Thirteen editors sanctioned in mammoth GamerGate arbitration case: The English Wikipedia's Arbitration Committee has closed the colossal GamerGate arbitration case, whose size—involving 27 named parties—recalls large and complex cases of the past.
The English Wikipedia's Arbitration Committee has closed the colossal GamerGate arbitration case, whose size—involving 27 named parties—recalls large and complex cases of the past such as Scientology, Palestine-Israel, and Climate change.
One editor has been site-banned, while another twelve are subject to remedies ranging from admonishments to broad topic bans and suspended sitebans. In addition, the committee has authorised broad discretionary sanctions, which give administrators wide latitude to block, topic-ban, or otherwise restrict editors who behave disruptively. The breadth of the topic bans and the discretionary sanctions was the subject of much discussion between arbitrators. Arbitrators were in agreement as to the need to prevent the dispute being exported to related articles—GamerGate is part of a much larger series of controversies about gender identity and sexuality (see, for example, coverage of the Christianity and sexuality case in last week’s Arbitration report)—but concerns were raised about the sheer scope of some of the proposals. After Roger Davies consolidated the options into proposals for a "standard topic ban", the committee reached agreement to define the scope as "(a) GamerGate, (b) any gender-related dispute or controversy, [or] (c) people associated with (a) or (b), all broadly construed".
When ArbCom grudgingly accepted a GamerGate case in November (the third such request in quick succession), Newyorkbrad urged the committee to handle the case "in a highly expedited manner to avoid its becoming a complete circus," while Beeblebrox decried the "'keep asking till you get [what] you want' feeling" he got from repeated case requests—he conceded that the situation was "spiraling out of control," thus necessitating a case. Despite hopes for an expedited case, it lasted for two months.
The case stems from the "GamerGate" hashtag, which was started in response to concerns about the proximity of relationships between some video game developers and the journalists reviewing their games. Those using it, however, have been severely criticised for the harassment and misogyny that has become associated with it. The related Wikipedia article, GamerGate controversy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), promptly became another front in the battle, with editors on both sides ranging from throwaway single-purpose accounts to long-established editors—several of whom had lengthy track records of edit-warring or misconduct in controversial topic areas.
Arbitrator Roger Davies told the Signpost that the case was complicated by its size and complexity. With 27 named parties and 41 editors presenting roughly 34,000 words worth of on-wiki evidence, a total that does not include email correspondence, the case was of a sort rarely seen in the committee's current era. Still, Davies observed that the case was concluded within two months, compared to the much longer durations of previous complex cases, such as Climate change (which took five months to resolve) and Scientology (nearly six). Of the various remedies, Davies said that no "silver bullet" would have resolved the issues raised in the case, but he suggested that the combination of "several related fixes, including existing and new sanctions" available to administrators would help. In the light of criticism that the decision had little immediate effect, Davies told the Signpost he expected it would "probably take a week or two to work through" for the effects to be fully felt.
| Editor | Sanction | Duration | Notes |
|---|---|---|---|
| NorthBySouthBaranof | Topic ban | Indefinite | Passed in favor of a topic ban 9/3/2; for treating Wikipedia as a battleground |
| Ryulong | Topic ban | Indefinite | |
| Site ban | Indefinite | ||
| TaraInDC | Admonishment | N/A | |
| Tarc | Topic ban | Indefinite | Passed in lieu of a site ban, promulgated by two arbitrators, one of whom noted previous ArbCom findings against Tarc; standard topic ban for this case imposed |
| Warning | Indefinite | In wake of previous issues, ArbCom issued a blanket warning against future disruption, the consequence of which could be a site ban | |
| The Devil's Advocate | Topic ban | Indefinite | ArbCom unanimously imposed the standard topic ban for this case |
| 1RR restriction | 12 months | Passed unanimously as part of a package of four remedies imposed against The Devil's Advocate | |
| Restriction | 12 months | Editor is restricted from editing any administrative noticeboards; passed as third restriction component to avoid site ban | |
| Warning | Indefinite | Similar to other editors, ArbCom issued a blanket warning against future disruption, including encouragement to avoid editing in contentious areas, the consequence of which (future disruption) could be a site ban | |
| TheRedPenOfDoom | Admonishment | Indefinite | Passed 10/4; arbitrator GorillaWarfare, a dissenter, commented, "Though there was poor behavior here, I don't think a formal admonishment is needed." |
| Tutelary | Topic ban | Indefinite | ArbCom endorsed community-imposed ban, and converted it to standard topic ban for this case |
| ArmyLine | Topic ban | Indefinite | ArbCom endorsed community-imposed ban, and converted it to standard topic ban for this case |
| DungeonSiegeAddict510 | Topic ban | Indefinite | ArbCom endorsed community-imposed ban, and converted it to standard topic ban for this case |
| Xander756 | Topic ban | Indefinite | ArbCom endorsed community-imposed ban, and converted it to standard topic ban for this case |
| Titanium Dragon | Topic ban | Indefinite | ArbCom endorsed community-imposed ban from editing under BLP enforcement, and converted it to standard topic ban for this case |
| Loganmac | Topic ban | Indefinite | ArbCom unanimously imposed standard topic ban for this case |
| Willhesucceed | Topic ban | Indefinite | ArbCom unanimously imposed standard topic ban for this case |
This case has even attracted media attention, including from The Guardian, which mistakenly proclaimed that Wikipedia "has banned five editors from making corrections to articles about feminism." It extensively quoted Mark Bernstein, who wrote a series of blog posts commenting on the Arbitration Committee's pending decision. (Editor's note: Mark Bernstein was topic banned by Gamaliel and later blocked by HJ Mitchell.) His three-part series, "Infamous", "Thoughtless", and "Careless", received wide-spread attention on social media, including through the blogs of actor Wil Wheaton, Tumblr, and biologist PZ Myers. Bernstein noted that five Wikipedia editors, NorthBySouthBaranof, Ryulong, TaraInDC, Tarc, and TheRedPenOfDoom, were targeted by supporters of GamerGate, who dubbed them the "Five Horsemen". According to Bernstein, these editors were "active in preserving objectivity and in keeping scurrilous sexual innuendo out of the encyclopedia". He went on to call them feminists, complaining:
| “ | By my informal count, every feminist active in the area is to be sanctioned. This takes care of social justice warriors with a vengeance — not only do the GamerGaters get to rewrite their own page (and [GamerGate targets] Zoe Quinn’s, Brianna Wu’s, Anita Sarkeesian’s, etc.); feminists are to be purged en bloc from the encyclopedia. | ” |
He also erroneously claimed that aside from a few new single-purpose accounts, no GamerGate supporters were sanctioned, leaving them free to write their own page as ArbCom ostensibly ostracizes "liberals."
The Committee passed a site ban against one of the "Five Horsemen" at the last minute, in view of his behaviour while the case was ongoing and taking into account his long history of misconduct; topic banned two more; and admonished the remaining two. The Committee has also passed topic bans against seven editors who are widely seen as GamerGate supporters, four of whom were already topic-banned from the (narrower) GamerGate topic area through community general sanctions.
The Guardian also quoted Wikipedian Abigail Brady (Morwen), who said that contentious editing disputes on Wikipedia have become a "game of provocation chicken", asserting that internal politics of Wikipedia "are poisonous," as each side tries to "work as close to the ill-defined edge of acceptable behaviour to provoke the other into crossing it." The article concluded:
| “ | The byzantine internal processes of Wikipedia are incomprehensible for many, but they serve to shape the content on the site, the seventh biggest on the internet. Its reportedly unpleasant internal culture and unwelcoming atmosphere for new editors has long been blamed for an overwhelmingly masculine make-up – just one in ten editors are thought to be female – which in turn contributes to which topics get featured on the site. | ” |
The issue was also reported on by a number of other publications, most citing The Guardian's article, including Gawker, PandoDaily, De Volkskrant, Der Standard, Jezebel, Raw Story, ThinkProgress, The Verge, and The Mary Sue. Their headlines largely reflected the perception that Wikipedia was banning feminist editors, echoing the complaints following the Manning arbitration case that the Committee was sanctioning both editors who had made transphobic comments and those who opposed transphobia.
A number of Wikipedia editors decried the inaccuracies in the Guardian's reporting, with one party to the case calling it "completely ridden with factual errors" and another calling it "clearly biased". A Quest For Knowledge wrote that the Guardian misunderstood the purpose of the Committee: "editors are sanctioned for conduct, not their POV. This is absolutely critical to understand. There's no way the press can write a decent article about an ArbCom case without understanding this key distinction." Others echoed the central complaints of Bernstein and the Guardian. Jayen466 wrote "Yes, the Guardian article and its spin-offs contain inaccuracies, but there is still enough truth in the story for this to become quite as big a controversy as Categorygate did in 2013." The Guardian has since published a correction, stating that "An earlier version gave the impression that the bans had been finalised, and a quotation suggested that no pro-gamergate editors had been banned from the site."
Likely in response to that media attention, the committee released a lengthy statement intended for the press on its decision making process, vaguely and indirectly addressing some of the coverage on the case. "There have been a number of articles about this case in the press of late, some of which mischaracterize the Committee, its process, and outcomes of this case," the Committee wrote. "We would like to clarify the Committee’s purpose, process, and preliminary findings." The community widely criticized the statement for its length, minutia, and unintended obfuscation. Georgewilliamherbert, for example, wrote that "If you are going to comment at all, and you just did, you need to address the actual criticisms", while Jehochman stated that "The obvious mistake here is that the statement is wordy and lacks sound bites." Others approved of the statement but questioned a perceived lack of involvement from WMF, including Shii, who wrote, "This is a good statement, but where is the Wikimedia Foundation? They are the people who receive the fundraiser money—shouldn't they be involved in supporting the community, especially when some of English Wikipedia's most dedicated editors come under attack from unfair reporting?"
Philippe Beaudette of the Wikimedia Foundation wrote a blog post echoing the statement by the Committee, reading in part that "The Committee's mandate is to uphold a civil, constructive atmosphere that furthers Wikipedia’s mission. At the Wikimedia Foundation, we support that objective and are taking active steps to create and maintain a civil atmosphere for editors of all backgrounds. We ask all our editors to do the same."
Discuss this story