Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/GamerGate/Statement

This article does not quote reliable sources
When it discusses the banning of editors, the Arbitration Committee statement is factually inaccurate.

This was indeed a targeted anti-feminist series of bans.

Please could we include the following reputable sources, and adjust the text of the statement to better represent the actual situation:


 * 1) http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2015/jan/23/wikipedia-bans-editors-from-gender-related-articles-amid-gamergate-controversy
 * 2) http://thinkprogress.org/culture/2015/01/26/3615559/wikipedia-wants-ban-feminist-editors-gamergate-articles/
 * 3) http://www.markbernstein.org/Jan15/Reckless.html
 * 4) http://www.inquisitr.com/1786642/gamergate-wikipedia-ruling-bans-harassed-feminist-editors-outrage-ensues-videos/
 * 5) http://www.themarysue.com/wikipedia-gamergate/

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.42.118.118 (talk • contribs)


 * The statement is not an article. There is also no need to re-hash existing disagreements on this talk page. Yaris678 (talk) 10:29, 27 January 2015 (UTC)


 * It is exceedingly reckless to disregard one of Wikipedia's most important principles: WP is about verifiability, not truth. While this is an essay, it is so strongly adhered to it might as well be policy.
 * If the reliable sources agree that ArbCom is a group of misogynist harassers than that is what WP should say. If they say that ArbCom has killed women, that's what WP should say. If they say that ArbCom is a criminal organization of child pornographers, that's what WP should say. Why am I reading stuff on WP that isn't supported by RS right now?
 * No, that's not how it works. If RS's say that ArbCom killed women, Wikipedia says that those RS's think ArbCom killed women. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. It must give repeat everything in a neutral voice and place out all the facts. It however, does not parrot what RS's say as if it was the god given truth. It doesn't matter how many RS's say that ArbCom killed women, if no court has declared them guilty or ArbCom admits to it, then wikipedia, under no circumstances, says the ArbCom killed women.75.118.132.58 (talk) 20:50, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
 * WP is already being widely ridiculed because the ArbCom apparently doesn't agree with a principle that has been strongly enforced across the entire project. This statement should be corrected at once. ArbCom should admit to its obvious anti-feminism, as reported by all RS. 2.227.6.213 (talk) 12:35, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
 * If you feel that way why don't you make an article about it2601:A:6902:7A50:4D0B:52F1:F081:739E (talk) 13:06, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Would the ArbCom release a statement to defend itself from that article, too? I wonder. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.253.45.137 (talk) 14:17, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Of course it isn't "an article". Regardless, one COULD easily write an article entitled "Wikipedia Sexual Harassment Controversy" and cite these "reliable sources" to smear the ArbCom... and it would be defended to the hilt by people insisting that doing so is perfectly within the scope of technical rule interpretations.  This, as may be recalled, was the central standpoint for the now-banned editors who managed to keep the GamerGate article a "badly written battleground" for several months on end.  Clearly, "reliable source" doctrine requires a solid refining to prevent future hairsplitting and thus derailment of so many articles like this one. Calbeck (talk) 14:04, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Case in point is this article: Gender bias on Wikipedia — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.99.165.73 (talk) 14:20, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Sigh. And of course, some yahoo also already put up an article called "ArbitrationGate", citing three of the media pieces in question as RS.Calbeck (talk) 14:23, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

Copyedit
With permission from a standing arbitrator, I've given the beginning of this poorly worded statement a light copyedit (no offense intended). You need to decide when you want to italicize "Gamergate controversy," as I assume you want only italicized references to the case, but you use them to refer to the article as well. Any mistakes that change the meaning of a sentence are mine alone, as the arbitrator did not view my changes before posting. Pinging:, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , and Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 17:20, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Two things Ed: There's really, really no need to ping each and every arb individually over a copyedit, or anything else. You don't get all the way to the arbitration committee and not know how to use a watchlist. Also, as of last night I am retired from the committee. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:38, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
 * On the basis that at least one arbitrator advised against it, and that it was already published (and it would be worse to have two versions running around than one) I"ve gone ahead and undone your edit, regardless of its copyediting merits. NativeForeigner Talk 20:11, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
 * FWIW, by the time I got to the arbitration committee, I've accumulating a watch list too large to be useful, like many editors who do a lot of revising of articles. I am also very grateful to those fellow arbs  writing the statement for getting it out as soon as possible, regardless of possible improvements in style.  DGG ( talk ) 21:00, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
 * @Beeblebrox, given the potential for problems, given that I edited an arbitrator-written/fully protected/holy page etc., etc., I erred on the side of caution by pinging all of the active arbitrators on the case. Best, Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 21:16, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

Preliminary vs Proposed
''An accurate characterization of the Arbitration Committee’s preliminary decision is as follows. The Committee found that editors on various sides of the discussion violated community policies and guidelines on conduct. The Committee’s preliminary decision currently includes broad recommendations for, and endorsements of, community sanctions and topic bans for editors on various sides of the dispute. These include:''

With Wikipedians elsewhere on blogs, and various social media trying to point out that this is not a preliminary decision but a proposed decision, it is a shame that the two words have been treated as interchangeable.

''An accurate characterization of the Arbitration Committee’s proposed decision is as follows. The Committee proposed findings were that editors on various sides of the discussion violated community policies and guidelines on conduct. The Committee’s proposed decision currently includes broad recommendations for, and endorsements of, community sanctions and topic bans for editors on various sides of the dispute. These include:''

would perhaps be a better phrasing. And similarly with other uses of the word "preliminary".

All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 16:01, 28 January 2015 (UTC).