User:Masem/GGArbCom Statement

The Gamergate situation is a difficult situation outside of Wikipedia to begin; it is very much too long to get into but to summarize: it is a amorphous, highly anonymous set of Internet users (low end estimate is around 10,000) that are trying to affect change in how video game journalism is done, primary through social media. Unfortunately, the first instance, and several more that followed, were a result of a small number of that group using harassment including death threats of predominate female game devs, which should be obvious that this did not take well with both the video game and journalism community; one of the most common complaints is that the overall proGG is being called out by the press as misogynic (To their credit, the current actions of the proGG side are not doing a lot to dispel that notion, but there's other complexities involved here). This group of users (the proGamergate or proGG) has since tried to get a message that they want to talk about journalism ethics out, but it is a combination of their amorphous nature and the stigma of the harassment that very few reliable sources have actually talked to these points, with a plurality of reliable sources from mainstream standing against the proGG (this side being the antiGG). The situation is still changing. The full details of the case are far too complex for an ArbCom statemtn but more information can be provided if this is needed.

What this means on Wikipedia is how this coverage is affecting the tone and bias of the Gamergate article. By a strict reading of policies like NPOV, UNDUE, and WEIGHT, these would suggest based on the predominance of antiGG side in the sources should be reflected in the article, and that core principle I cannot deny - the amount of sourcing that we can pull from to cover the proGG arguments is woefully lacking, and it is in the realm of FRINGE-y. However, there are still enough sources from the mainstream in trying to create their own version of a balanced article that have given enough weight to the proGG arguments to at least cover some of the basics. There is no way at the present we can ever build up a balanced article. But that does not mean we cannot achieve an article that covers the conflict neutrality even if the proGG side is still treated as a fringe view.

But this however has created a situation that is very unique (at least, in my experience) in that because the media is not seeing the proGG side in anything close to a positive light, the bulk of reporting, even from majority sources, is slanted away from the proGG side. The mainstream media is laser-focused on the harassment and death threats (understandably of course) and how this translates in their opinion to the idea that the proGG side is really just a front for a misogynistic-influenced attack on the media. Very little has been proven on either side (short of the initial accusation that lead to Gamergate), so the bulk of reliable sourcing, when they go off facts, is the writers' opinions and not proven statements, and because they are in the press, most have a vested interest to write in a manner that will draw readers and support the moral "good".

But because we are Wikipedia and are meant to be writing neutrally in a hands off manner, we should not be adopting this attitude in the article's substance and tone. Some of these claims are needed in a summary of Gamergate as there were actual events that were based on the proGG's response to when they were called out as misogynistic by the press (eg they saught to have ads pulled from major gaming sites that had called them out). But what has been happening by editors like Ryulong and North is that they have been using a lot of excessive quoting, additional wording, and the like to push more of this antiGG agenda and villainize the proGG more, standing behind the fact that NPOV/UNDUE/WEIGHT says there is no sources to add to balance that from the proGG side so this approach is "right". I have tried to argue that we can back off on the preachy-ness (WP:NOTSOAPBOX) of the antiGG messages by removing excessive quotes, removing phrases added specifically to "thumb their nose" at the proGG side, and the like, working off the fact that is still not proven who were the parties behind the harassment, eg presuming innocent unless guilty; this also relates to the fact we know the media (the subject of the debate themselves) are going to have a systematic bias that we should counter/eliminate. These other editors have been extremely resistant and even refusing to consider that this is possible, or that by being more neutral we would be breaking the NPOV/UNDUE/WEIGHT policies.

I would need to scour the history for specific examples, but one that came up today is this edit in the lead sentence by TaraInDC. The prior version, while not perfect, was at least neutral to set up what the issues were, neither praising or critical of one side. The updated version, while it is the truth and a representative way some mainstream media describe Gamergate, immediately frames the article against the proGG. A similar example is here where, in one situation, one of the women was threatened with a message relating to the Ecole Polytechnic shooting; the adding in this edit to say that shooting was a misogynistic attack -again a true state - adds only gasoline to the "proGG side is bad" tone that the article already had for an encyclopedia.

There is absolutely no reason why we cannot write a more clinically neutral article that does not treat the antiGG side on a pedestal, nor villainize the proGG outside of the opinions of the press and others. Too much of the article adopts the press's opinion in the Wikipedia voice and that's what's the largest problem. We have been able to write articles on other "hated" people or groups (Hilter, KKK, ISIL, etc.) and none of those employ the same type of degrading language towards one side save for typical a limited section about their impact and impressions, and even here, being clear the speaker is not Wikipedia. It is completely possible, but the near-unanimity of sourcing for the antiGG side and the attitudes of the other named editors (primarily Ryulong, North, Tarc but there are others) are refusing to let it go that way, claiming policy stands in the way of changes. And that's what I believe ArbCom can help with, to determine if we should be more neutral in this language of this article.

Yes, this likely makes it a content dispute more than behavior, but at the same time, an attempt as mediation has been made and these editors refused to participate, indicating an unwillingness to develop a consensus for it; Ryulong themselves have shown strong OWNership in the article to the point of doing 15 single reverts of different areas in a short period after sanctions were placed.

Please note for full disclosure: I don't consider myself pro or antiGG. I have read the various forums that the proGG's have used to discuss their side only to understand what they are coming at from (because those groups are flat out insulted and believe our article is extremely biased; this I take with a grain of salt but there's some fairly strong reasons. Obviously, probably will be pointed out by others, that the article has attracted a large number of offsite users to try to influence the article to a great degree, but this has lead to a few ANI problems as well as the article being placed under general sanctions to prevent disruptions. Also please bug me if this response is too long, it's very complex to explain and I can trim down if needed (and link this original elsewhere). --M ASEM  (t) 06:21, 28 October 2014 (UTC)