Wikipedia talk:Wikipedia Signpost/2015-01-28/Forum

The earlier GGTF case is also apposite: target banned, her stalker warned. Efforts to fix the gender gap will flounder with a ruling requiring the targets of stalkers to negotiate with said stalkers or leave Wikipedia (principle 4). Speaking as a media volunteer, I'm flat-out amazed we didn't get coverage of that one at the time (just before the fundraiser), we dodged a bullet there - David Gerard (talk) 22:59, 29 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Or: an unproductive disruptionist shown the door, a productive disruptionist put on a short leash... You spin, I spin, we all spin together... Carrite (talk) 04:49, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

Both editors were involved in editing the GamerGate controversy article and/or talk page and one was involved in the Arbitration case. While they both provide insight, it would be interesting to see an opinion piece by an editor or admin who is uninvolved. Liz Read! Talk! 23:32, 29 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Absolutely. Our op-ed pages are open to such an uninvolved party who wants to provide their perspective.   Gamaliel  ( talk ) 23:56, 29 January 2015 (UTC)


 * , I can give you my opinion as an uninvolved party in a single sentence: Since I can't tell whether this is a Tar-Baby or a Tar pit, & my onwiki time is extremely limited -- for example, I'm monitoring my daughter's play date while I type this -- I'm forced to stay out of it. However, I greatly admire the efforts of those with the courage to deal with it. -- llywrch (talk) 22:00, 30 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Wow. I didn't realize people cared so much about ants. --LukeSurlt c 12:37, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Ok that's just weird. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:58, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

One of the authors is now blocked and topic-banned
See User_talk:Protonk. The block is apparently for a (now revision-deleted) talk page statement. Andreas JN 466 00:54, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Well, that escalated quickly. kencf0618 (talk) 02:32, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

Note that Protonk's block/topic ban was commuted 30 minutes ago after discussion at ANI. -- Pres N  06:45, 30 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Don't pretend that those nasty right wing Gamergaters are the only ones coordinating action offsite. The anti-Gamergate Gamerghazi is actually a more active (and arguably more vitriolic) Reddit forum. I've said my piece on this case on Wikipediocracy, it is there if you look for it. Short take: Arbcom got it mostly right. I'll give 'em a B+. The anti-Gamergaters still control an unbalanced, POV article however, let there be no mistake about that. Carrite (talk) 04:46, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Hah, /r/gamerghazi is 1/5 of the size/activity of /r/kotakuinaction alone, much less the various 8chan boards dedicated to gamergate. If you're going to make up facts, at least make up ones that aren't easily verifiable. The gamergate article has many flaws, but when the preponderance of sources are all saying similar things, the one flaw it doesn't have is being unbalanced. -- Pres N  06:35, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
 * GamerGhazi is indeed opposed to gamergate. It is not more active. In January so far, KiA got 8.77m pageviews, while Ghazi only got 2.66m.
 * Furthermore, organizing essentially anything is against that subreddit's rules (admittedly, not properly codified as such, though the line "We reject the label "Anti-GG," as we are not a movement in the same sense GG is." does imply it). Posts/comments explicitly calling for action are virtually always deleted, and those implicitly calling for action are generally deleted as well. I should now; as a moderator of that subreddit I've often enforced that rule. "Anti-GG" might organize elsewhere (I wouldn't know), but it is not allowed to do so on Ghazi. (Full disclosure: I got to this page via Ghazi, though I've been paying attention to GG on WP independently) Menethh (talk) 08:41, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

''"The (...Arbcom case...) has been an utter, avoidable failure that shakes any confidence I have the Committee will be effective in the future." '' I would like to celebrate the tenth anniversary of someone declaring this about an Arbcom case decision. Manning (talk) 09:32, 30 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Meanwhile, editors active in Gamergate controversy seem to be very good at keeping out opinions by pundits, just like in Anita Sarkeesian, Tropes vs. Women in Video Games, Zoe Quinn, Brianna Wu, etc. People should think of cutting down the intake of Reddit and 8chan posts.
 * Peter Isotalo 17:01, 31 January 2015 (UTC)


 * 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 learn to be faster and sharper with new cases and admins need to be less afraid of excercising  their duties under WP:AE. Kudos for admins such  as  and   for later being  bold and not  letting  themselves be browbeaten by  those who  insist  that  infractions of AE  are not  infractions and who  insist that PA and incivility  are  not  PA or incivility, and are perfectly  acceptable behaviour for prolific content providers. We will see how the new committee handles future cases. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 04:17, 1 February 2015 (UTC)


 * I think anyone looking at the case pages can see this was not an easy case and opinions on how to proceed differed widely within the committee itself. In the end I am reasonably satisfied with the decision.


 * Can't say the same about the "other GG" decision, the gendergap case. I feel like we screwed that one up pretty badly. Part of the reason I am glad to be done with the committee was that I was tired of seeing some arbs bend over backwards to try and avoid banning users who we all agreed had been causing disruption for a long time and who would inevitably act disruptively in the future. It's an attitude that I simly cannot understand.  We saw a little of this in the gamergate case but it was much worse in the gendergap case. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:07, 1 February 2015 (UTC)


 * As Beeblebrox noted, it should be clear from reading the proposed decision page history that opinions on many points were divided; the final result, necessarily, was a majority decision. I think most or all of us on the committee are "reasonably" satisfied by the decision; I doubt anyone is fully satisfied with respect to  every point. That's inevitable in majority decision-making.
 * The committee is under pressure in two directions: "to consider extenuating circumstances" and to deal decisively with long term problem users. These two are often incompatible. I think that was the case here, and this incompatibility was one important cause of the different views by those on the committee. Unless we were to completely ignore one of these factors, all  such decisions  are matters of judgment, and  for any possible result, some people will be understandably dissatisfied.  DGG ( talk ) 17:19, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

Confusing terminology
I don't understand some terminology: What does it mean to be "for" Gamergate? Or "against"? That's like being for or against Watergate, and what would that mean? I am serious here, will somebody explain what the for and against words mean? Thanks, GeorgeLouis (talk) 08:24, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
 * "Pro" Gamergate poeple are those that are stating they believe there are ethics issues in current video game journalism. "Anti" Gamergater people are either those that counter these claims, and/or that have been highly critical of the methods that are attributed to the pro-Gamergate side or the hashtag, though as a label this is much less commonly used. At times you'll see "Gamergater" which refers to the pro-Gamergate side. --M ASEM (t) 16:04, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
 * The whole thing was very confusing. When reviewing some of the offsite evidence I had to do some digging to find out why "fag" "neckbeard" and "sea lion" were all apparently being used in ways I was not familiar with. These folks, on all sides of the gamer insider world, might find people had a better understanding of their concerns if they spoke in ways what could be easily understood by those "not in the club".


 * On the other hand we do the exact same thing around here all the time with all of our WP:WHATEVER links. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:59, 2 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Defining what GamerGate is has been one of the major debates surrounding this article. Not to get too meta but I've seen it described as a consumer revolt, an effort to change ethics policies in videogame journalism, an effort to target perceived "enemies" with harassment AND a fight as a bulwark against left-wing progressive perspective (the dreaded and mythic "Social Justice Warriors") that proclaims itself no less than a culture war in determining the future of America. As in many articles, defining what something is (and what it is not), is often half the battle. Call it the "War over the Lede". Liz  Read! Talk! 00:24, 8 February 2015 (UTC)