Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/GamerGate/Statement
Posted: 27 January 2015
This text was approved by the English Wikipedia Arbitration Committee by motion via the private arbitration wiki and mailing list.
For Wikipedia to be the encyclopedia that anyone can edit, it is essential that the editing experience is civil. Wikipedia is a reference work, not a battlefield. In recent months, the atmosphere surrounding the Gamergate controversy article on the English Wikipedia has resembled the latter. This atmosphere has been disruptive to the experience for editors and was damaging to the English Wikipedia project as a whole. The English Wikipedia Arbitration Committee accepted a case on user conduct in the Gamergate controversy article and related articles, including biographies of those related to the topic.
Our preliminary decision found that many contributors were in violation of English Wikipedia policies on user conduct. The proposed decision imposes broad sanctions against a wide range of individuals, however this decision is subject to change, and proposed sanctions have not taken effect. These sanctions are intended to allow the restoration of normal editing processes to the topic area and facilitate constructive contributions. Our investigation and findings do not pass judgement on the content or quality of the articles in question.
About the English Wikipedia Arbitration Committee
The Arbitration Committee deals with editor conduct on the English Wikipedia. Its members are volunteer editors elected by the Wikipedia community. The role of the Committee is to restore normal, amicable editing processes when those processes have been disrupted by disputes. It does so through hearing cases and issuing rulings, and when appropriate, removing disruptive parties.
The mandate of the Arbitration Committee extends only to editor conduct. Wikipedia policies prohibit the Committee from making editorial decisions about article content. When deciding cases, the Committee does not rule on the content of articles, or make judgements on the personal views of parties to the case. Although sometimes described as Wikipedia’s Supreme Court by the press, the Committee applies Wikipedia policies and guidelines rather than legal principles.
Preliminary findings regarding the GamerGate case under consideration
The Arbitration Committee is in the process of hearing a case on the conduct and interactions between editors contributing to the Gamergate controversy article and related pages. The Committee agreed to hear the case to examine user conduct and to attempt to reduce the level of disruption around the topic on Wikipedia. There have been a number of articles about this case in the press of late, some of which mischaracterise the Committee, its process, and outcomes of this case. We would like to clarify the Committee’s purpose, process, and preliminary findings. The two primary issues in the case at hand are the behaviour of editors as they have engaged in the development of the Gamergate controversy article, and the application of the Wikipedia policy of neutral point of view.
Status of the decision
Last Monday (19 January 2015), a subset of Committee members posted a proposed decision on the case. This proposal was not a final decision.
For each case it hears, the Arbitration Committee selects drafting arbitrators: several members of the Committee who, often with input from the rest of the Committee, review the evidence presented and offer preliminary findings. Once the proposed decision has been posted, other Committee members are invited to add additional findings and remedies, and edit existing ones. The proposal may be reworked or revised, and new measures may be voted on. If there is a consensus among committee members, the preliminary decision may be restructured entirely.
Sanctions in the proposed decision do not take effect until the Arbitration Committee votes to close the case, at which point the passing principles, findings, and remedies are posted in the final decision section. Contrary to what has been reported, the Arbitration Committee frequently hears and approves appeals of sanctions and other remedies when they are found to no longer be necessary.
Findings on editor conduct
From the creation of the Gamergate controversy article, many Wikipedia editors have held differing views about how the controversy should best be represented. These discussions grew increasingly heated, and certain editors were identified for potentially violating established English Wikipedia conduct policies, as defined by the broader editor community. The Arbitration Committee agreed to hear the case to attempt to reduce the level of disruption in the topic.
The Committee’s preliminary findings have been represented in some media stories as targeting feminist editors and attempting to prevent their contributions to gender-related topics. This is inaccurate. The findings of the Arbitration Committee deal exclusively with the documented conduct of editors on the English Wikipedia. They do not consider editor opinion, identity, affiliation, or beliefs, nor do they take into consideration an editor’s actions or affiliations outside of their participation on English Wikipedia, unless those actions are directly related to facilitating disruption on the encyclopedia. The Arbitration Committee does not and cannot take a stance on the content of articles, nor on broader issues such as the Gamergate controversy itself.
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:
- 11 topic bans applied to editors on various sides of the dispute,
- an endorsement of 40 or so existing community sanctions on combative parties on various sides,
- roughly 100 community warnings/notifications,
- an extension of all community topic bans and restrictions from editing articles related to the Gamergate controversy article to include restriction from participation in any gender-related dispute, for editors on various sides, and
- the introduction of discretionary sanctions for any gender-related dispute, which can be imposed by any uninvolved administrator when useful for stabilising a topic, empowering the community to deal with disruption quickly.
The current majorities on the proposed decision are not in favour of banning any editors from Wikipedia.
Neutral point of view
The Arbitration Committee does not address the content of Wikipedia articles. As such, the preliminary decision by the Committee is not a referendum on the content, perspective, or neutrality of the Gamergate controversy article. The Committee does not endorse or censure the content in the article in question.
However, the Committee understands that the editor conduct issues under review are related to efforts by those with conflicting opinions of the topics relating to the Gamergate controversy article to influence the content of related Wikipedia articles. The English Wikipedia has robust policies and guidelines designed to address precisely such situations. The preliminary findings of the Committee reiterate the existence and importance of these existing policies and guidelines, and invite the participation of neutral editors and administrators in the maintenance and development of the articles in question.
These include:
- a reminder to editors about existing provisions of the English Wikipedia policy on biographies of living persons, for the purpose of addressing "drive-by" abuse,
- an invitation for neutral editors to participate in the topic,
- an invitation for uninvolved administrators to participate in dispute resolution, and
- a reminder for administrators on appropriate actions pertaining to biographies of living persons.
Please direct press enquiries about this case to the Arbitration Committee via email. For the Wikimedia Foundation, the non-profit organisation that hosts and supports the projects of the Wikimedia movement, see their press room.