffer personal abuse, attacks, misgendering, misrepresentation, extensive opposition research and are consistently the target of off-wiki canvassing and harassment intended to shut them up and force them to go away. This is happening right now for this Arbcom Clarification request. Should Arbcom wish to consider an alternative clarification and want to discuss evidence, they should consider how that can be done without those supplying evidence becoming targets of coordinated off-wiki abusive campaigns clearly intended to silence minority voices. It is a fallacy to believe that requests like this are open to all members of the community. --Fæ (talk) 09:21, 10 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Greenrd: I am unclear why you want to double down. There is no argument here, there is no requirement for anyone to argue with you on Wikipedia to change your personal beliefs that a "trans ideology" exists, when it is simply an offensive anti-trans myth. You are consistently using Wikipedia to promote and air personal anti-trans views, rather than presenting verifiable evidence for article improvement. You are misusing Wikipedia, breaking consensus agreed policies and breaching the website terms of use. I am uninterested in what transphobic rubbish you want publish off-wiki, so long as you are not targeting and harassing Wikipedians, but none of what you have espoused in your Arbcom statement can possibly improve Wikipedia, it can only distress and drive away our tiny percentage of Wikipedia contributors who are openly identified transgender people. With anti-trans jokes, views and hounding being "normal for Wikipedia", and none of that highly visible anti-trans abuse in forums like ANI ever being the cause of sanctions or warnings because "free speech", then we may as well honestly explain to new editors that if they are transgender, the only safe way to contribute to this project is to go back in the closet, because they are not welcome here and the Usual Suspects (many of them being here for more than a decade) will happily be allowed to drive them off this project. --Fæ (talk) 11:17, 11 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Mendaliv (GamerGate)[edit]

First a technical point: Given this is a request to clarify or amend the GamerGate case, I think it is necessary that the parties to that case be notified.

Second: I don't believe this is a mere technical clarification, but may be a significant expansion of scope. The GamerGate case itself, after all, was explicitly scoped to the article Gamergate controversy and related articles including biographies (see WP:ARBGG FoF #1). I don't think Fae's point that the GG arbitration case superseded or "took over" the Sexology case is correct. I certainly don't find any indication of this in the casepage of either WP:ARBGG or WP:ARBSEX, but I admit I could be wrong and thus think some further explanation of this would be appropriate. I'll also note that the DS regime from the sexology case was rescinded in 2017. The clarifying note in ARBSEX that "Discretionary sanctions authorized in the GamerGate arbitration case, which may apply to this topic area, remain available." does not strike me as extending the GG DS regime to everything that the sexology case covered, but merely pointing out that articles previously covered by the sexology case which also fall under the GG arbitration case could still have discretionary sanctions applied under the GG case.

I think the proper vehicle for this idea is not an ARCA-based motion, but a general sanctions regime as ratified by the community, or (failing that) a new arbitration case on LGBT+ issues. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 14:27, 2 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Fæ: Thanks, that actually clears it up a lot for me. I think there are two parts to this: First, what the motion actually says (the DS regime is rescinded), and second, that there are some additional comments by the arbs indicating that the GG DS regime may be useful for the topic area. That certainly wasn't an extension or expansion of the GG case to cover all LGBT+ issues. If it was, why wasn't it reflected in the motion? And why wasn't it raised as an ARCA of the GG case rather than of the Sexology case? Similarly, even if it was intended to transfer "ownership" of the problem to the GG case, I think it raises almost exactly the same problem that led to the ARCA that spawned that motion: Just as it being inappropriate to handle LGBT+ issues in the same regime as we handle ones related to paraphilias, it strikes me as inappropriate to handle LGBT+ issues in the same regime as we handle ones related to Gamergate. While I have no doubt that some rulemaking, particularly related to misgendering and civility in discussions, would be a great idea, I don't think this is an appropriate use of the Committee's discretionary sanctions power. The Community should be given an opportunity to work together and scope this properly, rather than leaving it to "legislation by ArbCom". —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 14:44, 2 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Fæ: The problem being raised here is how Arbcom expects them to be enforced, because they just ain't. I think that would be evidence to present either here or in a new case filing, and why I think it would be better to open a new case if general sanctions don't happen. This is a different set of issues than covered by the GamerGate case (as the findings of fact in that case make abundantly clear) and it is frankly an improper use of the arbitration mechanism to do things this way. If Arbcom wants to clarify that they are uninterested in ensuring the current DS help to reduce disruption or harassment of transgender editors, and thinks someone else should do it, fine, but I really do not believe that's what the committee intended or indends the Wikipedia community to read in to a lack of implementation by administrators and a lack of requests for implementation. I think this is a very unfair statement both to the Committee and to the administrators who are involved in enforcing discretionary sanctions regimes. The fact that the Committee shouldn't be legislating has nothing to do with the individual arbitrators' belief that LGBT+ issues are important. This is clearly a matter for a new case, and not for expansion of DS regimes—which are supposed to be the exception, not the rule—to cover more and more areas of Wikipedia. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 15:23, 2 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The expansion and consolidation of DS regimes revealed by MJL is shocking. This is not an appropriate use of the Arbitration Committee. The purpose of the Arbitration Committee is to end discrete disputes; it is retrospective in nature, and to an extent discretionary sanctions merely existed to provide a uniform means of ongoing control over areas of dispute while those disputes were ongoing. What is being contemplated here, and where discretionary sanctions are being used, is very prospective. What’s even stranger, is that these regimes are being consolidated into a case that made no evidentiary findings of fact related to sitewide discussion of gender. If you want to roll these things under the Gamergate arbitration case, the amendment must include new findings of fact. Otherwise this is policymaking, pure and simple. I have no doubt that the community will agree that issues of gender need to be handled in an appropriate way throughout the site. That is the community’s role in the absence of a discrete controversy with a finite scope. This is not the role of the Committee and is expressly prohibited by the arbitration policy. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 16:50, 2 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

What's important here is that the Committee's role is in dispute resolution: There must be a dispute, and it must be properly before the Committee. This is the case because the Committee adjudicates disputes, and adjudication is by definition a retrospective and remedial action. Rulemaking or legislation, on the other hand, is prospective and deals with factual issues either not yet developed or not particularized to the individual level. This is a problem commonly found in administrative areas, the distinction between adjudication and rulemaking, so it is not surprising that the Committee has run into this same problem. But let there be no mistake: When the Committee seeks to regulate all pages, all persons, or all future events, it is engaged in rulemaking. What Fæ proposes is rulemaking, and it is improper within the arbitration policy, which I suggest you all read along with my comments: First, the scope of arbitration is clear that it is "To act as a final binding decision-maker primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve". While other tasks and purposes are mentioned, these are all adjudicative in nature. This is coupled with the clear statement in the section on policy and precedent, which states, "The arbitration process is not a vehicle for creating new policy by fiat. The Committee's decisions may interpret existing policy and guidelines, recognise and call attention to standards of user conduct, or create procedures through which policy and guidelines may be enforced." These are not vehicles for creating new substantive rules, which is clearly the aim of this request. Regardless of intent—and I'm sure both Fæ and the members of the Committee have only the best intentions aimed at resolving what is clearly an important area—this Committee is not a rulemaking body. The community is the relevant rulemaker.
I additionally object to the change of scope of the GamerGate case, which does not include generalized issues relating to LGBT+ rights either in article or talk space as Fæ wishes to expand it. Not one single finding of fact in that case dealt with gender generally. Therefore, I submit that the issue of gender is not and was never properly before the Committee in the GamerGate case, and it would be manifestly improper as a matter of procedure and of practice to implement new discretionary sanctions to cover them. The fact that they are important issues and that there is active disruption is not relevant to this Committee's jurisdiction. The relative simplicity of the construction requested change—that things like misgendering be prohibited everywhere—is an even greater reason to deny this through ARCA: Why should the community be unable to handle it if it's properly requested to handle it? This is why these matters must be properly before the Committee before a decision is rendered: There must be evidence of failed resolution through other channels and that arbitration will end the dispute. I therefore move that this ARCA request be denied, and Fæ be encouraged either (1) to start a RfC requesting general sanctions in the area of LGBT+ rights, or (2) to file a request for arbitration requesting the Committee to decide on these issues. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 00:13, 3 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• @Johnuniq: Having read what you just linked, I agree that this is the most likely event to precipitate this request. On the basis that this has no relationship to Gamergate whatsoever, I renew my request that the Committee summarily deny the clarification petition and direct Fae to pursue other dispute resolution, and failing that, file a request for arbitration. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 01:46, 3 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Regarding Fae’s indication of an unwillingness to seek lesser dispute resolution, I think this provides sufficient evidence of a failure to seek lesser dispute resolution. As others have indicated, the scope of the GamerGate case is not infinite, and so the scope of the discretionary sanctions, even as broadly construed as they typically are, is not infinite. If the problem Fae has personally encountered is indeed personally troubling, then Fae surely must have sought lesser dispute resolution somewhere, anywhere—even if not ANI then someplace else. The failure or refusal to do so terminates this Committee’s jurisdiction. Lacking jurisdiction, the Committee must deny this request. You cannot IAR your way around the arbitration policy—for if you can, it would be an utter slap in the face to everyone who has had a case request denied under it. All this says is that if you accumulate over 7 million edits across all foundation projects, you get special handling. Please don’t send that message. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 17:01, 3 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• In light of Fae’s statement that there is no current dispute requiring dispute resolution, and that this request is merely to deal with what is presented as a general problem, I renew my request that the Committee deny Fae’s petition here as inconsistent with the Arbitration Policy, which has always required a live dispute. If there is no live dispute, and Fae is requesting general changes to policy (or discretionary sanctions, however you wish to describe it) then all the more reason this petition should be denied and Fae directed to start an RfC, or a more preliminary discussion at one of the village pump pages. Furthermore, in light of Fae’s assertion that there is no active dispute requiring intervention, I withdraw my suggestion that the Committee direct Fae to file a request for arbitration: Fae’s own assertion that there is no live dispute would mandate the Committee’s denial of such a case request. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 17:51, 3 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• @AGK: An excellent analysis, and in my view the one that must carry. Fae is asking for something imminently unreasonable from the Committee; it is the equivalent of insisting that a round peg (LGBT+ issues) be forced through a square hole (Gamergate controversy issues). Even within the Committee's (over)use of the phrase "broadly construed", this is a step (or two or three) too far. The vast majority of the universe of issues subsumed under "LGBT+ issues" were not properly before the Committee in the GamerGate case (nor in Sexology, nor in Manning, nor in GGTF). The intentions here and in previous ARCAs are certainly noble, but those noble intentions must be enacted through the proper channels. And in light of Fae's confirmation that there is no live dispute here, that must be through community rulemaking processes.
  Moreover, Fae has raised a great deal of issues that should be substantiated by fact evidence in order to properly counsel the form of Committee action. I believe AGK tees up this very issue. Indeed, if the Committee is not required to collect fact evidence and make findings of fact before taking actions, how is it different than a policymaker by fiat? Certainly, there are cases where "interpretation" (i.e., providing binding or nonbinding guidance in the event of disagreements in application of past decisions in active disputes) and "amendment" (i.e., providing binding changes to previous cases in light of changed circumstances or errors) might be appropriate, but where the request seeks a complete change of the scope of those past cases, such requests must be denied as an improper use of Committee processes.
  I urge the Committee to respect the community's autonomy and first give it the opportunity to answer Fae's call for equity before concluding that it is utterly impotent to handle these serious issues. This community is not so bigoted as to be utterly unable to thoughtfully and reasonably handle such a request for general action. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 18:38, 3 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• I concur with Vanamonde's point: Fae has failed to provide evidence that the administrators at AE are failing to enforce the interpretation of the GG DS regime being asserted here. Fae's further claim that seeking lesser dispute resolution is either futile or impossible, is both unsupported by evidence and, frankly, self-defeating: If seeking lesser dispute resolution is futile or impossible in the way Fae claims, then no interpretation this Committee could provide would change that. Trans individuals would still be unable to seek lesser dispute resolution. Therefore, Fae's request should be dismissed as self-mooting. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 20:26, 4 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• In light of how off-topic this request has devolved, I renew my suggestion that this discussion be closed as rejected. I am not sure what Fae is trying to do here, but I doubt it will end well if this discussion continues as it is going. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 19:46, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• @Newyorkbrad: My main problem with this is that the Footnoted Quotes/Editing of BLPs case actually made findings of fact relevant to the general area of BLPs, and it was clear from the outset to all involved that the case was intended to deal with all BLPs. GamerGate, despite the tucking of "gender" into a particular remedy, made a contrary finding of fact: Namely, the locus of the dispute was confined to the Gamergate controversy and related biographies. The outrageously broad construction anticipated by this request would not be made acceptable by changing the name of the case. Issues with the breadth that Fae imagines are not and were never properly before the Committee in the GamerGate case, and are not properly incorporated into the GamerGate decision. This is an issue that requires one of two things: (1) a new case request, or (2) a reopening of the evidentiary record that results in new findings of fact to support this new interpretation of the remedy. I believe that if the Committee even takes on this problem, #1 is the best way to do it, and #2 still has some air of legitimacy. Doing it any other way, such as by pure motion or interpretive statement here, would be entirely illegitimate policymaking by the Committee and a violation of the Arbitration Policy's prohibition thereupon. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 15:58, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• @GorillaWarfare: As I stated to NYB above, the problem with this idea is that the entire GG case was scoped to the Gamergate controversy, and there were no findings of fact related to gender issues in general. Using something so simple as a case rename to dramatically and unreasonably expand the scope of a single case, years after it was decided, with absolutely no discussion or findings on the record that the expansion in scope is necessary or prudent, is nothing but policymaking by fiat. It is illegitimate and it undermines the credibility of everything this Committee does. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 19:00, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• @Newyorkbrad: I have two points on that: First, I need to reiterate that there are no findings of fact or principles in the final decision or even in the proposed decision upon which the DS regime could possibly extend to all corners of the encyclopedia as regards gender. Reading the DS regime that way would render it illegitimate policymaking by fiat. This Committee cannot simply pronounce discretionary sanctions regimes without justification, and that justification must be part of the case. To do otherwise is, again, pure policymaking. Second: The existing findings of fact expressly and explicitly confine the scope of the controversy to the Gamergate controversy and related biographies. Reading the DS regime as escaping that scope would render it illegitimate policymaking in a content area that was not properly before the Committee. Simply calling it "uncontroversial" is not reasonable; there was no time for controversy to build as, from the look of things, this very aspect of the final decision was introduced in the 11th hour of the case and was never subject to serious discussion or debate among the parties or participants. Looking at gender on a sitewide basis was, as far as I can tell, never part of the evidentiary or workshop scope, and consequently was never briefed in any way for the Committee. This Committee cannot, consistent with the arbitration policy, simply tack on the equivalent of a legislative rider to a tangentially related case and then co-opt governance of such a wide area of Wikipedia. It is policymaking, pure and simple, to do that sort of thing with no mandate from the Community, no relevant case request, no evidence, no workshopping, and no discussion on point of that specific issue, where the final decision expressly and explicitly excludes a sitewide and topic-agnostic scope. The GamerGate discretionary sanctions regime insofar as it deals with gender, must be limited to the Gamergate controversy. A contrary reading is contrary to the arbitration policy and unsupported by the history of the case and a rational understanding of the purposes of arbitration as an adjudicative rather than rulemaking process. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 22:32, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• @GorillaWarfare: Well, no, that would not be a legitimate scope for the GamerGate discretionary sanctions regime. As I've said repeatedly, the scope of the dispute within the very first FoF of that case was explicitly the Gamergate controversy. The Committee does not have the authority to enact discretionary sanctions regimes of limitless scope or on matters tangentially related to the dispute, that were never subject to findings of fact, never workshopped, and never really discussed with stakeholders. This is why the arbitration process exists and what separates arbitration from policymaking by fiat.
  As to the dismissive suggestion that a separate ARCA be opened, I see no need to do so. I don't seek an amendment of the GamerGate case in the first place. The fact is that the interpretation being put forth by Fae, NYB, and yourself are contrary to the arbitration policy and therefore illegitimate. This Committee cannot simply ignore the arbitration policy when it's inconvenient. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 02:37, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  @GorillaWarfare: The remedy cannot have a scope that extends beyond the case in which it was enacted. That is fundamental to the concept of arbitration. Read the arbitration policy. The "scope and responsibilities" section is crystal clear on when the Committee is authorized to act, and that is not and has never been in any area at any time. There must be a dispute that the Community has been unable to resolve, and that (arguably) was the Gamergate controversy. The Committee limited the scope of the arbitration in the very first finding of fact in that case. The GamerGate remedies regime as written can be read as authorizing discretionary sanctions in all areas dealing with gender, but that would be outside the scope of the first finding of fact, and moreover outside the scope of the dispute for which arbitration was authorized. The sanction you are reading is either an invalid abuse of power or must be limited to the Gamergate controversy. The reading you are choosing is the invalid abuse of power. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 03:32, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

---

In light of the fact that the arbitrators commenting here have made multiple conflicting interpretations of policy, I am requesting a formal ruling on the following questions:

1. Does the GamerGate discretionary sanctions regime apply to pages not within the scope of any evidence or findings of fact in the GamerGate case?
2. Can the Arbitration Committee, consistent with the arbitration policy, enact discretionary sanctions regimes affecting pages that are tangentially related or unrelated to the case or dispute for which the regime is enacted?

Thank you. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 03:58, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• @MJL: You list three FoFs dealing with three individuals. Those are not sufficient to support a DS regime of such broad reach. There must be a rational, logical, explained, and documented connection between findings of disruption and the need for sitewide, indiscriminate sanctions against nonparties. You also point to the Manning dispute case as establishing the paradoxical claim that individual editors' pronoun choices are sacrosanct and must be respected lest the banhammer should fall. Not only is this a dramatic overextension of the Manning case, it would constitute an improper use of the arbitration committee as a policymaking organ, for reasons that I have stated repeatedly above. The arbitration policy expressly prohibits such policymaking. Unfortunately, this is what happens when the Committee doesn't show its work when it changes things, and instead just makes a motion: Things just get made up or done because they seem needful without regard to their propriety. There needs to be an explanation on the record of why the Committee finds the particular action comports with not only the arbitration policy but whichever policy the Committee is purporting to interpret (which is, by the way, the limit of the Committee's jurisdiction).
  In connection with the promised talk I'm going to have with WTT following the Ritchie debacle, which I anticipate will of necessity also talk about the matters I have brought up here, I am hopeful that some significant changes will be coming to how the Committee does business. This is just one of many cases where acting professionally requires some more form than we're accustomed to using.
  As an aside, I would oppose opening a case for "gender-related disputes" with MJL as a fictional party. There must be a live dispute for the scope of the Committee's jurisdiction to attach. You might as well name completely fictional parties like "Fairfax's Devisee" or "Hunter's Lessee" at that point. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 05:00, 9 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• @Aquillion: The problem with the Committee creating a new generic framework of sanctions that aren't under the umbrella of a particular case is that doing so would be policymaking. The Committee is not authorized to make policy, it is authorized to adjudicate disputes. Without findings of fact, without parties making arguments, without the full framework of a case, Committee action here would blatantly be policymaking in violation of the arbitration policy. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 02:18, 20 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Masem (Gamergate)[edit]

Fæ's concern is 100% valid. I was originally going to say though that trans-gendered issues didn't really apply to GG, but reading the discretionary sanctions about it: (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., the concerns of ridiculing transgendered individuals seem to fall within b and c of this. So if an editor is going about clearly mocking a known transgender individual (including on-wiki editors), that should be stopped immediately.

I question though if this really is appropriate for GG, because it is dealing with behavior that was not explored during GG. GG was more about disruptions on mainspace pages in the GG area, and extending to some gender-related disputes (individuals at the center of it). There were some behavior problems that were explored, but it was not for insulting other editors in the manner Fæ brings up (irrespective of the trans angle).

Adding what Fæ has asked as an GG extension feels wrong. Even going back to the Sexology case, that was more about POV conflicts than editors demeaning other editors or people. So if the Sexology DS was still active, it would be wrong to add it there too. So I really feel this is a worthwhile statement that should be made to address this type of behavior, but not as part of the GG DS. I don't want to discourage Fæ from pursuring this type of principle elsewhere on en.wiki, just that I don't think adding it to a DS that is in the same ballpark is necessary the best way to do that. --Masem (t) 15:37, 2 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Fæ, going off Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Sexology, I'm not seeing any of the statements or FOF that point out the ridiculing of transgenders as part of the issue, though that may have been part of the off-site behavior. I do see mention about unprofessional behavior, so I can fully understand why its DS was moved from "articles" to "pages", but that doesn't still seem to suggest that it was due to ridiculing editors on trans-related issues. I can speak as a key party on GG that that case also wasn't about similar ridicule, but did involve similar unprofessional approaches several editors did on talk pages, leading to the DS to cover "pages" and not just "articles" (but that also was because we were being brigaded by IP, and thus bore the 500/30 rule).

But that said, stating that a trans ideology exists during discussions, appears and can deliberately demean Wikipedia contributors, if not strictly stated in the context of directly quoting a source for an article about this topic rather than an editor making this statement in their "own voice". is concerning. We clearly want to stop targeted insults from WP editors, obviously, but we also want to make sure talk pages are open enough to properly discuss an article, and we have to be able to separate these. I should not be wary of being hit with DS if I went to trans woman and said "I have several RSes here that identify (insulting term) as a negative slang for trans women, should we add it appropriately?" (which I can see some editors feel as if that is possibly insulting but clearly meant to improve the article), whereas if I went "Why not just call them (insulting term)?" I would fully expect some type of warning or action. Making sure when it is proper to apply a DS here would require more effort than what went into the GG or Sexology case, and hence why I think slapping an addendum onto the current GG is not a good approach. --Masem (t) 16:23, 2 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

My primary concern is not with the intent, as I said, we should have some language - strong policy and/or immediate administrative actions like a GS or DS - to stop the disruption. It's more that GG, while it meets the topic area of gender-related disputes, didn't really have to do with editors using demeaning language. It's a convenient spot to put it in, but if a future editor came to review the DS, there's nothing in the case to support it being there. A community-agreed GS separate from any Arbcom case (but clearly allowing that GS to stand atop results of GG, Sexology, and GGTF) would be the more proper solution, to me. --Masem (t) 16:39, 2 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

MJL: with GGTF, thought, there is at least clear review of an editor demeaning other people including other editors, and the language of its passed motions make that a reasonably strong point. GG didn't really have that. --Masem (t) 16:26, 2 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Mendaliv states my concern is much more policy/procedures-based argument. --Masem (t) 17:14, 2 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The point that Johnuniq brings up (which just came up at BLP/N) is exactly the concern I expressed above. To be blunt, talk pages of mainspace pages cannot be "safe spaces" where certain concepts are forbidden. There are going to be ideas and concepts that some editors may feel offensive, but if the context is wholly within the scope of trying to discuss improvements for the article, that's 100% acceptable use of a talk page. The case that Johnuniq is troubling because it seems to be aimed to stifle ideas that, while controversial, seem appropriate to discuss. These issues are waaaaay beyond the scope of what the FOF of GG resulted in, so again, I don't think this should be just amended onto GG. --Masem (t) 17:14, 3 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Worm That Turned: I would assume that "gender warrior" is a similar slang as social justice warrior, which is generally derogatory. But it does depend on context as your example suggests a positive approach. --Masem (t) 13:55, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe the larger problem here is how DS are meant to be used. I always took DS to apply to the set of article/other spaces that are defined by the DS, with respect to the problems identified in the FOF and other remedies from the associated ArbCom case. So, GG being principally issues with edit warring and POV pushing, would mean that edit warring and POV pushing on "gender-related pages" is covered by it, but not other types of behavior problems (of which standard community actions should be sought). The way some here are suggesting, these DS would be for any perceived infraction on those pages. Otherwise, we start getting into the realm that multiple DS can apply to a single page (eg Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez could potentially fall under both AP2 and GG due to her political support of LBGTQ). --Masem (t) 14:35, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by MJL[edit]

@Fæ, Mendaliv, GoldenRing, and Masem: The request would no doubt fall under Gamergate. This was the premise for the request I made earlier this year which resulted in this motion. It brought Manning (which dealt with issues related to transgender identity) unequivocally within the scope of Gamergate. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 16:04, 2 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

GGTF also was amended in the same motion. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 16:07, 2 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. I am incredibly confused as to what I stumbled upon here. Though I was a fresh editor, the whole purpose of my original request was to avoid this one. Manning covered conduct as it related to gender identity. For the same reasons for Eastern Europe being amended did this occur. Arbcom has a clear interested in ensuring there are as few overlapping DS as possible.
  At the time, I suggested that GamerGate be renamed. However, Thryduulf had an even better idea to open up a case titled Gender-related disputes for the purpose of collating and renaming the existing sanctions. That'd be my preference now because we already have Findings of Fact from Manning and GGTF to justify DS. It's just a question of where to log it. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 21:16, 2 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Further comments

I sometimes feel like there is this magical aura that follows longtime established users around. I just quite don't get it. I'll say something and am lucky if one or two people respond to me. Fæ posts here and suddenly this DS regime is a BIG DEAL. Nearly five times the amount of people have responded to this request compared to my own. Am I doing something wrong here? What did I miss?

Here are the things I've said a few months ago:

• January 2019: I start editing Wikipedia more and more regularly. I clearly fall in love with the project side of Wikipedia.
• 13 February 2019: My first post ever related to Arbcom. After thorough research to the current DS/regime and ongoing participation in this RFC started by WanderingWanda, I made a formal ARCA request that Manning be amended to clarify Gamergate which included the following reasoning:

...[M]y proposal is that the remedies [of Manning] continue forward with only a slight amendment to show that the case now serves as a clarification of Gamergate. This field of debate still has much activity, so in my view having this exact case to fall back on would be preferable. Gamergate did not once reference LGBT+ issues specifically, so I do not see the problem of having this (sic) Manning serve to supplement it. [emphasis added]

• 21 February 2019: The motion to amend Manning is passed.
• 28 February 2019: Anyone here remember the Humour article fiasco? Well, I was there. More than that, I tried to get it switched out before it was published to avoid such a controversy (archive)
• 2 March 2019: Fæ gets a DS alert in relation to it. I simply think to myself, well at least people can't say this pronoun business doesn't fit under Gamergate now.
• 4 March 2019‎: My rename finally took effect.
• 5 March 2019: I suggest maybe we have used that moment to take consideration of the broader issues at play:Special:Permalink/886796817#Supplement_(2) (because it seemed like the community wasn't really quite grasping it).
• I'm blanking on the last time we had a gender related controversy that touched arbcom. I've pretty much consistently referenced the motion I made because it has been (and still remains) the only significant thing I have ever done related to arbitration.

Okay, now that it is understood what my involvement has been in this area; let me explain what should happen: Please everyone just read Manning.

• @Mendaliv: Do you want FoF? Here you go.
• @Fæ: Do you want it made clear that pronoun usage is under DS/regime? Well here it is. In no uncertain terms the remedy reads: For the avoidance of doubt, [GG's sanctions] apply to any dispute regarding the proper article title, pronoun usage, or other manner of referring to any individual known to be or self-identifying as transgender... If someone reads that and questions whether pronoun usage falls under GG's DS, have them read it again until they get it right.

That now being said...

• @GorillaWarfare and the committee: I am very sorry to take up your time, but I beg you not to just rename GamerGate here and move on. Give yourselves a break for now, but set a deadline. Then, this December; open up a fresh case page (if you need a party for sake of form, I'm more than happy to volunteer myself). Call it Gender-related disputes, skip the preliminary statements and evidence periods but just go straight to the workshop. Only using evidence from past cases, let the community help you remix the best parts of GGTF, Manning, and Gamergate to just create a neutrally worded case and discretionary sanction regime. Everyone will stop being confused about why we issue Gamergate related sanctions for transgender pronoun disputes, and we can all just move on. *sighs*

Thank you all. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 04:40, 9 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Mendaliv: When did I say individual editors' pronoun choices are sacrosanct and must be respected lest the banhammer should fall? My interpretation of Manning is that any discussion about pronouns is under the sanction regime and only provides the method for editor conduct in this area to be more carefully scrutinized. Misgendering someone on purpose is likely to be interpreted as a personal attack just as much as calling someone is a bigot for a clear accidental slip up.
Also, you'll notice that there are more than three FoF for that case. One of such had to do with community conduct.
What is your preferred solution? Have three cases with three different sanctions again? Why??
Finally, point me to the section of WP:ARBPOL that specifically says a dispute has to be ongoing in the present moment a request is filed.
If the community cannot handle Disputes A, B, nor C; then they fall under Arbcom's remit. Once Arbcom makes a decision it is both binding and final. Then the following applies: The Committee retains jurisdiction over all matters heard by it, including associated enforcement processes, and may, at its sole discretion, revisit any proceeding at any time. It can and should open up a fresh case page to revisit Disputes A, B, and C to finally make them comport with one another. You should want this ideally. Arbcom could theoretically just throw out the DS/regime all together once it's back on the table in the proceedings I described. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 05:33, 9 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Sitush[edit]

• People misgender on this project all the time. Almost always, in my experience, it is unintentional, although sometimes people get very upset about it. I only edit LGBT stuff occasionally and usually when it intersects with something that I more regularly edit. I get confused with the politics of it all, I sometimes tranpose the letters in various acronyms, I understand that some groups want to remove the "L" from LGBT, others want to add "Q" and/or "I", others use "+", and so on. Then there is the TERF stuff that boggles my mind, and now Fae is mentioning a couple of other terms I've never seen before. It is a minefield for anyone who is not right on the ball (a recent cartoon in Private Eye showed a teacher in a sex ed class writing "LGBT+" on a blackboard and one kid saying to another, "Since when did sex ed involve algebra?" Or something similar). I'm not entirely sure what Fae's intentions are here, nor even if they are correct in their interpretation of what is or is not a misgendering (which seems to be a very politicised subject), but it does concern me that inadvertent use of a word or acronym might lead to summary sanctions. I don't think we can compare this complex, oft-changing scenario with a multitude of neologisms etc with, say, use of the n-word. The latter is, I think, pretty well established territory but I suspect that the former is not. Am I misunderstanding something? Do I now have to first read several articles discussing the various terms before I write anything on the subject? - Sitush (talk) 23:02, 2 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Thanks @Johnuniq: for providing what appears to be the context. In light of that, I wonder why Fae didn't use TERF as an example in the request. Even I know it is a political hot potato, even if I don't necessarily fully understand it. I'm not convinced that weaponising a DS regime by amendment to resolve a current dispute is a good thing, if that is what is going on. Sort out the dispute and then ask for amendment etc. - Sitush (talk) 07:43, 3 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• An excellent set of comments from EdChem. I think they're the way forward, both in terms of this request and any future developments/strategy. - Sitush (talk) 05:02, 4 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• @Worm That Turned: I am wondering whether Fæ mis-spoke when they mentioned "gender warrior" above. I recall their upset about SilkTork referring to "diversity terrorist" here and later clarifying it here. IIRC, Fæ continued to raise the issue in that case and elsewhere but I've not seen a mention of "gender warrior". - Sitush (talk) 16:57, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Johnuniq[edit]

I wondered what the background for this was. It appears to be Meghan Murphy where there are disputes over the degree to which the person or her blog should be described as trans-exclusionary radical feminist or TERF. The talk page shows the dispute including Pyxis Solitary saying "she's against trans ideology" which caused Fæ to respond with diff saying "trans ideology" was an attack on all trans people which, if continued, would warrant sanctions under WP:ARBGG. The issue of whether mentioning a "trans ideology" among off-wiki activists is a sanctionable attack should not be decided in a clarification request. Johnuniq (talk) 01:38, 3 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by EvergreenFir[edit]

I support this motion. The "Manning naming dispute" case made it clear long ago that transgender topics are an area with disruption. The GG case included issues of gender identity as well (see histories of discussions related to Quinn and Wu). Discussing that GG covers gender, cisgender and transgender, would be useful. EvergreenFir (talk) 04:37, 3 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Pyxis Solitary[edit]

This comment addresses the mention of my name in the  Statement by Johnuniq  regarding the Meghan Murphy BLP talk page discussion: First sentence description TERF vs radical feminist.

Allow me to shed all the light  from/to  Pyxis Solitary:
In reponse to the Murphy topic I said: "her history regarding transgender issues is that she is not against trans people, she's against trans ideology and transgender rights legislation. It's a fine line, but an important distinction".
To which the other editor mentioned (Fæ) replied: "By the way, Pyxis Solitary, there is no such thing as "trans ideology". If you continue to spout unsourced damaging nonsense that so blatantly attacks all trans people this way, you should be blocked or banned from Wikipedia in line with the Arbcom Discretionary Sanctions applying to gender related topics that you were alerted to in May this year". That last bit refers to this notice she/he left on my talk page about a candidate for deletion.
Then this editor continued to pile it on with this and this. To which I responded here.
The editor continued with this. And I replied.
Followed by said editor continuing the inquisition. Again, I replied.
Editor continued with the same line of accusation. I responded. Editor continued. I again replied.
It's shameful how ArbCom has made it possible for the Discretionary Sanctions policy to be weaponized as a threat used by editors with axes to grind.

By the way, the same IP editor that personally attacked me in the article, and accused me of being a "TERF" in the talk page, attacked me again with a bogus statement attributed to me with a fake signature — which was deleted by editor Fæ before I returned to the discussion. And of course, IP editor left another accusation in my talk page. Pyxis Solitary yak 06:15, 3 August 2019 (UTC); (edited) 08:09, 3 August 2019 (UTC); (edited: emphasis mine) 13:47, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: After reading the comments here about Gamer Gate, I just want to say that I did not know about "Gamer Gate" until a d/s alert was posted on my talk page (the template was added to the talk page of the candidate for deletion after discussions were well underway). I'm not into video games and I don't do Twitter and Reddit, or whatever other vomitatus platforms were involved. There are billions of people on this planet ... but there aren't billions of gamers and people who waste their time as an Internet chatty-Cathy -- and many of them are Wikipedia editors. Do those of you who created the Gamer Gate d/s really think that every editor who edits the subjects that were added under it knows what GG is? Pyxis Solitary yak 08:52, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Thryduulf (re: GamerGate)[edit]

That MJL I do still think that it would be a good idea to have a new case, Gender-related disputes covering

• Disputes and controversies related to gender, gender identity and gender expression (including pronouns)
• Disputes and controversies related to gender gaps (i.e. editors and content) and actions/projects/etc related to these
• A review of what existing sanctions exist, how they are being used, and how well they are or are not working
• What, if any, areas that are covered need not be covered any longer
• What, if any, additional areas should be covered
• Whether collating all the existing and new sanctions into one set would be desirable (and if so, do so).

This would be quite a large case, which the Committee probably has not got capacity for while Fram is ongoing and Palestine-Israel 4 is pending so I suggest adding it to the queue rather than opening immediately. In the mean time, I would strongly encourage Fæ and everyone else to try and resolve any disputes using the current available methods (AN/I, AE, etc) so that there is good, recent evidence to feed into the review. Thryduulf (talk) 11:43, 3 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Vanamonde (GamerGate)[edit]

• I confess I am not as familiar with the GamerGate dustups as some, but this request, and the responses to it, baffle me. I cannot see how disputes related to transgender rights and transgender activism do not fall under "any gender-related dispute or controversy [broadly construed]". If the Meghan Murphy dispute were under discussion at AE, I for one would consider it within the scope of the discretionary sanctions. I see no purpose being served by addressing a hypothetical statement about a gay agenda. The very reason discretionary sanctions exist is that it is sometimes difficult to determine in advance what disruptive behavior will look like; DS regimes allow administrators to make decisions on a case by case basis, and with a few exceptions that don't apply here, we are generally quite good at sanctioning disruption when it is brought to our attention. Fæ, if editors are being disruptive in the way you describe, and you believe their edits to be sanctionable under GG discretionary sanctions, why are you here, rather than at AE? Do you have any evidence that admins are unwilling to apply these sanctions in this situation? Vanamonde (Talk) 15:00, 3 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  Fæ, You have not answered my fairly straightforward question. If you are seeing conduct that you believe to be sanctionable under the GamerGate DS regime, why are you not seeking sanctions at WP:AE? Vanamonde (Talk) 17:39, 4 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  Fæ, I did read your statement. I wouldn't have posted mine otherwise. You state that "The problem being raised here is how Arbcom expects them to be enforced, because they just ain't"; but you have no evidence for that assertion. How do you expect admins to enforce discretionary sanctions when no requests for enforcement have been made? Vanamonde (Talk) 19:56, 4 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• In case this wasn't clear already; I, personally, would be quite willing to sanction editors making unsupported allegations under the current discretionary sanctions regime. I'm sure other administrators would be, too. But our willingness and ability to implement such sanctions stems not from specific behaviors being declared verboten by ARBCOM; it comes from being able to detect disruption when we see it. As such, I see no purpose in ARBCOM spending time and effort on this (unless you're looking at a new locus of disruption that isn't explicitly covered by the DS regime, of which no evidence has been provided), and I think that editors concerned by such disruption need to use the primary mechanism for ending it before anything else. There are situations where AE has not done a very good job (the case above this one is an excellent example) but absent evidence of AE failing at its job, I don't see why we're here at all. Vanamonde (Talk) 23:15, 4 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• I don't think there's anything more to do here; surely this can be closed? Vanamonde (Talk) 18:18, 13 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by JzG[edit]

Judging by comments elsewhere and recent edit history, this is not a good faith request for clarification, it is an attempt to use arbitration sanctions to enforce Fae's views of how a subject should be covered, in a context where numerous attempts to do this via normal Wikipedia processes are failing. Guy (Help!) 17:29, 3 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

What EdChem said, absolutely. Guy (Help!) 23:33, 3 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by EdChem (GamerGate)[edit]

• Given the quote from Masem, it seems to me that there is a lack of clarity here about the coverage of some gender issues under the DS regime.
• The fact that there is a lack of clarity does not mean that the suggestion by Fæ is the way to resolve the problem, nor does it mean that Guy's observations of attempts to weaponise DS regimes is necessarily incorrect.
• Please, in clarifying, make clear that there are distinctions between misgendering / comments that can give offense that occur as a consequence of mistake or ignorance, those arising from deliberately provocative wordings and made with an intent to cause offense, and situations where an editor might be looking to push an agenda and express outrage. The Manning naming dispute included plenty of examples from the first two categories and a motivation to right great wrongs has led to postings / main space edits that are inconsistent with policy-compliant editing.
• As a gay man, I've experienced comments and behaviours that I found obnoxious even though they occurred from ignorance, been targeted by deliberate homophobia, and had times where I have had to decide whether to speak up or hold my tongue. I'm all for WP being a safe environment for all members of the broader LGBTQIA+ community but some incidents call for discussion, education, and persuasion and not sanction or threat (which is exactly how DS notices can be perceived, notwithstanding the notion that they are information only, etc).
• Short version, clarification is appropriate as the Committee's various motions appear inconsistent... but sensible clarification that does not weaponise the DS regime for those who might want to use it to advance a campaign, and that makes it clear to AE admins and others enforcing the regime that it is important to understand the actual issues. Societal understanding of LGBTQIA+ issues and acceptable behavioural standards are changing and will continue to develop, no doubt too slowly for some and too rapidly for others, and also vary from place to place. I don't envy the Committee or AE admins in trying to balance issues in this area, but I do believe that deliberate provocation and being intentionally offensive calls for a strong response but that this approach is counter-productive for dealing with ignorance or misunderstanding from editors of good will. EdChem (talk) 23:12, 3 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Addendum: Guy has commented at my user talk page, which has led me to reflect on my words and to add a clarification. The term "safe space" has different meanings in different contexts. I believe in a WP that is free from homophobia, transphobia, biphobia, racism, anti-semitism, and prejudices in general when it comes to interactions between editors, and I heartily endorse Guy's term "respectful space." We need to be able to cover difficult subjects in a policy-compliant way, however, and that means discussions of topics and considering views that will sometimes cause a degree of discomfort. I don't mean a safe space in the sense that views that will cause disagreement should not be expressed, even though there are safe spaces in which such rules may be appropriate. WP is not a therapy or support space and should not impose standards that are more appropriate to such spaces, but it is also not a place where deliberate deadnaming, crass generalisations or outright bigotry are tolerable. Consequently, I state for the sake of clarity that "respectful space" is closer to the mark on what I meant as a norm for on-wiki communications than are some connotations of "safe space."

I would also like to clarify that, in referring to my own experiences, I was not thinking solely of on-wiki experiences, or even only online experiences. The first time I had homophobic abuse screamed at me was shocking and a little frightening – and would have been more so had I been alone or in vulnerable circumstances – but I quickly decide that ignoring the event was the wisest course of action. It was illegal, no doubt, but pursuing it was not worth my time, nor was given this individual the satisfaction of having provoked a response. I would encourage Fæ to consider whether there are times when silence is the most eloquent response, where providing a response is not worth the time or effort involved, and whether dismissing something as not worth pursuing is actually a more dignified and effective way to communicate that it isn't worth supplying oxygen to, either by replying or by seeking redress. EdChem (talk) 02:22, 4 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Fæ: I am sorry to read that you see "consider whether there are times when silence is the most eloquent response, where providing a response is not worth the time or effort involved" as "the equivalent of telling newbie LGBT+ contributors to 'grow a thicker skin'" (after a "trim, minor" that was certainly not minor in the sense a minor edit). If someone throws a homophobic slur at me, choosing to ignore that person or not respond is not me giving in to a bully, it's me exercising my right to choose how to spend my time and comes after I have considered whether putting in the effort to challenge the person is justified. That you might make a different decision were you in my place does not even slightly alter either my right to decide for me nor whether my choice is best for me. I am all in favour of preventing bullying on wiki and find transphobia just as repugnant as homophobia and other prejudices – but I don't believe that means that challenging / confronting a bully is always the wisest course of action. Bile spewed by throwaway accounts can be dealt with via WP:RBI without giving the person behind the account the satisfaction of being discussed on ANI. Arguing about minor incivilities can divert attention from broader issues and risks advocates being painted as reacting to every perceived slight and not directing their energy to the central issues – and worse, it gives opponents a way to distract advocates with a series of small provocations. You want to see Wikipedia's culture to become more inclusive, which is a worthy goal. I also agree that telling editors to "grow a thicker skin" is counter-productive and offensive. Neither of those, however, mean that every single incident must be attacked as if it occurs in isolation. Strategies for seeking change can also be counter-productive. As an example of such an approach, refusing to engage at ANI and instead advocating to lodge frequent complaints with T&S in the hope of a cultural change being imposed from outside will provoke resistance and alienate editors who would be allies. People can share goals but differ on questions of strategy and even about the severity of individual incidents – that doesn't necessarily make them wrong and it certainly doesn't make them enemies who you might tell to "fork off." Frankly, I find your suggestion that my comments were the equivalent of "grow a thicker skin" to be so inaccurate as to be ridiculous, and your implication that I was supporting Wikipedia continuing "indefinitely as a publisher of lockerroom type transphobic and homophobic language which is protected as 'humour' or 'free speech'" to be offensive. All I did was ask that you consider where choosing not to respond can, at times, be a suitable response... and you reacted with an over-the-top post that suggests to me that you have lost perspective. Seriously, stop and reflect, because you are damaging your credibility and that is undermining the pursuit of your goal. EdChem (talk) 07:02, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Beyond My Ken[edit]

I concur with Guy and EdChem, and I thank EdChem for their reasonable and rational statement. Beyond My Ken (talk) 08:37, 4 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I also thank them both for the "respectful space" concept, which is much more appropriate for Wikipedia than "safe space" is. Beyond My Ken (talk) 08:41, 4 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Greenrd[edit]

I have some familiarity with the nature and content of typical political debates between trans-exclusionary radical feminists, trans people and their allies, and people somewhere "in the middle" - and they are very much political debates, let's be clear about that. Regarding process and venue, this proposal, due to its highly contentious nature and tangential relation to the GamerGate case, is an entirely inappropriate use for the clarification process; as others have opined, consensus should be sought in the community or it should be brought to full arbitration, if desired.

As a political activist myself, I perceive this proposal as something that would have the effect of giving one political faction special privileges in terms of advocacy on Wikipedia, even as other factions have their freedoms restricted by this proposal, or indeed already have their freedoms restricted by long-lasting community mores, which I believe would be fundamentally unfair. There are a range of views within the community on using Wikipedia for advocacy or agenda-driven purposes, from strong opposition on the one hand, to a feeling that by e.g. unabashedly promoting the achievements of women and feminists, one is improving Wikipedia, to (e.g. on Israel/Palestine) perhaps a resigned acceptance of the fact that many contributors will have strong views one way or another and the participation of people with multiple perspectives actually helps to create balanced articles. Indeed one can take different views on this sort of agenda-driven work on a case-by-case basis, depending on the nature of the changes and the degree to which they act to introduce imbalance into the encyclopedia, or to correct pre-existing imbalances in the encyclopedia. What we shouldn't have on Wikipedia is any privileging of people belonging to particular political factions based on what political faction they belong to, as opposed to based on the behaviour of individuals within those factions and whether it comports with Wikipedia's mission.

Also, what is really not acceptable in the content of this proposal is that it does, I feel, conflate the identification of political factions, potential sources of bias, and organised activity, with conspiracy theorising (which often brings connotations of insanity, or at least eccentricity). This conflation is rather like if someone were to say that to claim that some Republican supporters might have a bias in relation to articles about Republican politicians, and to make a big deal about the fact that an editor is a Republican political activist and spends a lot of time advocating for Republican political causes, is unacceptable prejudice against Republicans. That would be ridiculous, because the exact same thing could be said about Democrats and articles about Democrat politicians, so it's an instance of a more general point that's not at all specific to any one political party or faction.- greenrd (talk) 15:05, 4 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Fæ: From my perspective, this is about potential biases of sources and editors, and the ability to draw attention to that on Wikipedia discussion pages. Your argument seems to be that your beliefs that are relevant here arise from your identity, and are not ordinary political beliefs that are subject to rational debate and persuasion. That's fine, but that, surely, paints a picture of you being more, not less, biased, than someone who has ordinary political beliefs that are subject to rational debate and persuasion. I mean, you can't have it both ways. Either your beliefs do not arise from your identity, but arise from an activist/ideological grouping to which you belong and therefore it is fine to be descriptive about that, or they do arise from your identity, in which case you are definitely biased and therefore it ought to be fine to call attention to that fact, although of course we should try to be civil about doing so on Wikipedia. -greenrd (talk) 17:39, 4 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Fæ: You seem to suggest that we should not examine too closely your implication that your beliefs arise from your identity, because that would lead to a slippery slope where trans people would be allegedly banned from Wikipedia by people like me on the grounds of bias. But this is erroneous because, for one thing, I do not believe that your beliefs arise from your identity. In point of fact, not all trans people agree with the "trans ideology" that you espouse, so in my view, your beliefs do not arise from your identity, but from your social or ideological milieu. I know of some people on Twitter who, despite being trans, actually agree with some tenets of "gender-critical"/"terf" ideology. I do not share their views, but they exist. Also, I do not support banning people from Wikipedia on the grounds of political bias alone. But the point is, it is important to be able to point out that people subscribe to belief systems, and to be able to name them. It is not something that I see or participate in very often on Wikipedia. But it is an important element of discussions about biases, or alleged biases, emanating from sources used in articles and editors alike. And banning it - for, and to the benefit of, one ideological grouping only - would be censorship, would harm the workings of the Wikipedia community, and would be grossly unfair to people not in that ideological grouping. -greenrd (talk) 20:27, 9 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Fæ: "Trans women are women" isn't a magic incantation which instantly and automatically resolves all arguments about trans people in favour of your opinions. But you must be aware of this, because in Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Jessica_Yaniv_genital_waxing_case, you wrote "once the legal issues are better understood, if any", suggesting that you thought the legal case could go either way. But surely, if Yaniv simply is a woman for all intents and purposes, then it is simply illegal to discriminate against her - no need for further discussion. My view is that trans women are women in most, but not all, contexts (for example, not in sports). I realise that statement of my opinion might offend you, but it is not my intent to offend you. I am merely pointing out that I have one opinion on this question, some other people have another opinion (namely, trans women are women tout court) and yet other people have yet another opinion (namely, trans women are not women at all). And to reiterate, these opinions are not completely determined by identities - as I wrote above, not all trans people subscribe to the same beliefs on these questions. If you want to disagree with that - for example, if you want to argue that the trans people who disagree "aren't really trans people" or something like that - you can, but you have to actually argue for the opposite - you can't just jump forward in time to the hypothetical point in time where you've persuaded me of the opposite, and then accuse me of making false generalisations about all trans people, because I explicitly have said that not all trans people hold these beliefs, and until you persuade me otherwise, that is my position. You can call those beliefs what you like - I am not attached to the term "trans ideology" and would happily substitute any unambiguous alternative that you may have to offer - but please don't try to tell me they don't constitute a belief system, because I don't buy that. -greenrd (talk) 21:43, 10 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Fæ: I feel the need to defend myself at this juncture. I don't think the average person would read this exchange and say my views were anti-trans, and your calling them such is something that I perceive as a personal attack. I did not air my views here for the sake of airing them, but in order to attempt to elucidate my arguments. However, I may have erred on the side of brevity, sacrificing some clarity. My arguments were as follows: (a) Drawing a direct line from your trans identity, through the proposition that "trans women are women", to proposition X, is not a way of proving anything you like relating to trans people, so I personally don't think your argument goes through (and to be clear why this is relevant: why did you mention that trans women are women, if not to use that statement in the service of an argument? And if it is the case that it was not to support your argument, perhaps you are really the one gratuitously "airing your views" in this forum!). (b) There are a range of views about trans people and what legal or social rights they ideally ought to have, including the views of a subgroup within the trans community that I haven't even named yet, because I don't want to risk inflaming this discussion further. So even trans people themselves do not speak with one voice on this question. I didn't even go so far as to outright assert that most trans people subscribe to the dominant orthodox view, because I don't know for sure that that is true, although all the evidence I've seen so far suggests it is. So I reject your accusation that I was somehow irrelevantly airing my opinions. In my view, they were relevant to my argument, which I have labelled (a), that merely reiterating that trans women are women does not establish what you seem to think it establishes. And I would have liked to have quoted someone else there to avoid the impression of soapboxing, but I don't know anyone else who holds the view that I wanted to use to make my argument. Generally speaking, it is usually considered acceptable in arguments relating to political issues for someone to use their own political opinions to give an example of how an apparent sticking point may be resolved. And even if some other people think my views were not relevant, in my view it would be unduly harsh to harshly sanction someone over a legitimate difference of opinion over what was relevant to an argument being made. And if we are not even to be permitted to make certain arguments, such as the ones I have made here, that disagree with you because they will rest on claims that it will be forbidden to even make on Wikipedia, as you have just advocated, then in my view a grave policymaking mistake will have been made. In that scenario, as I see it, any form of perceived offence against trans people in particular and perhaps other groups too, including allegedly offensive points such as even merely acknowledging that other views exist, will have been raised up to the status of an unimpeachable shibboleth, to the detriment of frank and fearless discussion about proposals such as yours, and frank and fearless discussion about the propriety or otherwise of any edits and other actions on Wikipedia along the same lines as what your proposal talks about.-greenrd (talk) 17:14, 11 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Clarification by Risker[edit]

I have not read this request except for the reference to me in the (currently) last paragraph of Fae's statement above, and have no comment on any suggestions being made by any editors about any historical cases, their enforcement, or whether or not anything needs to be clarified about them. Thus, I have retitled this section as a "clarification" since I'm not really making a statement about the matter before the Arbitration Committee.

I did not *directly* contact Fae about anything, via email or otherwise, until after Fae emailed me at my personal email address. Instead, what I did was respond to a suppression request from Fae that was received in the OTRS queue more than 12 hours prior to my reading it, and responded by OTRS email asking for clarification about what edits Fae felt should fall under the suppression policy. Fae then emailed me directly at my personal email address (which is not included in the OTRS emails) accusing me of having a conflict of interest and requesting that I pass the suppression request to another oversighter. Arbitrators who follow the Oversight OTRS queue will be well aware that a ticket that has been untouched for more than 12 hours is extremely rare, particularly when other requests have been addressed in that timeframe. I responded to the personal email from Fae instructing them to respond directly to the ticket and not to email me personally; I copied my response to the Oversight mailing list so that other oversighters would know what was going on, and arbitrators who follow that list can read the discussion there. It is my understanding that another oversighter has "taken over" the ticket, and their first question to Fae was to ask them to clarify what was perceived to be suppressible on the page linked in the request.

To the best of my knowledge, what Fae refers to as a "conflict of interest" is in fact that I was an arbitrator in the 2012 case whose remedies including their being banned from English Wikipedia; I was also one of the arbitrators who supported the motion lifting Fae's ban (with conditions) about nine months later. To the best of my recollection, I don't think I've commented or participated in any other disciplinary activities related to Fae. I have, however, revision-deleted, deleted and suppressed outing and personal attacks directed at Fae on several occasions since that time; and I have, on at least one recent occasion, publicly and directly agreed with Fae's position in a discussion on the Wikimedia-L mailing list. In order to explain to my fellow oversighters why Fae might think I had a conflict of interest, I referred to the 2012 case and 2013 motion; while looking at the decision again to ensure I had my facts and timing right, I noticed there was a link missing to the motion that allowed Fae to return to editing Wikipedia in 2013, and I fixed that.

I do not believe that I have any kind of conflict of interest with respect to Fae, although it is possible that Fae has a conflict of interest when it comes to me. It is a little odd for anyone to suggest that conflict of interest on an oversight ticket should be determined by who sent the ticket, rather than what the request actually was. I've recused based on the nature of the request on multiple occasions. It would be bad practice to allow those requesting suppression to pick and choose who deals with their request; if they send it to the list, they're going to get the oversighter who is willing and able to respond. The entire point of oversight is to identify and remove problem content *as quickly as possible*, and that isn't possible when the requestor decides they don't want Oversighter A or B or C to deal with the issue.

Regardless, none of this has anything to do with the actual clarification request, and is only provided here because there's no other suitable forum for me to point out that, despite Fae's best efforts, I have nothing to do with this matter. Risker (talk) 17:34, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Andy Dingley[edit]

GamerGate was a low point for the Internet, and indeed WP. If anything good did come from it, at least WP took a fairly strong position in opposition to it, as represented by this arbitration.

Clearly the request here is inspired by recent activity around a number of pages involving Jessica Yaniv: Jessica Yaniv genital waxing case, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jessica Yaniv genital waxing case, the imminent Yaniv v. Various Waxing Salons, British Columbia Human Rights Tribunal, Meghan Murphy et al.

The questions are: does the GamerGate arbitration, and should the GamerGate arbitration, extend that far?

My first impression is that Fae is using GamerGate as a BLUDGEON to stifle any discussion about Jessica Yaniv. All the usual tactics are rolled out, the warning boxes on user talk: pages[116], the repeated stripping of sources and content from an article during an AfD; the denigration of sources used; the description of the Vancouver Sun as a mere 'tabloid' because the word tabloid (used as a contrast) appears in that article's lead[117]; the repeated accusation that other editors have made an allegation[118] which they have never made; the aspersions cast at other editors for being 'uncollegial' and then immediately using 'colleague' instead as an implication of sock- or meatpuppeting; hatting great sections of Talk: debate; riding two horses in claiming that only one narrow waxy issue is relevant within a far broader story, then claiming BLP1E applies; and of course, hiding behind BLP as the unchallengable excuse for any position held. So far, so much as usual.

I don't expect WP to keep this article (at least for the near future). BLP will see to that, and as yet, few of the defensible broadsheet sources have covered it. Although I'll be amazed if there isn't a significantly different situation in a few months. It's a most unusual situation, as it has flipped the usual allegiances and political standpoints end-for-end. Those who have previously advocated for transgender politics are finding themselves torn between the coverage, as highly negative as it is, or deleting it.[119][120] Jessica Yaniv is, quite literally, the taser-threatening[59:34 in Yaniv's own last night's twitter debate with Blaire] transwoman in the girls' changing room[Yaniv's November 2018 Tweet photos] that the TERFs warned us of. Fae evidently sees no such conflict: in Fae's mind (as expressed here), transphobia is transphobia, and negative coverage of one transwoman is an attack on all of them. Now that's an honourable position and I respect it a great deal, but I do think they're backing the wrong side here. Jessica Yaniv is just not someone who's actions are at all defensible. And yet BLP is still in effect and WP is not a channel of investigative journalism.

So should GamerGate apply? Does GamerGate apply? Well per GamerGate#Remedies "(b) any gender-related dispute or controversy," it would indeed seem so. I was shocked to read this. I've avoided GamerGate so far, as a depressingly negative issue in all areas. But to find that the sanctions do indeed claim to be so far-reaching in their scope? That's a terrible idea. It loses track of the concrete problem at GamerGate, it tries to solve all the world's ills in one line. And today, its main result seems to be giving Fae a BLUDGEON for pushing their PoV into these articles, to suppress coverage of someone, who Fiona Robertson, the SNP's National Women’s and Equalities Convener has described as a "female predator".[121] I do not believe that the GamerGate sanctions have ever been intended to support the actions and deniability of female predators, and we should not encourage their use for such. Andy Dingley (talk) 11:42, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm now considering raising Nblund, and maybe others, at ANI. I am very tired of the aspersions being cast by them. My one mention of KiwiFarms was to state that it was clearly unreliable. Yet here, now that the talk: page has been conveniently deleted (in the middle of this, and the ANI TBAN thread!) my condemnation of KiwiFarms is being presented as if I'd added it to the article instead! That's clearly into "When did you stop beating your wife?" territory. Andy Dingley (talk) 09:15, 11 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Simonm223[edit]

I am not surprised the JY related pages ended up tied into this discussion, though my understanding is that this arbitration request was established because of a separate WP:BLP dispute over how to handle naming of people who have been identified in the media as TERFS. That said, I would strongly support the assertion that the JY related pages fall under the Gamergate discretionary sanctions. I say this because, frankly, with some of the egregious WP:BLP behaviour I've seen in the course of the JY discussion, extra administrator attention and extra strictness about norms would be very helpful. This has included:

1. Speculation about whether a woman has a penis.
2. POV fork created by a subsequently blocked sockpuppet of a user previously indeffed for making transphobic comments which also was created specifically as an WP:ATTACK page.
3. Accusations that a BLP not currently involved in any criminal prosecution was engaged in child molestation. (Also by the subsequently blocked sock who created the attack page.)
4. More speculation about the state of a BLP's genitals masked as a quote from a "RS" (actually a tabloid and not something that should be considered reliable).

And so on. Frankly, the fact that we're addressing a POV Fork attack page at AfD rather than speedy deleting it is already a bit galling and suggests enhanced oversight of this article is necessary. As such, I dispute Andy Dingley's assertion that treatment of gender issues outside the bounds of Gamergate is outside the spirit of the previous Arbcom ruling and hope that, if any good can come of this rather convoluted request for clarification, it's additional oversight of the BLP minefield that currently exists here. Simonm223 (talk) 13:05, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Edited to add that I don't disagree at all with Newyorkbrad and Aquillion here about the confusing nature of the nomenclature at play here. My concern is that the tool of arbcom enforced sanctions is necessary in this space; it's not that they need to be tied specifically to GamerGate. Simonm223 (talk) 17:21, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Newyorkbrad[edit]

This comment is not about the substance of the request, but concerns the procedural confusion and nomenclature. It is causing confusion, and probably will continue to, if every discussion of allegedly poor editing in this topic area involves a citation to "the GamerGate case" or "GamerGate discretionary sanctions." Many topics relating to sexuality, including references to trans persons, are very remote from the topic of GamerGate. Indeed, some of the editors who edit on those topics may never have even heard of GamerGate. They are going to be unnecessarily confused when they receive a DS alert and, in addition to having to absorb all the other rules and procedures governing discretionary sanctions, they also find themselves puzzling over what "GamerGate" is and why it is coming up in a seemingly unrelated context.

The initial version of what became the discretionary sanctions for BLPs was adopted in an arbitration case called "Footnoted quotes." Needless to say, the overall topic of BLPs had little to do with the dispute over whether long quotations should be included in footnotes or not. People involved in BLP-related editing disputes did not easily understand when the "Footnoted quotes" ArbCom decision was cited to them. Ultimately, the Committee resolved that confusion by renaming the name for the BLP sanctions category to something more comprehensible. It might make sense to do something similar here.

As I finish typing this comment, I realize that it may not be directly related to the clarification request, so if the Committee wishes to treat it as a separate suggestion and discuss it elsewhere, I have no objection. Newyorkbrad (talk) 14:15, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Mendaliv: The "GamerGate" discretionary sanctions topic-area already includes, in addition to GamerGate itself, "any gender-related dispute or controversy, [or] people associated with [such a controversy], all broadly construed." To the extent the scope of the "GamerGate sanctions" extends well beyond the specific issue of GamerGate, that was a ruling made (uncontroversially) in the original decision four-and-one-half years ago; it would not be the result of the non-substantive naming clarification that I suggest. Related discretionary sanctions were previously also authorized in the "Sexology" case (originally, authorizing DS for "pages dealing with transgender issues and paraphilia classification") and the "Manning naming dispute case" ("For the avoidance of doubt, [the "Sexology"] discretionary sanctions apply to any dispute regarding the proper article title, pronoun usage, or other manner of referring to any individual known to be or self-identifying as transgender"), which were later incorporated into the "GamerGate" sanctions. The mere renaming I suggest would not impose DS in any area not already subject to them, and not surveyed in prior, full-fledged prior ArbCom cases and decisions. (Whether the change requested by Fae would do so is a different question.) Newyorkbrad (talk) 21:42, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Aquillion[edit]

Agree with Newyorkbrad that it might be best to have a separate case-name for gender-related stuff, but it's worth pointing out that there are a few pages clearly covered by GG general sanctions that wouldn't be obviously covered by gender-related ones, so just renaming wouldn't necessarily work. If possible it might be best to split it into two separate discretionary sanctions with their own notices etc. Definitely using the GG general sanctions notice for gender stuff is going to be confusing to users, though, and will get more confusing going forwards as GG itself fades into the past. --Aquillion (talk) 17:16, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding the issue Guerillero raised before, ArbCom could also authorize new sanctions under a new name, reproducing the Gamergate gender-related ones, and state that such things shouldn't be placed under Gamergate going forward. This might lead to some confusion, but I would argue that it is less than leaving all future gender-related controversies under the Gamergate sanctions forever, which is only going to lead to more confusion as time passes. --Aquillion (talk) 02:14, 20 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Mendaliv:: The practical effect would be solely to rename existing sanctions (ones that have uncontroversially existed and been enforced for years now.) I don't think that doing so can reasonably be considered making policy - it was still originally enacted as a result of a case before ArbCom that clearly required it. While a broader overhaul to the way general sanctions work may one day be necessary, it seems silly to gum up the works, reject a simple solution, and demand that an existing sanction be kept under a confusing name purely out of hope that that vast undertaking will one day occur. Especially since, of course, there is precedent for renaming sanctions, so there's no particular reason why that shouldn't extend to spinning off an existing sanction under a more comprehensible and appropriate name. --Aquillion (talk) 02:25, 20 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Guerillero[edit]

Ignoring the merits and just addressing the procedural issues that NYB brings up, I am against renaming cases. The title has meaning when the case is accepted and post hoc renaming breaks that meaning. Unlike Footnoted Quotes which had no active sanctions, Gamergate has plenty of active sanctions that will continue to be enforced for many years. --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 00:22, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Nblund[edit]

• If editors are following WP:NOTFORUM then I can't really imagine a scenario where the claim that "trans women aren't women" would ever come up in the first place. Pontificating on trans issues adds nothing of value to the project, and we would stand to gain a lot by strongly discouraging those kinds of digressions on article talk pages.

• I also want to second the points made by EvergreenFir, as well as Simonm223. The Yaniv case is only the latest instance where I've seen Gamergate-ish behavior. The social media communities that are trying to push that particular case in to the spotlight increasingly resemble Gamergate in the sense that they are largely centered around harassing/doxxing/humiliating various semi-public figures who displease them, and they view Wikipedia as another forum to spread that abuse.

Editors who come here just to create attack pages are probably easy to catch, but Andy Dingley's comments in this thread illustrate why good faith editors also need more guidance here: he has referenced Kiwi Farms and Miranda Yardley enough to make it fairly clear to me that he's seen the same toxic online communities that I've seen. He clearly recognizes that they aren't reliable sources, but he keeps referencing various versions of "Yaniv is a predator" (which is a rallying cry for those communities) for no apparent purpose (see also:1,2, 3, 4, 5,6). I really don't think he has a malicious intent, but it's still dangerous and irresponsible and off topic, and it resembles some of the behaviors that got people sanctioned around GamerGate. Maybe I'm overreacting, but it illustrates how this kind of material can start to spin out of control in a way that makes Wikipedia complicit in what are effectively mass online bullying campaigns like Gamergate, and I think it calls for more clarity on talk page conduct. Nblund ^talk 23:04, 10 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Andy Dingley: I'm not casting aspersions or questioning your motivations. I'm pointing to your repeated references to BLP violations elsewhere as an example of the sort of stuff that needs to be clarified as either acceptable or unacceptable. It adds nothing and I'd prefer you'd stop, but I'm not calling for you to be punished or even arguing that your actions are unique. Nblund ^talk 10:39, 11 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by JJE[edit]

Noting here that Fæ has just been banned by the community from commenting on human sexuality-related topics, so they probably can no longer comment on this clarification request, or at least are unlikely to. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 21:11, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Deryck[edit]

Harassment is a big problem on Wikipedia and we need to tackle it seriously. However, Fæ's proposal for ArbCom, that any wording that "implies [...] an agenda" or is "anti-trans" should be immediately punished as a DS violation, is unenforceable unless ArbCom is prepared to publish a glossary of banned language. The very fact that this is a contentious area where the use of language is itself contentious means that a non-expert in transgender issues cannot be expected to know the boundaries of civil discourse without stumbling upon someone's sensitivities first.

I echo Sitush's comment about unintentional offence being met with heavy sanctions, and Newyorkbrad's comment about the breadth of this DS area beyond the GamerGate topic causing confusion to uninitiated editors working on articles relating to LGBT+ issues. Deryck C. 19:11, 13 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

If any editor directs trans-phobic language against another editor, that should be treated as a WP:NPA violation with utmost severity, irrespective of the GamerGate / transgender issues DS. Deryck C. 16:36, 29 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by AReaderOutThataway[edit]

I have to concur with Mendaliv that this request would be a prospective, pre-emptive misuse of ArbCom. Worse, the entire notion is subjective. We've seen repeatedly that certain editors (including the filer of this requests, whose topic-ban from human sexuality broadly construed has been reinstated in the interim) have novel and activistic ideas of what might qualify as "transphobic", and even "mis-gendering". E.g., it's been seriously proposed by some of these editors that if Editor A makes up a fake word like "zerm" and declares this to be their pronoun that other editors should be sanctionable if they use singular they or take any other, generally acceptable, approach to gender neutrality or pronoun avoidance. This is not ForcedSpeechPedia, nor FarLeftPostmoderistLanguageReformPedia, nor MakeEveryoneOnMySideFeelBetterThroughPoliticalCorrectionPedia. The only expansion we need to the WP:AC/DS authorized for this entire range of topics is faster topic-banning for abuse of Wikipedia as a soci-political lobbying platform. The modern US politics topic is almost getting that locked-down already, and the encyclopedic result is better, even if some far-to-one-side-or-the-other editors have a sore metaphorical booty about getting muzzled on the topic. — AReaderOutThataway ^t/_c 00:24, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by May His Shadow Fall Upon You[edit]

I'm very late to the game, but since the request is still open, I thought I'd chime in. It should be denied for the following reasons. (1) As stated above, this is prospective and not remedial, and therefore not something ArbCom should do. (2) It's unclear as to what, exactly, is transphobic speech. There are some examples that are patently obvious but given that language is evolving and what can be considered "transphobic" is often highly debatable, this is basically a minefield. (3) It's unclear what the practical ramifications of "shall be considered an immediate breach of the discretionary sanction" would be. The key word in discretionary sanctions is "discretionary." So now it would be mandatory sanctions? In short, I don't see how the current DS is inadequate in any way. May His Shadow Fall Upon You ^Talk 16:11, 4 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by {other-editor}[edit]

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[edit]

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

• @Fæ and Mendaliv: As far as I understand, it is not accurate to say The GamerGate case superseded and ... took on the the original motions and amendments of Sexology. However, discretionary sanctions were rescinded in the Sexology case by the motion Fæ has linked to, and it seems clear from the discussion of the arbs in and around that motion that this was done because the GG sanctions, which cover all "gender-related controversies," already covered the "transgender issues" topic that the ARBSEX sanctions covered. So I believe ARBGG is the correct case to file this under. GoldenRing (talk) 15:19, 2 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

GamerGate: Arbitrator views and discussion[edit]

• We usually issue guidance on this page without formal motions. I think this request can be handled well enough by arbitrator comments (or Views and discussion, if you want the jargon). We have been asked: is use of discussion pages on Wikipedia to state or imply that trans people are part of a transgender conspiracy, agenda, ideology or similar defamatory "gay agenda" an example of conduct enforceable under Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/GamerGate#Discretionary sanctions? In many cases, the answer will be no. In my view, such conduct must take place in the context of content relating to gender. Mentioning gender or transgender questions does not in itself trigger the DS regime. The GamerGate discretionary sanctions were designed to deal with conduct at Wikipedia articles, and the scope of sanctions does not extend to all corners of Wikipedia. None of this is to say that Wikipedia does not need, or ought not to develop, a set of rules for enforcement of the issues highlighted by Fae; I make no comment about that here. The arbitration decision about GamerGate simply does not stretch endlessly beyond edits to the related articles and closely-related discussions (eg talk page or noticeboard threads about conduct on the articles). Its scope is clear and this request seems to raise new matters that should be addressed separately, probably in a fresh arbitration request. The prospects of the latter being accepted are poor if there is no prior attempt to develop proposals by community consensus. AGK ■ 12:17, 3 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  Those protections already exist under GamerGate. An acceptable reading of the decision is not that the enforcement may happen against any insult, allegation, or slur. Both the setting and the content of the offending edit need to be correct. Your proposal removes the first test, and therefore needs a fresh case. AGK ■ 13:23, 3 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• We have various guidelines and policies on conduct, Wikipedia:List_of_policies#Conduct, which assist us in dealing with unacceptable behaviour in the community, including discrimination and personal attacks. Wikipedia:No personal attacks covers the area of concern, particularly where it says that these types of comments are never acceptable: "Abusive, defamatory, or derogatory phrases based on race, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity, age, religious or political beliefs, disabilities, ethnicity, nationality, etc. directed against another editor or a group of editors." If existing policies are not felt to be strong enough, then discussion could take place with the community as a whole on the appropriate talkpage of the relevant policies. SilkTork (talk) 12:12, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• I'm struggling a bit with this request, and I'm not sure if it's my misunderstanding or Fae's. Discretionary sanctions are available for the area of transgender issues - all pages, not just mainspace. That means that in that area, an uninvolved administrator can implement a discretionary sanction - i.e. a restriction, or any sort of block or ban - at their discretion (subject to awareness etc). I think that's clear. Yet, what Fae is asking for is Arbcom confirm by motion that anti-trans or transphobic language, shall be considered an immediate breach of the discretionary sanction. Well, I don't know a specific placed sanction that would be breached in those circumstances (has someone placed a sanction that Fae is asking for clarification on?) I guess the answer is "no" because I'm not sure how well all the bumf that goes along with DS simply because mention of gender comes up.
  That said, I do take Fae's point well, Wikipedia does need some way to manage anti-trans language, and as SilkTork explains, NPA does cover most of areas. Where they are lacking, that is the place to bring up the discussion, not trying to use DS - which needs to be used only in the rare cases that discussion cannot sort things.
  Finally, Fæ I see you refer to "gender warrior", a comment made by an arb. I cannot recall said comment, but out of context would consider that a positive comment - of someone who is fighting for equality across the genders. Could you point me to the context? Worm^TT(talk) 12:45, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  Fæ, at my talk page, you refuse to answer my question because I warned you for violating unban condition off wiki, under threat of a block, 4 years ago. You're now further refusing to answer questions because a former arbitrator has responded to a request directed to a team she is on - which has apparently nothing to do with this request.

  You no longer appear to be seeking clarification from this committee, and I have no positive words to describe your behaviour, which I believe speaks for itself. As far as I am concerned, this request should be closed and archived promptly. Worm^TT(talk) 16:58, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• DS can be placed on articles where this kind of behavior is happening, but I don't think we can (or should) say that anti-trans or transphobic language, shall be considered an immediate breach of the discretionary sanction. That is far too black-and-white for what can be a very complex issue. I would probably be considered by many to be on the strict side of enforcing BLP/NPA when it comes to anti-trans language, but even I can easily see cases where such a motion would backfire. Probably the most common would be when people use transphobic language without realizing they are—it's hardly uncommon for people who are editing in good faith to use language that is outdated and/or offensive without realizing it, and this is best addressed by correcting the language and moving on—not slamming them with some sort of arbitration enforcement action. I think that our existing policies allow for adequate handling of anti-trans language, and if the concern is that they are not being enforced properly, I don't think this kind of action is going to help things. GorillaWarfare (talk) 15:42, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  Fae, I'd recommend dropping the stuff about Risker. It's not relevant to this request, and your attempts to involve her are not reflecting well on you. GorillaWarfare (talk) 20:06, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  I do like NYB's point about naming. I agree that it's very confusing (and bears with it a fairly negative connotation) to lump topics like transgender issues in with the GamerGate sanctions when there is really no GamerGate connection. GorillaWarfare (talk) 17:12, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  @Mendaliv: NYB is correct. The GamerGate sanctions were 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. This means they apply to any gender-related dispute or controversy or people associated with any gender-related dispute or controversy, broadly construed, regardless of whether said dispute/controversy/person has anything to do with GamerGate. I take it that you disagree with that, but would ask you to open a separate ARCA if you wish to ask for it to be amended. GorillaWarfare (talk) 01:56, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  @Mendaliv: If you do not wish to have it amended then I suppose we can end this conversation. But that is the scope of the remedy. GorillaWarfare (talk) 02:56, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]