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 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.

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:

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 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."

Editor's note: In the interest of full disclosure, the Signpost's co-editor-in-chief Gamaliel and regular arbitration report writer Harry Mitchell (HJ Mitchell) have been involved to varying degrees in the Wikipedia aspects of the GamerGate controversy, including in the sanctioning of Mr. Bernstein. To avoid the appearance of impropriety, HJ Mitchell did not substantively edit any part of this report related to Mr. Bernstein, and Gamaliel limited himself to providing links and background information for this article. Without their input and contributions, this piece would not have been possible. Final editorial control was exercised by The ed17, this publication's editor emeritus.

Readers' responses and critical commentary are invited in the comments section.

← Previous "In focus"

Next "In focus" →

In this issue

28 January 2015 (all comments)

From the editor

In focus

In the media

Forum

Traffic report

Recent research

Special report

Featured content

+ Add a comment

Discuss this story

These comments are automatically transcluded from this article's talk page. To follow comments, add the page to your watchlist. If your comment has not appeared here, you can try purging the cache.

• Speaking as one of the originating editors, back when gamergate was mostly known as a type of ant, I am still astounded and appalled at how much of an evil Koosh ball this subject has become. The sustained intensity and scope of the vitriol has been unique in my experience; in effect Wikipedia had been trolled by the Internet. Small wonder that our usual consensus and resolution mechanisms failed -they were swamped! kencf0618 (talk) 23:54, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree. I became concerned when I started reading about this ARBCOM decision in outlets that typically don't discuss Wikipedia's machinations, especially with the misleading headlines that ARBCOM is banning all feminists from the site so GG-types can have their way. It sounds like this episode was an internet battle that happened to take place on Wikipedia. I'm glad ARBCOM has handed out the number of bans, admonishments, and the like; disagreements about content should not be allowed to get so far out of control. Chris Troutman (talk) 04:05, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• This issue of The Signpost has another article - a pair of Op-Eds, to be specific - on this topic. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 00:41, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• It is no accident that The Guardian suddenly ran with an obscure and one-sided blog post distorting ArbCom's proposed decision. Of course, somebody fed The Guardian a one-sided "story" during the Private Manning Case, too. Oh, wait, it was the same journalist. Wow, what a coincidence... Carrite (talk) 04:21, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• I am known for being sometimes critical of Arbcom for often taking too long and being too lenient in concluding its cases; that's why I never actually participate on Arbcom cases although I read and follow them all. They have done a grand job with gamergate and it restores my confdence in the committee. In particular, one outcome: Editor is restricted from editing any administrative noticeboards, is one I will remember for future use. Arbcom now needs to take its own lead and be faster and sharper with new cases. We will see how the new committee handles them. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 00:48, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Thank you both for this. I was alarmed by the Guardian report, even though I suspected it was fairly, shall we say, amarilla. I went straight to the Signpost, but of course, that was last week's issue. Ugly business, this, but perhaps an important reminder not to take out the knives around here. --BDD (talk) 03:48, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Great article, makes a change to have some calm sober reporting of the decision rather than the hysteria that is in most of the media. Seems like the rulings were fair on both sides. One thing I don't understand is why rylong got a topic ban as well as a site ban. Surely the former is redundant - if he is banned from the whole site then what is the point of the topic ban? Little Professor (talk) 14:14, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Thanks everyone for the positive feedback on this article. Little Professor -- If I had to speculate, my guess would be that even if the site ban is at some point overturned, the topic ban would remain in effect. @Roger Davies: Is that correct? Go Phightins! 18:58, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Sorry, but "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." is not really accurate without an "ostensibly" thrown in there. DreamGuy (talk) 20:43, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • That particular phrase was my doing. I think it's a reasonable way to describe the origins. Even the die-hard antis would concede that that particular hashtag emerged contemporaneously with a controversy about a relationship between a video game developer and a reviewer, even if they dismiss the concerns as a smokescreen for abuse. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 02:16, 2 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• I'm afraid people still haven't understood why the press was concerned, and the premature statement by the ArbCom, which ended up being wrong in fact, being sent out before the decision was actually finalized, didn't precisely help. The support here is merely another symptom of Wikipedia as a secluded ecosystem which rather than gathering the knowledge of humanity gathers the "knowledge" of a subgroup that suffers from such massive selection bias that anyone with an understanding of statistics would discount the outcome as so skewed as to be irredeemable in the short to mid-term. And the decision merely serves to perpetuate that through leniency towards some of the mechanisms by which it is perpetuated - notably sock- and meatpuppetry in disputes. No, disputes should not be allowed to get out of hand to this degree - but that's what admins are there for. When BLP is violated wholesale and nothing is being done, it is not too surprising when people taking an interest into a topic do something to counter it with their own means. Is it right? Not by the "letter of the law". But that's like saying it's not ever right to shoot someone, even if he's just about to shoot an innocent person. The problem is NOT edit wars. The problem is selection bias and gaming the system and using bullying tactics to perpetuate the selection bias. Edit wars are merely a symptom. You can applaud each other as much as you want - as it stands, that's merely stewing in your own grease and will serve little to tackle the fundamental problems that are all too easy to close one's eyes to at the sight of almost 5 million articles. And you can say all you want that dealing with those issues was not the task of the ArbCom - that doesn't change a bit about ArbCom being very much responsible for the consequences of their decisions. --95.90.52.88 (talk) 23:51, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]