Talk:Gamergate (harassment campaign)/Archive 37

We should make this article less biased
Its quite apparent that this article is very biased towards the likes of Zoe Quinn and Anita Sarkessian and does not show both sides of the story. We should make it told from both sides of the story. Destructor3 (talk) 02:45, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Search the 36 archived talk pages for more conversation about bias. Liz  Read! Talk!

Topic shift
collapse top|claims that additional repetition of baseless complaints is somehow a good thing for the encyclopedia are not supported by policy or evidence. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  03:52, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

This talk page is for any and all discussion on the topic of article improvement. This contribution from User:PeterTheFourth should not have been closed and so I will open it again after waiting an appropriate amount of time. Chrisrus (talk) 01:25, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Hi Chris! This contribution was from Destructor3, not me. I closed it because the talk page is for discussing improvements to the article, not complaints about bias. PeterTheFourth (talk) 03:02, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
 * All such complaints about bias are article-improvement talk page contributions. Chrisrus (talk) 03:54, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
 * See WP:HORSEMEAT. At some point, all there has to be said has been said unless there are new sources to be discussed or a compelling new argument (e.g. Not 'this biased fix please'). PeterTheFourth (talk) 03:59, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
 * This constant hatting practice is in direct opposition to a host of best practices, including WP:AGF, WP:BITE, WP:RTP and WP:CIVIL. I understand that this article is under discretionary sanctions, but I'm missing the part of the sanctions that endorses or encourages the hatting of discussion from new editors. It should also be noted that WP:HORSEMEAT is an essay, and I don't think it should ever be used to close a two-minute-old discussion on a talk page. Nor does a supposed violation of WP:FORUM or WP:EXHAUST warrant an immediate hatting. Lastly, I would advise that you take some time to actually read Template:Hidden archive top. It might help to read it aloud. Here is the relevant quote: "This template should only be used by uninvolved editors in conjunction with the talk page guidelines and relevant advice at refactoring. It should not be used by involved parties to end a discussion over the objections of other editors." Now read it again and focus on that last sentence. If an editor new to the talk page brings up a previously-discussed topic, point them to the relevant discussion or RFC (for example: Talk:Gamergate controversy/RFC1 is a great RFC with a fantastic, balanced response from the closing admin) and move on. It can't be that difficult, can it? Certainly it's no more difficult than hatting every new editor's contribution to the talk page and telling them that they managed to beat a horse to death in two minutes. ColorOfSuffering (talk) 22:20, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
 * the  THIRTY FUCKING SIX pages of archives   are more than enough evidence that what the page DOES NOT NEED is more rehashing of the same baseless position. --  TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  01:30, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
 * As we have discussed extensively, these topics have been introduced and re-introduced by new (or, typically, “new”) editors, often at two-week intervals and leading to protracted and unproductive rehashing of settled questions. A number of the frequent topics invite BLP violations, typically prurient sexual information or other unfounded allegations about Gamergate targets. A million words have been spent, exhausting the most dedicated volunteers. That is the point of these constantly repeated rehashed arguments, of course, and the reason they are so carefully coordinated offsite: to fill the talk page with Gamergate talking points and to use it to broadcast innuendo about Gamergate victims, which is to say Wikipedia's victims. The hatting has been explicitly sanctioned at AE; it would not be best practice elsewhere, perhaps, but it is best practice, and very necessary, here.. MarkBernstein (talk) 22:59, 4 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Perhaps it is time for a new question for the FAQ at the top of this page? Gamaliel  ( talk ) 23:03, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Different question than Q2: "Why is Wikipedia preventing me from editing the article or talk page? Why is this article biased towards one party or the other?" ForbiddenRocky (talk) 23:07, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I got my bias threads confused. I thought this one was about ethics v. misogyny.  Gamaliel  ( talk ) 23:11, 4 May 2015 (UTC)


 * The thing is, talk is save and cheap, and as long as it is not disruptive, it is completely fine to discuss issues. And remember, consensus can change. Further, the Gamergate situation, which involves numerous elements which collide with Wikipedia, is not a simple one to write off in a few sentences. The issue that Gamergate presents is the fallacy of "verifyability, not truth" that policy dictates, but that can lead to situations as described in this article . And this should be challenging our perception of how to properly report on a situation in a neutral, objective manner if external sources see a problem here with how policy gets in the way. And that doesn't happen without talk page discussion.
 * What doesn't help is shutting down SPA and IPs with unhelpful comments and premature hatting of threads, when this page is under sanctions. That's what is fueling a battleground atmosphere, though far from any single individual can be pointed at fault. Pointing the user to the FAQ is much more helpful than saying "what changes to you propose" or just closing the thread without comment. Patience is a virtue here. Yes, some SPA and IPs are here to disrupt, but that's why we have uninvolved admins that can be asked to deal with them. It should not be on the shoulders of involved editors to make a decision if an SPA or IP is unhelpful and shut down that discussion. --M ASEM (t) 01:45, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm afraid that "talk is cheap" is exactly true. It's easy to talk and doing so doesn't actually add anything to the article. We don't need another airy philosophical debate about the implications of this or that for the fortieth fucking time. We don't. It's a waste of everyone's time. Protonk (talk) 02:01, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
 * On Wikipedia it is true. We rather have endless pages of talk discussion than any mainspace article edit warring. And ArbCom in fact endorses this in the GG case. At some point there can be a dead horse aspect, but that point should be left to uninvolved admins while this page is under sanctions. Refusal to want to talk about issues or dismiss them is an unhealthy battleground attitude. --M ASEM (t) 02:16, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Don't lecture me about wikipedia. Protonk (talk) 02:37, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
 * We can't and shouldn't just endlessly entertain arguments with no actionable suggestions for changes to make to the article. It's unproductive and a waste of everyone's time. In previous hatted discussions, editors have been pointed to the FAQ and archived discussions, and asked if they had any suggested changes that fell within policy. How much hand-holding do you reasonably expect us to do? We have enough previous discussion at our disposal that we don't need to and shouldn't have to rehash the same conversation every time someone new stops by unless there's some new information from reliable sources. Kaciemonster (talk) 02:57, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
 * You are wrong.
 * At the point where you or anyone else feel that everything that "has to be said has been said", then just don't say any more. Just walk away from the thread, or leave a stock answer and walk away.  You don't need to get the last word.  Do not close the thread in this way.
 * Do not close the threads in such a way that talk page watchers can't easily see what has been said. The fact that you have dealt already with the concerns or that someone has just means you maybe should find something else to do.  Hatting in this way resembles censorship and is hostile to reader feedback where we should be welcoming to all reader feedback on articles, actionable or otherwise.  For example, if a reader opens a thread to say "This article is bad."  "Thanks for the feedback, but unless you have specific suggestions your feedback is not helpful" and then say no more. As long as the topic remains article improvement, it is allowed.  If the topic strays to the referent, you can explain politely that this is a place for discussion of article improvement and not the referent, so please focus on that.
 * For example, tomorrow, someone might open a thread that says little more than "this is biased, fix please". This is allowed.  Do not close such threads on the grounds that many, many others have said the same thing before.  That others have said the same things before or that in your judgement, find something else to do other than preventing other talk page readers from easily seeing if that's the case.  Leave a stock answer, direct to an FAQ, or simply do nothing.  You are under no obligation to say anything.
 * Stop closing threads because you feel everything has been said and the conversation is over. Instead, stop participating in the conversation, or simply direct them to an FAQ.  The fact that something has been said on a talk page thousands of times is no justification for closing it in such a way that it can't be easily read.  To do otherwise is too similar to censorship.
 * I will wait an appropriate amount of time and then I will remove this hat on the grounds that the mere fact that a topic has been brought up a ten thousand times before does not mean a thread should be closed in this way. Chrisrus (talk) 03:12, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Heavens forbid. Censorship? What a dreadful thing for me to have committed. PeterTheFourth (talk) 03:21, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Making it difficult to see text may not quite the same as censorship, but is something close, as it can in effect stifle free discussion. I will undo this last close at once.  Do not re-close it without proper grounds.  Chrisrus (talk) 04:25, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Exactly HOW is the encyclopedia improved by encouraging continuous blather on topics that are clearly settled by policy? -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  04:57, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

Image for Brianna Wu
Hi! There are two images of Brianna Wu at our article for her (one specifically focusing on her) that are of higher quality than the image we currently use for her in the article. Should we use one of those instead? PeterTheFourth (talk) 11:08, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
 * On a similar note- replace the image we have of Anita Sarkeesian? PeterTheFourth (talk) 11:11, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
 * New Brianna Wu image update sounds good. But aren't we using the Sarkeesian from her entry? ForbiddenRocky (talk) 07:40, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
 * We do use one image of Sarkeesian from her article- currently of her speaking at a conference. I was thinking it might(?) be better to use the headshot that leads her article than the image from the conference. PeterTheFourth (talk) 08:48, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
 * The new Wu image is clearer; so this would be an improvement. But I don't see a need to change the Sarkeesian image; not a strong opinion, just saying something because you look like you're looking for input. ForbiddenRocky (talk) 19:33, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Alright, cool- I'll let it be. I just thought I'd throw it out there while I was thinking of the Brianna Wu one. PeterTheFourth (talk) 00:53, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

Lede needs rewrite
Given "One concern is that Internet trolls intending to stir up conflict are responsible for many of the threats attributed to Gamergate.[66][67][70] Writing for Vox, Todd VanDerWerff wrote that the Gamergate supporters' "actually interesting concerns" were being "warped and drowned out by an army of trolls spewing bile, often at women."[32]", and "The BBC reported "that misogynist abuse—and vitriolic messages in general—is not limited to either 'side' of the argument," noting that Allum Bokhari, a writer for TechCrunch, said a trolling group was "working to provoke both sides against each other".[70]" and the references to people in Gamergate being harassed and the recent bomb threat the lede should be rewritten to reflect that not only have harassment and attacks been suffered by both supporters and opponents to Gamergate, but also that it's suspected that third party trolls are responsible for the harassment. Mythiran (talk) 20:58, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
 * This seems like it might be undue weight. Additionally, it presupposes that involvement by third parties means that gamergaters are culpable for none of the harassment, which is provably false. PeterTheFourth (talk) 21:03, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Welcome back to Wikipedia! It appears that you've been away for about seven years; it's always great to see old editors again. This particular page has been the subject of a great deal of discussion; you might want to review the extensive talk page archives! The proposition that the harassing messages claiming to come from Gamergate were in fact sent be completely different people using the same hashtag is just one of the topics that has been discussed at length here -- unfortunately, is has nearly no support in reliable sources and has, as PeterTheFourth points out, the disadvantage of being untrue. MarkBernstein (talk) 22:46, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I think this article should be less biased, and that there should be citations in the lede. I have a YouTube video that explains it all.  Dumuzid (talk) 23:43, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

Unless a slew of reliable sources published in the last few days contradicts the masses of reliable sources accumulated over the past months, there is nothing here to discuss, again. And again. And again. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  00:39, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

Please check
this diff. I found that where the mention of the restraining order was a bit odd, and so reworked a few things to getting the mention of the order in a more logical place (alongside where Quinn had to flee her home), added a reason why Quinn saught the order (due to the post going to many sites as to poke the horent's nest), and reworked a bit of the narrative to flow that better. Did not intentionally want to change anything else. --M ASEM (t) 15:30, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
 * (And the only reason I point this out is that this is around the "false allege" aspect of the Quinn/Grayson claim, which I know is a touchy area). --M ASEM (t) 15:34, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I reworked slightly, personally I think we can just drop the "The claim was quickly proven false by Quinn and others" bit and just say that the allegations were false upfront, but I didn't want to change too much. — Strongjam (talk) 15:35, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
 * There is a subtle language thing here. "Falsely claim/allege", at least as I read it, means that the detractors purposely made up a claim knowing it to be false. This is not how the sources present how the allegation was made, in that how the detractors believed, based on Gjoni's post, that she had a relationship and thus believed, in earnest, that she used that to gain positive press. They point to the prior game jam article as such positive press to support their allegation. Obviously, we know that claim is false due to lack of any review, Kotaku's statement, and Quinn's statement, no question, but the original allegation was not falsely made by the detractors, just shown false.  --M ASEM  (t) 15:46, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Not to rehash the argument, but I've always been OK with 'erroneously claim' or any other synonym, but we need to be quite clear in the sentence that there was no factually basis for the claim. No review existed, we don't even need the benefit of hindsight to see that the claim was false. — Strongjam (talk) 15:52, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
 * "Erroneously claim" is fine, that's appropriate. But remember that what they are saying is that they had 2 "facts" (though how true those facts were at the time, we don't know): Gjoni's statement that Quinn and Grayson had a relationship via his blog post, and that Grayson had written about Quinn before. They added those to get to a conclusion that was clearly false - that Quinn used Grayson to gain a positive review - but they didn't start that claim from a vacuum of no information, which is why we should be careful to say that they "falsely claimed" this. The claim is false, or they made an error in making the claim becuase of the lack of the review (or that they were considering the game jam coverage as favorable review) - no question on that point. Just that we can't say that they purposely falsified the claim.  (Or as another example which I know I can speak to without BLP question: I know there have been some outside WP that call me a GG Sea Lion, but that claim is false since I don't side with GG's aspirations at all. They did not "falsely accuse" me of this, because I can totally see how my editing pattern would infer that I'm anti-anti-GG or thus pro-GG, so they believe some some degree of earnest that this is true. They did "erroneously claim" this, or that they made a claim that is false.  It's a very subtle language thing, basically). --M ASEM  (t) 16:22, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

“Erroneous” is not satisfactory here, as an erroneous claim might represent an honest mistake. The claim was: Quinn traded sex for reviews. There were no reviews. No reasonable person would make this claim without knowing whether or not Grayson had written reviews. Either the claim was a lie or it was reckless: "false" is needed here. (We could accept as a compromise that we say the claim was either false or made with reckless disregard for the truth, but that’s not going tot be popular with Gamergate advocates.) But "mistaken" is literally irresponsible and we cannot use it -- especially since our sources all agree that the claim was false, but none have presented any reason to believe it was mistaken. MarkBernstein (talk) 16:57, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Just as if we have no idea if the claim was mistaken, we have no idea the claim was made purposely false, and again, we know they based their claim on "facts" from other sources. It wasn't made in a void of information and without any sources that say they made it falsely, we can't say it was made falsely. It was a claim since prove false, no question. It might have been made recklessly but again, we have no sources for that. But we absolutely cannot say it was made falsely with the RS gives and it would be OR to say this otherwise. --M ASEM  (t) 17:58, 8 May 2015 (UTC)


 * No. A reasonable and prudent person will, before shouting “Fire!” in a crowded theater, take reasonable steps to assure himself that there is a fire. A reasonable and prudent person will, before saying that “this woman exchanged sex for favorable reviews”, take reasonable steps to assure himself that this claim is true. There is no void of information: there were no reviews, period. You would not say that falsely shouting "Fire!" was "erroneous" because the shouter might not have known whether or not there was a fire, would you?  Especially if you know that (a) the fact that there was not fire could easily be ascertained, (b) there was never any evidence of fire, and (c) the person falsely shouting “Fire!” did so from desire to disrupt the performance.  This endless wrangling over questions we have settled months ago is tiresome and disruptive. MarkBernstein (talk) 19:30, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
 * They are taking the game jam article as a review/positive coverage, which we know was not a review. That existed; just that you, me, and the rest of the RS discount that as a claim of being positive coverage. To say they made the claim falsely requires a statement from a RS on the intent that they made these falsely; if you don't have an RS, it then is original research to assign motiviation. I have no question the claim was made disruptively, but both truthful and false claims can be made disruptively, but that's a separate issue. --M ASEM  (t) 20:01, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Taking the game jam article as a review is, in the 'fire' analogy, like taking somebody lighting a cigarette as a grievous threat to the lives of the crowd gathered in the theater. I think 'false' will do just fine. PeterTheFourth (talk) 22:37, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Again, the claim being "false" is 100% fine, no question. But to say the claim was falsely made is ascribing intent, and unless you have a source that specifies this was the intent, it's original research/peacocky. --M ASEM (t) 22:44, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I don't actually understand what your concern is. If somebody alleges something that is false, they are falsely alleging- it's not really about intent so much as it is about the accuracy of the allegation. PeterTheFourth (talk) 22:49, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
 * See my example about me being called a Sea Lion off-wiki. It's alleged based on faulty logic from available data. But it was not made falsely,; making the accusation falsely would mean they knew it certainly 100% false to start with and were only making the accusation to cause disruption. It is a false claim since I know I'm not a Sea Lion, but not made under false pretenses. --M ASEM (t) 23:25, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I understand your assertion that a false allegation is defined as an allegation knowingly falsely made- I just don't agree with it at all. What would you use to support the assumption that the reader would assume it was knowingly falsely alleged rather than just falsely alleged? PeterTheFourth (talk) 23:31, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
 * "Falsely alleged" means that this was their motivation. We cannot presume their motivation ourselves (that's original research) so we need a source that reports that their motivation was to falsely allege this statement to Quinn. Without a source, we are making an unverified claim. --M ASEM (t) 23:43, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Perhaps our article on false accusations can help shed light on it- it describes it in that false accusations can be knowingly made. That is, not all false accusations are knowingly made, so the assumption that our readers will automatically assume it was knowingly false is, er, misguided? PeterTheFourth (talk) 00:00, 9 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Which states "...proposing the term "false allegations" be used specifically when the accuser is aware they are lying...", and we have no awareness if they knew they were lying. It was only until after Kotaku made the statement that absolutely falsehood was known. --M ASEM (t) 00:24, 9 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Right, which is the opinion of researchers Poole and Lindsay, and Wikipedian Masem. I'm not sure that indicates our readers will assume as you assume that a 'false allegation' means one that is always knowingly made. PeterTheFourth (talk) 00:38, 9 May 2015 (UTC)
 * You told me to look at the wikipedia article to see about it, and I provided information it says (that line was just one sentence, but the rest of that article collaborates that that willing made up information, when the truthfulness of that information was not known until after the fact). --M ASEM (t) 00:43, 9 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Urgh, fine, here's the relevant sentence quoted just for you- "A false allegation can occur as the result of intentional lying on the part of the accuser; or unintentionally, due to a confabulation, either arising spontaneously due to mental illness or resulting from deliberate or accidental suggestive questioning, or faulty interviewing techniques." -paraphrase as "a false allegation can occur [...] unintentionally". PeterTheFourth (talk) 00:48, 9 May 2015 (UTC)
 * As the rest reads: "Unintentionally from a confabulation from [cases]". Yes, it can occur unintentionally, but please show what sources say that the ones that proposed it have mental illness or were in questioning or interviewing Quinn. We can't make that assessment on our own without making original research. I can tell you that from reading the GG side, while their intent was not ethically, they honestly (in so far this is what their dossier still says) believed that there was positive coverage from the gamejam. Of course, we have no sources for that we can use, but we also have no sources that say they purposely made up the claim based on zero information, or that they inadvertently made that claim, so it is best for WP:V and NPOV to simply state that they made the accusation, and the accusation was quickly proven false. We've already identified that the prior harassment of Quinn was bad enough, in addition to how Gjoni's post was put to places where Quinn's detractors would read it, so reading between the lines it's a fair conclusion (that does not need to be stated) that accusation was unethical, but we simply cannot say they falsely alleged this. (And I've been checking to find any reliable sources that make that claim of "falsely alleged", but no one says that; they affirm the claims false but not that they were falsely made). This is the type of wording we have to be absolutely correct on. --M ASEM  (t) 03:15, 9 May 2015 (UTC)
 * At the end of the day, I don't think I will ever understand why you are convinced that 'falsely alleged' means 'knowingly falsely alleged', nor do you seem willing to accept that other people might read 'falsely alleged' as 'falsely alleged'. It is unreasonable to expect our readers to always interpret it as 'knowingly falsely alleged', and thus I am in favour of 'falsely alleged' in the article. PeterTheFourth (talk) 03:40, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

First I will say I apologize to some degree: by falling back to the definition of falsely (which I'm pulling from here ), then yes, "falsely" can be used to mean "incorrectly" (the intent here that Peter is suggesting) though it also can mean "insincerely". That said, in the context of this article, which is about a controversial subject, we should be using language that the least chance for misinterpretation in context, and this is the situation here. "Falsely alleged" has two significantly different meanings, and while one is correct, the other one is very subjective (that is, the "insincerely" side), meaning we should have the backing of many sources to use this term, or otherwise use a more direct, non-conflicting wording that is more representative of the sources (most which do not have any adverb on the "allege" action, but immediately state the disproven claims following). The wording "falsely alleged" has just enough potential for misinterpretation that includes making subjective statements about the intent of a group of people that if the sources aren't using that, we should avoid that. (A similar case: we use the language "Quinn was forced from her home..." which, in other situations, has sometimes be an exaggeration, but the press universally use this term to describe this for Quinn's situation, so no question we should use this here, we have sourcing to back that up). --M ASEM (t) 04:07, 9 May 2015 (UTC)
 * "Alleged" implies that correct/incorrect has not been asserted. "Falsely alleged" implies intent or else we would describe it in temporal order.  (i.e. "X alleged Y, which was later determined to be incorrect.").  By placing "false" before "alleged", we imply intent.  Consider the fictional case where a person convicted of rape was released after DNA evidence exonerated him; we would not describe the victims courtroom testimony as "She falsely swore that he raped her."  The use of "falsely" in that placement implies an intent to decieve more than the veracity of the statement and we wouldn't allow it.  This is pretty basic comprehension and we should not be using "falsely alleged" unless we have a source that describes an intent to make a false allegation.  It's too easy to write it temporally correct than to imply an unsourced intent at any level of English comprehension.  --DHeyward (talk) 06:23, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

Venture Beat on GamerGate effect
http://venturebeat.com/2015/05/06/gamergates-positive-effect-were-now-talking-about-diversity/ ForbiddenRocky (talk) 23:11, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

Other news while I'm at it:
 * http://www.salon.com/2015/05/09/were_all_trolls_now_how_the_internet_lost_its_prankster_lulz_and_found_its_ideological_rage/ ForbiddenRocky (talk) 09:01, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

First paragraph of "Subsequent Harassment"
How much of the harassment described is gamergate-related? I can't find any evidence that gamergate was involved in any incident in the first paragraph via Sarkeesian, but correct me if I'm wrong.

Also, sources 40 and 41 are from 2012, two years before gamergate. Ylevental (talk) 18:18, 13 May 2015 (UTC)


 * gives the connection. --M ASEM (t) 18:27, 13 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Further, to add, even if the harassment then did not directly tie to GG, it has been since established she is a target of GG at about that time. --M ASEM (t) 18:29, 13 May 2015 (UTC)
 * When I do a search for the term "gamergate" in the article, I only find one instance, and it relates to the harassment of Zoe Quinn. The first sentence after the description of Quinn's harassment states "When Sarkeesian released a new trope video in the weeks after the Quinn incident, the threats against Sarkeesian escalated yet again."  But it doesn't officially establish her harassment as a result of gamergate -- I presume that it is vague by Wikipedia policy.  Most of the article is about Sarkeesian.


 * Also, is there a reliable source that officially establishes her as a target of gamergate at this time? Ylevental (talk) 18:38, 13 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Irregardless of where the threats to Sarkeesian came from specifically as a result of that Tropes vs Women video in August - even if they are not specifically attributed to GG, the combined effect between what was happening to Quinn and others have caused the press to consider the harassment against Sarkeesian to be grouped into the same harassment of Quinn. And then given after the fact she was discussed on GG twitters (per the Newsweek/Brandwatch survey's raw data), it's very hard to make the distinguishing point where harassment towards Sarkeesian was from non-GG and then from GG point. And yes, she's considered a target of GG now per and many many others. --M ASEM  (t) 18:51, 13 May 2015 (UTC)
 * The Guardian also points to her being a target of Gamergate harassment: "As well as persistent low-level harassment for the past two years, the attacks stepped up a notch in August 2014 when Sarkeesian was identified as one of the key targets of “#gamergate”. Ostensibly a campaign against corruption in journalism but in practice a grassroots attack on feminist critics in gaming, Gamergate has led to at least three prominent women in gaming having to take action over threats of violence." Kaciemonster (talk) 18:58, 13 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Alright,makes sense to me. Ylevental (talk) 20:22, 13 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Which threats do you refer to? . When I read the threat it was clear the threat wasn't real, anyone motivated enough to shoot up a college wouldn't just call everything off because the speech didn't occur. A scan of the threat is found here. CR055H41RZ (talk) 22:41, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

Is the new theory that the harassment and misogyny weren’t the fault of Gamergate -- it was completely different people using the same hashtag? Sigh. MarkBernstein (talk) 19:49, 13 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Were those threats concerning her latest video grouped with the hashtag at all?? Maybe every instance of harassment in gaming as of Fall 2014 is the result of gamergate, and they just all happened at the same time.  Sigh. Ylevental (talk) 20:18, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

The proposition that every single instance of harassment in gaming in Fall 2014 is the result of Gamergate is hardly improbable on its face. Threatening to murder or rape software developers is not routine behavior, to say the least. Gamergate used these threats in Fall 2014 in order to achieve its goals. But, yes, many sources ascribe Sarkeesian’s harassment to Gamergate, Sarkeesian has published a list of Twitter harassment which includes Gamergate-affiliated posts, etc etc etc etc. MarkBernstein (talk) 22:15, 13 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Quoted in Washington Post: "For the record, one [murder] threat did claim affiliation with Gamergate." End of story. MarkBernstein (talk) 22:19, 13 May 2015 (UTC)


 * To be fair to Ylevental's point, I believe he was speaking to the harassment immediately after the release of the Tropes vs Women video (say, within the week or so). I've been unable to find sources that link GG to her harassment during that brief period (a month out, no problem), though now, what she got was seen as the trend that lead to the GG by September 2014. I think how we have it now is fine: it shows she's been harassed since at least 2012 due to the Tropes vs Women series, and a release of her video near the same time Quinn was targetted soon lead to her being involved in GG as an harassment target within a month. We don't need to worry about the specifics since she's clearly involved now. --M ASEM (t) 22:30, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

POV Tag
Please don't drive-by tag. Per POV instructions please point to specific issues that are actionable within the content policies. Otherwise the tag will be removed. — Strongjam (talk) 13:23, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

Requested move 15 May 2015
Gamergate controversy → Gamergate Harassment Campaign Gamergate harassment campaign – Harassment in Gamergate is the most notable aspect of the movement. Ylevental (talk) 09:56, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
 * IIRC we wouldn't be capitalising harassment and campaign in the title. PeterTheFourth (talk) 10:02, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Understood Ylevental (talk) 10:07, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
 * How about Gamergate (harassment campaign)? PeterTheFourth (talk) 10:05, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure about the brackets. Harassment was the most notable aspect of gamergate, but it wasn't an organized harassment campaign Ylevental (talk) 10:08, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
 * As noted by Vox, Vice and the BBC, there is nothing to actually link the Gamergate movement with the anonymous harassers using the Gamergate hashtag. If anything, the opinionated slant running throughout the lede in this article rests too heavily on the allegations of harassment. Given that GamerGate was recently invited to propose five representatives to speak for the Society of Professional Journalists ( http://journoterrorist.com/airplay/ ) and looks likely to continue as a movement against corruption in journalism indefinitely, it would be a giant step in the wrong direction to further highlight the alleged harassment connection. Mythiran (talk) 11:47, 15 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Strongest possible oppose - Even most high level RSes today note the duality of the GG situation - some that say they are about ethics, with their voices being lost among those the most obsessive that engage in harassment. To focus solely on the harassment as the only "campaign" in the title of this article would be completely against all NPOV naming schemes. "Controversy" is a term used in sources, and is sufficiently neutral reflecting on the controversy over what the exact nature of GG is. The harassment aspect is going to get the largest amount of coverage because that unfortunately is the most notable feature of the situation, but it by far not the only feature. --M ASEM (t) 12:27, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose I assume that this is meant to be humor? Clearly the name change isn't viable - per Masem, harassment has been going on under the Gamergate banner, but so has a whole lot more. "Controversy" covers the breadth of the issue without being focused on any single aspect. - Bilby (talk) 12:44, 15 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Strongest possible oppose - Gamergate is a movement for ethics in the gaming press. The only harassment comes from the collusion of a clique of radical feminists and the crooked gaming press trying to save their own butts. --Stormwatch (talk) 12:51, 15 May 2015 (UTC)


 * I was planning to hat this as a pointy request when to my surprise people actually took it seriously. For those of you not in the know, on Gamergate discussion boards such as 8chan's /gamergatehq/ and r/wikiinaction/kotakuinaction, there's been a large amount of discussion about how to improve the article. You often get quite a few people claiming that the article is a lost hope and that the best way to discredit it is to make it so POV-slanted and incendiary in its langauge that no one could take it seriously. Please note that this request is coming from a guy who made an article he claimed was a "pro-SJW hoax" . The fact that people have actually fallen for this pointy request speaks volumes about the way they are approaching this topic. But given that we're properly discussing this and all.. Oppose mostly per BLP concerns but also because I think it's not an accurate representation of the sources. Labelling the article in the title as a harassment campaign would implicate all gamergate members named in the article as harassers without proper sourcing. This would be a very dodgy move from a BLP perspective. Bosstopher (talk) 12:53, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
 * , I fear you may do the editor a disservice. See Special:Diff/662410844. - Ryk72 'c.s.n.s.' 13:05, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Well Wow... that's surprising... But given the editors previous attempts to pretend to be an "SJW" to prove a point, i still think it's fair to assume this move request was carried out with POINTy intent, even if it did have Jorm based inspiration. Bosstopher (talk) 13:10, 15 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Oppose - Fails WP:NPOV, WP:AT, probably WP:NOR. - Ryk72 'c.s.n.s.' 13:05, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose - Seriously, lets just WP:SNOW close this. Agree that this request doesn't not seem to be a serious proposal. — Strongjam (talk) 13:10, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

Yeah. I was, you know, kidding with that. --Jorm (talk) 13:48, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
 * To be honest, on a page like this, given the nature of various editors' takes on discussion, Poe's law is in full effect. It is difficult at times to tell a serious proposal from a humorous one. --M ASEM (t) 13:58, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

A Counterpoint to Newsweek's View of Gamergate
I would like to suggest adding next to "Newsweek concluded that it was primarily about harassment rather than ethics....", located under the section "Debate over Ethics Allegations" this counterpoint from David Auerbach.

http://www.slate.com/articles/technology/bitwise/2015/05/google_searches_and_racism_why_big_data_studies_don_t_explain_society_as.2.html

David Auerbach: "None of the big-data analyses of Gamergate showed much of anything about harassment despite attempts on both sides to spin the results. Newsweek’s Taylor Wofford claimed that a Brandwatch study of Gamergate tweets showed that Gamergate was mostly about harassment, except that Brandwatch’s classifier wasn’t able to determine whether 90 percent of the tweets were positive or negative. The study showed nothing, but Newsweek wrote it up anyway."

Ylevental (talk) 05:22, 9 May 2015 (UTC)
 * If you'd like to include that, you're free to add it yourself, Wikipedia being the encyclopedia anyone can edit and all. PeterTheFourth (talk) 05:35, 9 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Ok, I included it. Ylevental (talk) 05:43, 9 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm not so sure. Slate says one thing ("[t]he study showed nothing"), while the clear majority of sources (Newsweek, Brandwatch, Andy Baio, Venturebeat, etc.) say the opposite. Giving Slate a greater (or even equal) number of sentences is absolutely undue. (The balance isn't so extreme to exclude Slate entirely, so one sentence is probably fair.) Beyond that, the actual experts in sentiment analysis—Brandwatch and, by extension, Newsweek, since they commissioned the report—are clear that the tweets were about harassment. Unless Auerbach is also an expert in sentiment analysis, we shouldn't present his opinion as if he were. (If he is an expert, that's something we need to state.) And that's where it gets tricky: how do we balance the minority opinion of a (possible) non-expert against the majority opinion of experts who actually ran the study? Keep in mind that we've had issues in the past—see here and here—where Wikipedia may have distorted his statements. I don't recall the specifics, but it's something that I certainly feel we should be sensitive towards. Right now, I'm of the opinion that we should remove the Slate source, because the only other option is to give a very short summary of Auerbach's opinion and to make clear that it's the opinion of a non-expert. And I don't think that's a good option at all. Of course, just my $0.02. Woodroar (talk) 06:38, 9 May 2015 (UTC) amended Woodroar (talk) 22:29, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Auerbach seems to have written a few anti sentiment analysis articles in the past, so it's clearly an area he's interested in but I'm not sure if he's an expert or not. I'm going to ask him on his talk page and see if he gives an answer. Bosstopher (talk) 07:39, 9 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Not for nothing, but this editor appears to have been involved in trying to perpetrate a hoax on Wikipedia in the very recent past (they created an article for Dixon D. White and then bragged about how stupid Wikipedia was for accepting it on reddit . They're following the standard pattern of "make enough edits for autoconfirmed and then dive right in".  Accordingly, I'm reverting their changes in order for a greater discussion.--Jorm (talk) 08:10, 9 May 2015 (UTC)
 * In case this isn't clear to other people, when someone creates a page specifically to fuck with the movement ('I tricked SJWikipedia into creating an article for "Dixon White"') and is proud of it and claims the falsehood ('I know that Wikipedia is really leftist so I wanted to see if Wikipedia editors would fall for the hoax. Anything makes it on Wikipedia if you use "approved" sources, which means if those sources lie, then that lie is going on Wikipedia. They almost 100% did (but found out his name was a pseudonym).'), then I don't think it's possible for us to trust that any edit they make in the future is "good faith".--Jorm (talk) 08:14, 9 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I hope that in this case though, we can set aside differences for the moment, as I genuinely believe that Auerbach's opinion might be worthy of inclusion. Ylevental (talk) 08:29, 9 May 2015 (UTC)
 * On inspection, I'm not sure Auerbach's opinion is notable enough for inclusion- he's not really a big name in data, making his opinion like that of any other random person. PeterTheFourth (talk) 09:29, 9 May 2015 (UTC)
 * However, Taylor Wofford of Newsweek also isn't a big name in data. And even he says in his original article "The discrepancies there seem to suggest GamerGaters cares less about ethics and more about harassing women."  Also, it would be a good idea to mention that most of the tweets are neutral. Ylevental (talk) 09:49, 9 May 2015 (UTC)
 * That would be misleading. Those classified as 'neutral' were just tweets that the algorithm couldn't identify as being positive or negative. Of those that could be, the overwhelming majority were negative. PeterTheFourth (talk) 09:59, 9 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I guess it's alright for now, but we need to see if Auerbach's opinion counts or not for sure. Maybe find another data expert to talk about it.  Ylevental (talk) 10:17, 9 May 2015 (UTC)
 * If he's included, we also need to note the overwhelming weight of sources that disagree -- starting with the Columbia Journalism Review and proceeding through the rest of the world's press. WP:DUE and common sense suggest that we need not discuss each WP:FRINGE opinion. Furthermore, the actual wording of the proposed edit is wildly unencyclopedic and inappropriate, even after the editor had been made aware that their previous bad behavior on Wikipedia had been noted and requested good faith.    MarkBernstein (talk) 13:44, 9 May 2015 (UTC)
 * If we are specifically talking about the criticism or commentary on the Newsweek/Brandwatch study (and not just rote repetition), there's not that many POVs either side to start with. The Newsweek piece is repeated but without commentary about the method/analysis in many sources (for example:, ), but where there is actual discussion of whether this is good data or bad data or something else, there's little - there's the Slate piece, there's this: (which agrees with the results though states the conclusion may be overreaching), and then I'm sure a handful more; so including Auerbach's opinion would not be FRINGE on that aspect. That said, I don't think we need to include any analysis on the Newsweek study outside of simply making sure it and the conclusions were attributed properly to them; the criticism or commentary on the methods is an issue all to itself that would weight down the GG at this point. Separately, I am seeing a trend about the media's treatment of GG coverage as a potential future section from a few more recent sources, which Auerbach's bit would be a part of, but this concept is far far far from having any sufficient weight in good RSes to suggest inclusion at this point. --M ASEM  (t) 13:56, 9 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Then just drop it. Wofford isn't a data expert, but Auerbach is.  Ylevental (talk) 18:15, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

I'm not sure about how to phrase the counterpoint, but I think there are enough sources (including an SPS which might be useful, Brian Keegan's post on the subject) to qualify the assertion. I'm perfectly ok with stating (as we do) that Newsweek and Brandwatch conducted the student, reporting some of the results and noting that there was some pushback against the study. The clearer we can be with the reader the better. We want to state the main objections tersely and in such a way that they're not vague "so and so had a problem" but specifically "this was so and so's problem". Protonk (talk) 14:21, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

Isn't Auerbach a primary source in this regard? ForbiddenRocky (talk) 17:54, 9 May 2015 (UTC)
 * He wasn't involved in performing the study, so no, his comments on the study are secondary. --M ASEM (t) 18:55, 9 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I was referring to his notions WRT his conclusions re big data. ForbiddenRocky (talk) 07:35, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
 * If the topic was "Auerbach's opinion of big data" yes, it would be primary. But if we're talking "big data" in general, he remains secondary, commentating on skewing of big data to make points. --M ASEM (t) 18:45, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Yeah, that's what he's doing. "Studies that explain systemic racism using Google searches are fascinating. Don’t trust them." ForbiddenRocky (talk) 20:04, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
 * That's his opinion on the topic of big data, and thus a secondary source for the topic of big data, since he is otherwise not connected to the topic directly and offering a transformative take on it. --M ASEM (t) 21:37, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
 * That is his OR on big data. ForbiddenRocky (talk) 18:09, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Our sources are allowed to do OR, that's why we have them. Seriously though I'm not sure what the big deal is about. We can cite his opinion on the study, he's published in an RS, and that's all that really matters. We just need to be careful of due/undue weight. — Strongjam (talk) 18:23, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Someone else's original research on a topic is a transformative nature, and thus is automatically secondary instead of primary. Now questions on expert-ness (a known journalist vs a random forum poster), relevance, and weight all apply to whether inclusion is appropriate, but no question at all this is a proper secondary source. --M ASEM (t) 18:40, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

Auerbach's response regarding expertise
I asked Auerbach on his talk page for information WRT any possible expertise in the area. His response was this:


 * I have a degree in computer science and worked in big data at Google for 5 years, have worked on IETF RFCs, and have a bunch of software patents to my name. I've worked with sentiment analysis design and code--which is how I know it's mostly garbage. Bernstein's claims about me are incorrect and he has criticized me in the past. (I in turn have criticized his company Eastgate's work in the past, though I was not aware of him at the time.) What I wrote is patently true--not that that counts, I suppose. Have fun arguing. Auerbachkeller (talk) 16:57, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

I'd comment but I urgently have to go consume my own body weight in free alcohol. I'll leave this for everyone else to discuss. Bosstopher (talk) 17:16, 9 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Sounds pretty experienced to me. Ylevental (talk) 18:13, 9 May 2015 (UTC)


 * I'm far from convinced that the paragraph adds anything significant: we have two studies which we use to report facts that surprise no one (i.e. that Gamergate has been contentious). Why not simply drop the paragraph? MarkBernstein (talk) 18:34, 9 May 2015 (UTC)
 * If the data is useless however, maybe drop it altogether. Ylevental (talk) 19:00, 9 May 2015 (UTC)
 * MarkBernstein (talk) 19:32, 9 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Ylevental (talk) 19:49, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

Removing the estimated GG size statement from CRJ
In 2 edits prior to this Mark B. removed the Newsweek statement and the Baio article - both that were statistical analysis of the tweets - which is based on the above discussion and partially I agree with in that because the stats are fuzzy, they don't help that much. But this also removed the statement from CRJ that estimates the size of the GG userbase from the KIA subscription number. I restored just that part of Mark's edit (as Mark's change did not comment on this data piece), but Peter then removed it in the diff above. Arguably it is only a measure of participation at one forum, but it is also much less fuzzy of a stat. It also gives a magnitude of how many people are actually "involved" in the GG side, which is a completely objective piece of data that we should be including simply to give the reader how big this might be; the fact its only 10,000-some people then shows it how minor a point it might be as if it were 100,000 ppl (a more respectable fraction of gamers), or maybe just 1,000 ppl (a extreme minority). I see no reason this number from CRJ should not be included to keep some type of objective discussion of the nature of the GG side in place. --M ASEM (t) 21:42, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Mostly I agree with removing it simply because it's such a meaningless statistic. I know I've heard far larger and far smaller estimates for the size of GG's supporters, and I'm not sure the number of subscribers to a subreddit (especially such an outdated statistic) is meaningful re:support size. PeterTheFourth (talk) 22:33, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
 * CRJ, a highly RS, thought it was, and it is the only established estimate that we can actually source. We do need to include the time frame because yes, it is outdated, but it was also near the height of when the harassment aspects were in full force, and thus probably the most significant point in time. --M ASEM (t) 22:52, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I agree with User:Masem that the date is less important than that it was near the peak (but "near peak" is not RS'd FWIW). But I agree with User:PeterTheFourth it's so vague as to be meaningless. However, a good RS'd number or perhaps a collection of estimates might be encyclopedic to give a reader a sense of the scope. BTW, 100,000 gamers is not really a respectable fraction of gamers, but as a raw count of people it's large enough to crush a three or four people. ForbiddenRocky (talk) 15:54, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I feel though that establishing a rough order of magnitude helps to understand the possible scale here, particularly coupled with the million tweets thing. It is obviously original research to say this, but it would be far different if it were 100-1000 ppl contributing to a million tweets (a fanatical, perhaps obsessive level) compared to 10,000 ppl compared to 100,000 ppl (some disinterested level). As long as it is being stated from an RS that this is roughly the size of the group we're talking about, its a fair estimate even with all the caveats on the estimate's strength we have to include. (In face, Deadspin's comment "In terms of actual, demonstrated public interest, this isn't even a tempest in a teapot. What it lacks in scale, though, it more than makes up for in volume." is the type of thing it would be nice to document in terms of criticism of the unorganized/anonymous factors of GG, that its a small number making a of noise). --M ASEM (t) 17:43, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I've tweaked the wording. CJR did not estimate anything, they just said the # is unclear and pointed to the Deadspin article. I'm assuming they were looking at KotakuInAction subscriber counts, but both CJR and Deadspin fail to say what subreddit they were polling so I just went with the wording from the source we cite. — Strongjam (talk) 16:15, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I could have sworn they mentioned the KIA board but you're right on review (KIA is mentioned in the article but not specific to the count). --M ASEM (t) 17:43, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

Let's come to a decision already
The editors here say that we needed to check Auerbach's reliability, but didn't say the same about Wofford. I would like to keep out questionable data, no matter how reliable the source is. Ylevental (talk) 13:12, 13 May 2015 (UTC)
 * With all due respect, this strikes me as a call for original research, and a bit of WP:VNT. And even then, the question would seem to me to be less about Wofford than about Brandwatch, who according to the article did the analysis reported.  While noting Mr. Auerbach's criticism is appropriate, I don't think it can be used to exclude the Newsweek information.  Dumuzid (talk) 13:38, 13 May 2015 (UTC)
 * My dearest apologies. I read the Newsweek article more carefully and it references the harassment with regards to the targets, not whether the tweets are positive or negative.  However, the article says "The discrepancies there seem to suggest GamerGaters cares less about ethics and more about harassing women." so let's reword it accordingly. Ylevental (talk) 13:56, 13 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I reworded the quote to represent the "suggestion" nature of the source. Dumuzid (talk) 14:20, 13 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Sounds good to me. Ylevental (talk) 14:22, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

Hugo awards
I don't know much about Gamergate, but the "In other media" section on the Hugo Awards seems to have been written in a way meant to bias readers learning about what happened during this year's nominations, specifically: the use of the word "hijacked," only mentioning Vox Day, who is easily the most odious Puppy, and relying solely on an opinion article written by a virulent detractor of the Puppies as a source. I don't want to touch the article myself, but here is a possible rewrite of the section on the Hugos:

Nominations for the 2015 Hugo Award nominees was "strongly influenced by co-ordinated politcal campaigns" lead by science fiction authors Vox Day, Larry Correia, and Brad R. Torgersen. Although participants claimed that their goal is to oppose the promotion of low-quality works for political purposes, they have been accused of expanding the Gamergate controversy into science fiction.

I think some of the wording is awkward, but is a fairer summary of the incident. Eladynnus (talk) 20:29, 16 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Breitbart cannot be used as a reliable source, and Brad Torgerson’s weblog is only usable for Torgerson’s personal opinion. This leaves us with pretty much the current language. In the opinion of reliable sources (and of the community outside the puppies and gamergate), "hijacked" is fair. MarkBernstein (talk) 20:44, 16 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Vox may be the "most odious puppy", but he's also the only of the three who is an open gamergate supporter and therefore the most relevant to the article. Your rewrite would be worse than the current version from a BLP standpoint, because it portrays Torgeson and Correia as of one group with Day, when (as can be seen in the very blogpost by Torgeson you cited) they're stating loudly that they want nothing to do with him. Bosstopher (talk) 20:57, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

Topic Shift: to hat or not to hat (and the Topic original can go archive)
collapse top|There is absolutely no way the article is improved with this meta-discussion of alleged censorship. This talk page is not a forum. If you believe an editor is unjustly hatting, unhat what they have hatted. If they continue doing so, bring it to any of the many conflict resolution avenues available. PeterTheFourth (talk) 12:44, 10 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Any discussion of article improvement should be allowed on this talk page. Do not close such threads.  Please re-open this thread in a timely manner.  Chrisrus (talk) 01:32, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Your comment is clearly biased and lacks citations. Please improve it. Dumuzid (talk) 02:07, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Citations are not required on talk pages.
 * There is no apparent bias in the statement "Any discussion of article improvement should be allowed on this talk page. Do not close such threads.  Please re-open this thread in a timely manner."
 * Therefore, this is not a substantive reply, so I am free to reopen this thread as soon as appropriate on the grounds that the topic of the thread is article improvement. Chrisrus (talk) 04:18, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
 * By all means, please be bold, but pay mind to WP policies. I only meant to reference the recurrent nature of issues on this page. Dumuzid (talk) 11:57, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
 * PetertheFourth, MarkBernstein, and TheRedPenofDoom's responses are basically as far as this conversation can go unless Mythiran has enough reliable sources on the topic to indicate that the harassment against GG supporters deserves more weight in the article. Adding it to the lede now would be undue weight. If Mythiran has actionable changes to suggest for the article, they can start a new section to discuss those changes, but there is no more discussion to be had here. Kaciemonster (talk) 10:55, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
 * This is how talk pages are run on Wikipedia:
 * When a conversation has gone as far as it can go, it will stop. At that point, the clock begins ticking until it ages off into the archives.
 * If you believe that the fact that there is no more discussion to be had in any thread on any talkpage of any article on Wikipedia means that it is appropriate to close and hide that thread, you are mistaken. Instead, the thing to do is to simply say no more and let it age into the archives.  Stop closing and hiding threads on this talk pages in this way.
 * On the other hand, do close and hide threads if they contain BLP-type violations or are off-topic, or some other important reason. Do not close them because there is nothing more to say, because they have become tedious, or because you are sick and tired of having the same discussion over and over and over. The reasons given for closing the thread in question are wrong. Chrisrus (talk) 14:26, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Please note Gamaliel's response on the hatted section above: "The talk page is for discussion of potential article changes and improvements, not for a meta-discussion about alleged censorship. It is perfectly acceptable to ask a question that has already been asked, but it is also perfectly acceptable to respond to that question by noting this fact and closing the discussion when nothing new has been added." Kaciemonster (talk) 14:59, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
 * It's not acceptable to close and hide conversations on the grounds that nothing new has been added. When nothing new has been added, the clock begins ticking and it will age off into the archives.  In the meantime, the threads will not be hidden from talk page viewers, who may be less likely to repeat the question again, or otherwise benefit from reading them.  Also, until that time, it may be possible that something new might be added.  Just wait and leave it alone.  Chrisrus (talk) 16:09, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
 * See, I think it is acceptable to close and hide conversations on these grounds because the sheer volume of sea-lion complaints (like yours, in fact) cause everyone to spend a pointless amount of effort and energy continually refuting the same conversations. You're not here to help with this page; you're here to hinder.  --Jorm (talk) 16:13, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Policy requires that attempts to exploit talk pages for purposes that do not contribute to the project should be promptly removed. One such purpose is echoing political talking points in order to gain a wider audience -- for example, repeated "wikipedia is bias" without any specific recommendation. Another purpose is punishing a group's enemies by rehashing rumors and sexual innuendo on the talk page, warning others that, even if WP:BLP keeps the material out of the article, it will nevertheless be broadly circulated through Wikipedia talk pages. Both these tactics have been employed here at great length. Enough. MarkBernstein (talk) 16:39, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

(Edit conflict)
 * Jorm, that may be your opinion, but that's not how we do things on Wikipedia, and also, apparently faulty logic to the extent that it is true that people are less likely, not more likely, to re-hash the same points over and over again while they can see that they've already been discussed and they can read what was said. Instead of closing and hiding such discussions, you may ignore them, or direct them to FAQs, or give some stock answer of your own, so there's no need to worry about wasted time and effort.  Chrisrus (talk) 16:41, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
 * @User:MarkBernstein.  The threads in question do not contain statements to the effect of "Wikipedia is biased", but rather "This article is biased, please make it less so" and are therefore on topic.  Neither did they contain any "rehashing rumors and sexual innuendo" and so on.  If these appear, please do follow proper procedure, including closing and hiding the discussion if that is best. However, this your comment did not address the topic at hand, which is dealing with threads that say little more than, in effect, "this article seems biased to me, please change it", which appear here frequently.  Chrisrus (talk) 23:28, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

WP:HORSEMEAT. WP:NOTAFORUM. Read the FAQ and archives. ForbiddenRocky (talk) 17:45, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
 * When you grow tired of a thread, just don't read it or post any comments to it, or just say as you have here "Read the FAQ and archives, but do not close and hide it.
 * This is not a discussion of the referent of this article, so WP:NOTAFORUM does not apply. "Read the FAQ and archives" might have been a good reply instead of closing and hiding that thread, but not to this one, unless there is a helpful thread somewhere in there on the topic of when to close and hide threads and when not to. Chrisrus (talk)
 * Maybe Gamaliel disagrees with Chrisrus since he collapsed the section immediately above with pretty much same comment as Jorm. The talk page is a workspace, and filling it up with this kind of junk is beyond annoying already. ForbiddenRocky (talk) 17:49, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry you find our reader's feedback "annoying". However, finding a talk page thread annoying is not grounds for closing and hiding it.
 * In your justification for closing and hiding this thread, you seemed to say that talk pages are not the proper forum for discussions of talk page improvement. This is not true.  Talk pages are for article improvement, so talk page improvement supports article improvement.  Countless talk page threads all over Wikipedia discuss changes to the talk page, such as for example which projects the talk page should place it under, what FAQs might be added, and so on and so forth.  So your justification for closing this thread is demonstrably not correct, and I will open it again.
 * If you want it to go away, just don't anybody add to it any more, and it will soon go quiet and age off into the archives and out of your sight. Or, you could just not look at it.
 * Hiding a thread only increases the chances that the same topic will come up again. Hiding threads does not decrease the chances that someone will ask the same question again, so frustration with repetitive talk page subjects does not support hiding them, but rather the opposite.  Chrisrus (talk) 19:10, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Per WP:TALK is this not a matter for consensus? It would seem that there is fairly wide agreement here.  Dumuzid (talk) 20:22, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Per WP:TALK,"the prime values of the talk page are communication, courtesy, and consideration." Closing and hiding threads because one finds them annoying is not in accord with any of these values, which represent long-standing project-wide consensus that trumps the behavior and preferences otherwise that may be found in this thread.  Chrisrus (talk) 21:03, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Per WP:TALK, everything after RedPen's comment should be collapsed as it's off-topic. Kaciemonster (talk) 21:15, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
 * How reader feedback about this article is dealt with is on-topic. Chrisrus (talk) 21:45, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
 * How reader feedback about this article is dealt with has nothing to do with rewriting the lede, which is the section that you've posted all of this in. Kaciemonster (talk) 21:48, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
 * OK, so I've created a subsection at the topic shift. Chrisrus (talk) 22:29, 7 May 2015 (UTC)
 * No, it is not "feedback" about the article. it is  whining campaign by people who want think the wikipedia article should not represent the reliable source coverage of the subject. We are not here to be their therapists and listen to them whine. over and over and over for   Thirty six pages of archives   --  TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  01:34, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

lol for fucking ever @ lecturing Jorm about how we do things on wikipedia. Protonk (talk) 20:03, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Heh. I was going to let that one go but yeah. :)--Jorm (talk) 21:53, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm sympathetic about your emotions, but calm reasonably is the best approach.
 * It may seem like "whining" to you or me, but if someone leaves a thread on talk pages of articles on Wikipedia saying, for example, "This article seems biased to me. Please fix it so it's not so biased.", then that constitutes clear on-topic reader feedback, and we are to WP:ASSUMEGOODFAITH and not assume negative motivations without serious proof.
 * We can then leave a brief stock reply polite reply, perhaps pointing them to FAQs, or ignore it completely.   Then, the clock begins ticking and it will age off into the archives soon enough, but in the meantime.  The fact that such reader feedback might seem tedious or annoying to you because you've heard it all before: the fact that you are sick and tired of answering the same questions again and again and again, does not mean that you should close and hide that thread.  Closing and hiding such threads is at odds with the core values of Wikipedia talk pages: Communication, Courtesy and Consideration.  You should allow those who choose to engage that person at length about why it seems biased to them or explaining to them why it has to be written this way: this is allowed.  In fact, that is all the more reason to leave it in such a way that such people can see previous threads on the same topic asking the same question and not bother making that comment themselves.
 * On these grounds, I will reopen such thread on this talk page as soon as appropriate. Chrisrus (talk) 03:25, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
 * You can't justify leaving these threads open on the basis of their service to new editors and then say that these threads will pose no bother as they will quickly disappear into the archives. A quickly archived thread, hatted or not, does no service to new editors or old ones.  If editors choose to use threads in a productive manner, then they should remain open.   Otherwise, they should be closed.  That should be the only criteria.  Threads should not be left open solely because an editor wishes to make a point about openness and engagement.  You can make that point by actual engagement with these editors, not demanding that others do so in manner that you prefer.   Every editor should conduct themselves on the talk page with those three values you mention in mind (Communication, Courtesy and Consideration) but they can do that without leaving unproductive threads open indefinitely.   Gamaliel  ( talk ) 11:20, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Leaving such threads open doesn't require justification; closing and hiding them does. During the time that they remain easily readable on this talk page, others will be less, not more, likely to start another thread saying basically the same thing, so the argument that closing and hiding them is justified on the grounds that we are tired of the same old repetitive threads makes little sense because hiding them away before they age off into the archives lessens the chances that a talk page viewer will realize that someone has already made that point here before and that they will read the previous reply and get his or her answer that way instead of starting a new one basically saying the same thing. Chrisrus (talk) 16:58, 9 May 2015 (UTC)
 * the hatting has plenty of justification, from WP:NOTFORUM to WP:DEADHORSE to WP:NOTFREESPEECH to WP:NOTHERAPY to the  Thirty six pages of archives   where the same pointless baseless and unsupportable suggestions have been redregged every week. Where and how exactly do you foresee any improvements to the encyclopedia from encouraging such pointless discussions continuing on and on and on? --  TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  20:01, 9 May 2015 (UTC)
 * If a person there starts a thread by giving some reader feedback which is too vague to be very helpful, such as maybe "This article isn't good. It shouldn't be written in this way", then that constitutes on-topic reader feedback, so WP:NOTAFORUM does not apply.  Chrisrus (talk) 05:29, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
 * WP:DEADHORSE might or might not apply if that the person that started that thread had already done so, but unless there's some suggestion of that, it doesn't apply. Chrisrus (talk) 05:29, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
 * WP:NOTFREESPEECH only applies if someone claims Wikipedia has violated his/her legal right to free speech, such as the First Amendment of the Constitution, by not allowing an edit or banning them from the project or something. WP:NOTFREESPEECH doesn't justify silencing anyone, but rather say that if we have already done so for some other, non-WP:NOTFREESPEECH reason, free speech rights are not grounds for reversal of that decision, and the person has no legal rights apply to the State, not to Wikipedia, so they can't sue.  No one is using such arguments here, so it does not apply.
 * I'm going to have to ask you how you think WP:NOTTHERAPY justifies the closing of the thread in question.
 * By invoking WP:IGNOREALLRULES in this way, you seem to mean that exceptions should be made in this case because it's different from other articles' talk pages. But there are many articles' talk pages on which the same objection comes up repeatedly and frequeently, so this article is not unique.  Take for example the article Persian Gulf, the constant threads about how the proper name is "The Arab Gulf" are not routinely closed and hidden against the rules, they are instead generally left alone for others to see and be discouraged from starting another.  The decision was made long ago to instead have such things as FAQs and stock responses for those objections that recur frequently, because this is effective and in concordance with the three C's of WP:TALK: Communication, Courtesy, and Consideration.  Chrisrus (talk) 05:29, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Well, quite frankly I am surprised that you are not aware that this page IS different than the majority of other pages. It is the target of organized offsite disruption. It became the subject of an ArbCom case within 4 months of its existence. It has   Thirty six seven pages of archives   generated in less than 10 months (as compared to 7 for Persian Gulf over 10 years ) So, yes, in the interest of actually improving the encyclopedia measures that may not apply other other pages are completely appropriate here. --  TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  12:17, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
 * The widespread criticism of and attention to this article is more reason for us to be particularly vigilant about treating everyone fairly and strictly according to the rules. We must be extra careful to maintain strict adherence to the rules and to treat everyone fairly and courteously.  There are other explanations for the large archives other than "organized offsite disruption", and therefor no reason to resort to conspiracy theories and emotional overreactions to normal on-topic reader feedback.  This article should stand as a proud example of how we treat people fairly, as many eyes are on it.
 * Sorry dude. we are not here to "treat people fairly" - particularly organized disruptive campaigns. We are here to create an encyclopedia. IAR is the POLICY which is the basis for improving the encyclopedia by not wasting anyone's time, actual contributing editors or sea lion meat puppets, by re-re-re-re-re-hashing discussions that have no basis in policy or sources and will never actually impact the article. --  TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  23:15, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Hi . I must respectfully disagree on this point. Per WP:5P4, we are here to treat people fairly, with respect and civility. I do not concur that the burden of showing that the encyclopedia is substantively improved by ignoring the rules has been met. - Ryk72 'c.s.n.s.' 23:36, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
 * where do you see "fairly"? Hatting repetitive discussions that have no basis in policy our sources and not dragging out yet another pointless repetition is the way to treat everyone with respect and civility. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  23:42, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Dude, what's your goal here? For real? You've provided exactly zero suggestions for improving the article except for "Listen to every idiot who comes around and sea-lions the living shit out of us and wastes our time".  Are you trying to white knight for the pro-gamergate crowd and aren't willing to dive into the actual article?  Is this the best you have?--Jorm (talk) 05:57, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Please be WP:CIVIL, WP:ASSUMEGOODFAITH and either stay on-topic or open another thread in an appropriate place. Chrisrus (talk) 13:17, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure this falls under WP:NOTAFORUM ForbiddenRocky (talk) 07:22, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Talk pages don't have talk pages of their own to discuss them. Discussion of talk pages management belongs on that talk page.  Chrisrus (talk) 13:19, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
 * No, we should be discussing content. More than half of this huge massive pointless discussion is discussion of the discussion of whether or not we should hat topics that are going nowhere fast. Please just take it to ANI or something. PeterTheFourth (talk) 13:21, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
 * WP:NOTAFORUM "Talk pages are not for general discussion about the subject of the article, nor are they a help desk for obtaining instructions or technical assistance. Material unsuitable for talk pages may be subject to removal per the talk page guidelines." &
 * The discussion Chrisrus is trying to have belongs at: | the talk page for talk page guidelines ForbiddenRocky (talk) 17:34, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
 * That would be a good place to discuss ways of changing the talk page guidelines to allow exception to usual talk page governance in cases where a different user every day seems to open a new thread saying something like "This article is biased. Please redo it so that it's less biased." to the point that usual remedies such as archiving, FAQs, recommended stock answers, and so on are not enough, and where most regular talk page editors are becoming so overworked that they would like to resort to closing and hiding all such threads as they appear.  I am not making such a proposal.
 * Meta-talk page discussions, by which I mean discussions on a talk page that are focused on improvement to that talk page itself, are supposed to take place on that talk page. If that weren't the case, none of the meta-talk page topics could be rightly discussed on talk pages:
 * Discussion of whether and which disclaimers should be posted on the top of the talk page.
 * Discussion of which projects the talk page should have, and in which order they should appear.
 * Discussion of whether to have FAQs and how they should be worded and edited.
 * Discussion about the press coverage box.
 * And so on.
 * If what you are saying were true, all of these "meta-talk page discussions" would be considered "off-topic" and not allowed on talk pages, so some other place would have to be used for meta-talk page discussions, such as the establishment of talk pages for talk pages. But as such discussions occur all the time on such talk pages and as there is no other place for such discussions, it is clear that what you are saying is not true, and that meta-talk page discussions are indeed considered on-topic. So please refrain from closing and hiding meta-talk page discussions on the grounds that they are off topic and instead belong somewhere else, because, given the facts, that is demonstrably untrue. Chrisrus (talk) 20:59, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

Hi. Sorry to bother you, but seeing as you were the last administrator to step in this is your punishment for your good deeds. What dispute resolution steps could I take re: Chrisrus being disruptive by constantly unhatting and posting in a long, useless section on the talk page? It seems just minor enough to not really be actionable, but it is incredibly annoying and it also seems to be done for no real reason other than to be irksome. PeterTheFourth (talk) 21:08, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I think we're going to have to go to WP:AN/I.--Jorm (talk) 21:36, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
 * is correct w.r.t hatting of discussions. The Talk Page guidelines, and the instruction/explanation for each of the methods being used to close discussions are clear that discussions should not be closed by involved editors.
 * WP:TALK - Any uninvolved editor may close most discussions, not just admins; however, requests for closure may be made to an uninvolved administrator for discussions that have been open at least a week and are particularly contentious or unclear.
 * Template:Archive top - When used on a talk page this template should only be used by uninvolved editors or administrators in conjunction with the talk page guidelines and relevant advice at refactoring. It should not be used by involved parties to end a discussion over the objections of other editors.
 * Template:Hidden archive top - This template should only be used by uninvolved editors in conjunction with the talk page guidelines and relevant advice at refactoring. It should not be used by involved parties to end a discussion over the objections of other editors.
 * Template:Collapse - This template should only be used in accordance with the refactoring guideline; it should never be used to end a discussion over the objections of other editors, except in cases of unambiguous disruptive editing.
 * All emphasis directly copied from the sourced pages.
 * It is not disruptive to discuss the inappropriateness of involved editors closing discussions. What is disruptive is the continued use of these methods to prevent discussion of the article content. If a discussion offers nothing substantive, simply allow it to age out to the archive pages naturally. - Ryk72 'c.s.n.s.' 23:03, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Ryk72, should we also rewrite the lede? Do you have any thoughts on whether the article is biased? Dumuzid (talk) 23:48, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Judging by their comments here, I think they might. PeterTheFourth (talk) 00:15, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

Once again, this thread has been closed and hidden on no valid grounds. This time, however, neither was it closed and hidden with any reference to any guideline or rule. Therefore, I will open it again after an appropriate amount of time.

First, this thread was closed and hidden without any reference to any guideline, rule, or long-standing wide-spread practice supporting the closing or the hiding or this thread. For this reason alone, I plan to open and show it once again as soon as appropriate.

Second, this thread was closed and hidden "...because it has zero to do about article content..." Again, here on Wikipedia, article talk page management discussions about a specific article's supporting talk page occur on that talk page and this is on topic. This is the proper place for discussion of how this talk page, which supports this article, has been and/or should deal with common thread types. Article talk pages are the place such "meta-talk page" discussions occur all over Wikipedia. For example, discussion of changes or additions to the FAQs may occur here, even though FAQs only appear on the article's supporting talk page. Therefore, this discussion is on-topic and so this justification for closing and hiding the thread is invalid and also for this reason I plan to undo that as soon as appropriate.

Second, the thread was closed and hidden on the grounds that it "has become a way for editors to pontificate". It is not at all clear what this means in this context, so as clear grounds should accompany closing and hiding threads, I'll be justified in showing and opening it again. However, "to pontificate" in this case seems to mean "to express your opinion about something in a way that shows that you think you are right and others wrong about something." Or perhaps "pontificate" means "to embarrass others by civilly presenting a clear argument with valid evidence and good reasoning, and proper rhetoric" and just doing everything exactly as we are supposed to. But that is exactly what should be done on Wikipedia in such contexts, so the accusation is of doing everything right, but making others defensive and upset by doing so. There is nothing in these words that should stop anyone from showing and opening the discussion again.

Third, this thread was closed and hidden on the grounds that it has become a way for unspecified editors "to carry on a proxy battle". Again, it is not at all clear what this means in this context, so as it is wrong to close and hide threads without giving a clear reason, I will re-open it as soon as appropriate. However, it would seem the editor is of the belief that those editors arguing for a return to standard hatting practice are part of some conspiracy or something. This is not true, at least in my case, as I am a proxy of no one but myself. However, although the burden of proof for such an accusation lies with he who makes it, I can assure you there will be none forthcoming as it's completely false and is a violation of WP:ASSUMEGOODFAITH. Threads closed and hidden on grounds that violate WP:ASSUMEGOODFAITH, should be reopened and shown.

After I open and show this thread again, please don't undo it without replying substantively to these points here first. Chrisrus (talk) 08:02, 11 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Once again, this thread has been improperly closed and hidden without the same invalid grounds explained just above in detail. No one has yet replied substantively to any of those points.  Please do not close it again without doing so or providing valid grounds with valid reference to rules or guidelines, or just leave it alone and it will age into the archives as usual. Chrisrus (talk) 03:00, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
 *  --Jorm (talk) 03:20, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

As you will see if you open this thread, it has been shown, and not disputed, that the expressed grounds for closing and hiding this thread ("Closing this discussion because it has zero to do about article content and has become a way for editors to pontificate or use as a proxy battle.  If you want a discussion to remain open, then participate in that discussion in a productive way") are invalid. As if that were not enough to justify my reopening and showing the thread, neither do these grounds contain reference to any policy. Therefore, I will open it again.

The last time I did this, it was mentioned on my talk page and in the revert edit summary that there are some other, valid grounds that are the real grounds upon which this post was closed and hidden, not the one being invoked above. Therefore, if you, as I expect, plan to close and hide this thread once again, do so under those supposedly valid grounds or some other valid grounds, and contain a valid reference to policy, but do not simply revert to these same policy-referent-linkless-repeadedly-shown-to-be-and-so-far-indisputedly invalid grounds again.

I will wait an appropriate amount of time before showing and re-opening this thread to hear out anyone who would like to urge me not to. Chrisrus (talk) 04:06, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

Would you stop it already? WP:TE ForbiddenRocky (talk) 10:01, 13 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Will you all restore proper talk page procedure? Chrisrus (talk) 11:15, 13 May 2015 (UTC)
 * re: procedure. This section was hatted by an admin, with explanatory comment. That is to say an admin agrees that hatting this meta-discussion is ok. I suspect the main reason more admin action hasn't happened is that that admin is away for a few more days. ForbiddenRocky (talk) 15:58, 13 May 2015 (UTC)
 * You have not disputed that the grounds upon which it was closed were invalid and lacking reference to policy, but seem to be saying that, because it was closed and hidden by an admin, I should not show and reopen this thread because it was hidden and closed by an admin. Therefore, you seem to be saying that, on Wikipedia, admins are allowed to close threads for invalid grounds and without reference to policy.  Is that correct? Chrisrus (talk) 04:25, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
 * In what sense are the grounds for closing this conversation "invalid?" I don't understand your claim here.  Dumuzid (talk) 04:51, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

If the thread weren't hidden, your answer would be visible. I will cut-and=paste the previous answer from inside the hidden portion of this thread here below, but most importantly, it was closed and hidden with no reference to policy, no link to a rule or guideline. Here is the entire explanation for the invalidity of the given justification for closing and hiding this thread, cut-and-pasted from above:

Once again, this thread has been closed and hidden on no valid grounds. This time, however, neither was it closed and hidden with any reference to any guideline or rule. Therefore, I will open it again after an appropriate amount of time.

First, this thread was closed and hidden without any reference to any guideline, rule, or long-standing wide-spread practice supporting the closing or the hiding or this thread. For this reason alone, I plan to open and show it once again as soon as appropriate.

Second, this thread was closed and hidden "...because it has zero to do about article content..." Again, here on Wikipedia, article talk page management discussions about a specific article's supporting talk page occur on that talk page and this is on topic. This is the proper place for discussion of how this talk page, which supports this article, has been and/or should deal with common thread types. Article talk pages are the place such "meta-talk page" discussions occur all over Wikipedia. For example, discussion of changes or additions to the FAQs may occur here, even though FAQs only appear on the article's supporting talk page. Therefore, this discussion is on-topic and so this justification for closing and hiding the thread is invalid and also for this reason I plan to undo that as soon as appropriate.

Second, the thread was closed and hidden on the grounds that it "has become a way for editors to pontificate". It is not at all clear what this means in this context, so as clear grounds should accompany closing and hiding threads, I'll be justified in showing and opening it again. However, "to pontificate" in this case seems to mean "to express your opinion about something in a way that shows that you think you are right and others wrong about something." Or perhaps "pontificate" means "to embarrass others by civilly presenting a clear argument with valid evidence and good reasoning, and proper rhetoric" and just doing everything exactly as we are supposed to. But that is exactly what should be done on Wikipedia in such contexts, so the accusation is of doing everything right, but making others defensive and upset by doing so. There is nothing in these words that should stop anyone from showing and opening the discussion again.

Third, this thread was closed and hidden on the grounds that it has become a way for unspecified editors "to carry on a proxy battle". Again, it is not at all clear what this means in this context, so as it is wrong to close and hide threads without giving a clear reason, I will re-open it as soon as appropriate. However, it would seem the editor is of the belief that those editors arguing for a return to standard hatting practice are part of some conspiracy or something. This is not true, at least in my case, as I am a proxy of no one but myself. However, although the burden of proof for such an accusation lies with he who makes it, I can assure you there will be none forthcoming as it's completely false and is a violation of WP:ASSUMEGOODFAITH. Threads closed and hidden on grounds that violate WP:ASSUMEGOODFAITH, should be reopened and shown.

After I open and show this thread again, please don't undo it without replying substantively to these points here first. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chrisrus (talk • contribs) 13:04, 14 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Look, if you're just going to come here and demand that threads be opened at your say so we should go to AE now and avoid the headache. It's not like there isn't precedent for this. Talk:Depictions of Muhammad and Talk:Muhammad both have pretty ingrained practices of closing threads and referring people to the FAQ on questions about depictions of Muhammad in the article. Same thing with plenty of other articles which face these kinds of exigencies. Take a moment and assume good faith from your fellow editors dealing with the bullshit on this talk page for months. Maybe when they talk about carrying on a proxy battle instead of just throwing up your hands and assuming it's bullshit, read the talk page archives or the ArbCom decision or the fucking KiA threads about this page and editors on it. Or go and look at what happens to the talk page when it isn't semi-protected. Or just conduct any investigation of what is happening here instead of barging in here and announcing your priors. Protonk (talk) 14:30, 14 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Apologies for the interruption... While I sense the frustration & empathize with the comments above, I firmly believe that a core principle of Wikipedia is reaching consensus through discussion. I do not agree that involved editors closing discussions facilitates consensus; rather, I believe that it works directly to prevent it.


 * The guidelines at WP:TALK clearly & expressly prohibit involved editors from closing discussions; these guidelines represent long standing community consensus. This is further reinforced by the explanatory notes for each of the methods which have been used (Template:collapse,Template:archive top,Template:hidden archive top). These state that they should not be used by involved editors to close discussions, and should not be used over the objections of other editors.


 * We clearly have cases where they are being used both by involved editors, and over the objections of others.


 * W.r.t the thought that editors wishing to re-open closed threads should apply at WP:AE, I respectfully suggest that the polarity of this is incorrect. Policy, guidelines & long standing community consensus, and the core principles of how we build an encyclopedia are clear - we build consensus through discussion. If editors wish to prevent discussion, it is they who should apply at WP:AE, articulating clear reasons as to why normal processes should not be followed.


 * There has been some suggestion that this is a case for WP:IAR; similarly, if editors believe this is the case, they should provide clear reasoning as to why & how preventing discussion improves the encyclopedia.


 * In the interests of allowing the community here to focus on discussion of & improvements to the article, it is my intention to raise this question at WP:ARCA in the next day or so. I will update with a link once I have done so, and invite you each to comment there. - Ryk72 'c.s.n.s.' 15:00, 14 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Look, I don't want to be glib, but this isn't a case where there's one core principle against nothing. We're all having this discussion because core principles are in conflict with each other. So it doesn't really add anything to pull one policy off the shelf and wave it about. If that solved the discussion, we'd be done. Invoking IAR here is pretty simple. It means we know we have conflicting advice from the community and rather than conduct a rarefied debate over which interpretation is the most textually correct we should do something that speaks to the practical problem at hand. The entire point about IAR is to avoid that discussion--because it is useless. And it's meaningless! What's the benefit of arguing over who has the most rule-compliant interpretation of "ignore all rules"? Protonk (talk) 15:06, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

I am quite capable of opening closed discussions to see what occurred therein. And I am still confused. I asked on what grounds the closing was invalid, and you pasted a wall of text saying the closing was invalid. Restating a conclusory statement is not supplying a rationale. Where does it say a topic closing must come with a reference to policy? Where is the enumerated list of valid reasons for topic closing? Why have the closing function (and not simply the archive function)? Uninvolved administrators may close discussions, correct? Do you agree that Gamaliel is an uninvolved administrator? This entire conversation seems to me like it would be better had elsewhere, rather than a topic talk page. Dumuzid (talk) 15:22, 14 May 2015 (UTC)


 * There is no precedent for closing and hiding threads in this way on Talk:Depictions of Muhammad or Talk:Muhammad. Checking those two talk pages found no hidden threads on either of them. Furthermore, not one hidden threads was found anywhere in the archives of Talk:Depictions of Muhammad.  Now, admittedly, I did not go through and checked all of the archives of Talk:Muhammad for hidden threads, but I have checked the first ten archives pages and found no hidden threads.
 * I am very sorry that my "priors" are feeling so emotional at having to deal with so many threads saying little more than "This article seems biased! Please re-write it so that it takes a more neutral point of view", and can imagine how that might lead the to become emotional and impatient and to treat this talk page differently than the rest and close and hide such threads.  This is understandable and you have my sympathies.
 * However, closing and hiding such threads for that reason is not logical, because it does not reduce the chances of another such thread being posted by some other reader tomorrow. Rather, it increases it, because while such threads are visible, people tempted to post such a thread can read them and get their answer that way, so this reason for hiding them does nothing toward alleviating the "problem."  Therefore the frustration of my "priors" is no reason for them to close and hide such threads.
 * Instead, simply ignore them, and they will eventually age off into the archives. Or, direct them to F.A.Q.s, give them an appropriate stock answer or politely explain at length if you you would like to the situation.  It's up to you.  But do not close and hide such threads because that is not how we treat reader feedback on talk pages on Wikipedia, for important reasons. Chrisrus (talk) 19:23, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
 * We have the ability to close threads for several reasons. For example, requests for comment may stay open for a while but need to be closed to indicate that the comment period is no longer open.  These are not hidden, however.  The ability to not only close but also hide threads exists for such serious things as serious BLP-type violations, things that could harm people if read by talk page readers.  The ability to close and hide threads is used very sparingly because we are not in the business of hiding things.  It is not to be used because we are sick of threads that consist of reader feedback that isn't very good or helpful or because it's already been dealt with countless times before and we've just about had it, or because the reader should have just read the FAQs. That kind of thing we leave easily visible until they eventually age off into the archives.  Chrisrus (talk) 19:23, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I will not prolong this, but perhaps you are familiar with the term Ipse dixit? Dumuzid (talk) 19:37, 14 May 2015 (UTC)


 * All one has to do is read the "(and the Topic original can go archive)" section of this header to realise what a complete waste of time this discussion is. Chisrus doesnt seem to believe anything of value was lost by hatting this section, or else he would have discussed the points it raised instead of letting it archive. This is just a pointless argument over idealistic hypotheticals that will only serve to generate heat on the talk page (which is coincidentally what usually emerges when the sort of section usually hatted is left unhatted for a long period of time).Bosstopher (talk) 15:36, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

At this point this discussion is not about GGC. Could you please move it somewhere else? ForbiddenRocky (talk) 17:31, 14 May 2015 (UTC)


 * The thing of value that was lost in closing and hiding that thread was proper treatment of reader feedback, i.e.: communication, courtesy and consideration. Chrisrus (talk) 19:39, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I disagree strongly with you on that. A hat that politely explains why the talk page post is a non starter and informs the reader of policies, is the most courteous approach that I can think of in these sorts of scenarios. If these sections are not hatted they instead become angry WP:FORUMs in which editors insult eachother and dont discuss anything that actually improves the article. I think the defining example of this for me was early on, when an IP editor proposed something stupid that clearly showed they hadnt read the FAQ. I simply left a comment saying "Read the FAQ" and another editor hatted it per my comment. This was a good resolution that civilly dealt with the problem. Or it would have been had the editor in question not then unhatted the comment and instead gone on a mini-rant about how the IP was stupid and should go back to reddit. Hatting is the most courteous and drama-free approach to uninformed non-starter claims made on the talk page. Bosstopher (talk) 13:03, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

Meta talk page discussions, i.e.: discussions about the talk pages supporting articles, belong on the talk page in question. Otherwise, discussions of such things as what projects the talk page should feature, would not belong on that page. Talk pages do not have talk pages of their own, so there is no better place. Chrisrus (talk) 19:39, 14 May 2015 (UTC)


 * You've been repeatedly told in response to this sentiment to take the matter to ANI or AE if it's so wildly important. Please stop preventing this from being archived by constantly disrupting it and take it to either of those pages, so you can realize that uninvolved editors would tell you the exact same thing everyone here is telling you. Continuing to do this here instead of the proper venues is just hollering from the roof of the Reichstag. Parabolist (talk) 21:22, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
 * It takes two to tango! Replies from one side is no more the cause of the continuation of a thread than those from the other.  Similarly, if you find someone continuing to reply substantively to points being addressed directly to him in a thread somehow wrong, you also are capable of taking the matter to another appropriate forum.  Also, it's not clear why the continuation of threads is a problem, except maybe that someone doesn't like where they are heading. Chrisrus (talk) 12:38, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

This is a meta-discussion. It doesn't belong here. The original topic archived. ForbiddenRocky (talk) 04:08, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Meta-talk page discussions are not off-topic because, as has been said before, if they were, talk pages FAQs, projects, disclaimers, and so on, would be off topic. And they are not because such discussions take place on talk pages all the time all over Wikipedia.  So a thread cannot rightly be closed and hidden on the mere grounds that it's a meta-talk page discussion and therefore off-topic.
 * Therefore, please do not state that this thread is off-topic again without substantive refutation of this counterpoint to that incorrect idea. Where would we talk about such things as improvement to FAQs if meta-talk page discussions were off-topic? Talk pages don't have talk pages of their own, you know.  Chrisrus (talk) 12:38, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
 * This is off-topic. Dumuzid (talk) 16:11, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
 * This is on-topic for some topic, but not for the topic of this page. The flowers that bloom in the spring (tra la!) have nothing to do with the case, and this has nothing to do with, or prospect of, improving the article. MarkBernstein (talk) 16:22, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

What new accounts? What does your closing and hiding of this thread have to do with new accounts editing the article? The thread had nothing to do with new accounts editing the article or not editing it. We were talking about how people respond to reader feedback on the talk page, not editing the article. What kind of grounds for closing and hiding a thread is this? As the grounds given for closing and hiding this thread make no sense whatsoever, I will open it again after waiting an appropriate amount of time. Chrisrus (talk) 20:40, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
 * You seem to have missed half of the changes. They're not allowed to edit the talk page either now. That's why this conversation is redundant Bosstopher (talk) 20:50, 15 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Chrisrus again unilaterally declares that "the grounds given for closing and hiding this thread make no sense." They make sense to the rest of us. This is simply disruptive editing. Will someone please take the appropriate steps already?  Thanks! MarkBernstein (talk) 21:23, 15 May 2015 (UTC)


 * I'm curious. Under what conditions do you think it would be appropriate to hat a discussion on this particular talk page?   Gamaliel  ( talk ) 22:03, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
 * You ask me this about "this particular talk page", but I thought it was clear that the request was for threads to be treated here no differently than any other talk page. It is especially important for this particular talk page, because it's so widely watched, that it should stand as a positive example and avoid even the appearance of impropriety.  Chrisrus (talk) 03:44, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
 * The question was investigating the basis for your opposition to the hatting of this section—do you think a section on this talk page should ever be hatted? under what conditions? Are you saying "never"? Or are you saying "just like other talk pages"? If the latter, that's not very helpful because what is wanted is for this section to stop, so please say what condition would need to apply for that happen. Ultimately, a disgreement over hatting on this talk page is irrelevant because (as I noted at your talk), an administrative decision on hatting will have to be made. Johnuniq (talk) 04:00, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
 * The question was about "this particular talk page".
 * My answer to your questions is "Just like other talk pages". Restore standard operating procedure.
 * Close threads as per usual, such as for example RfCs whose time is up, off-topic discussions, and the like.
 * Closing AND hiding threads is not the same. That's quite a bit more serious because it looks really bad, we at Wikipedia are not in the business of hiding things, and we only do that in cases of serious BLP-type violations or harassment and so on.  We are all about openness, not closing and hiding unless we have no choice.
 * We're all about openness, but we are also about verification and undoing what doesn't check out. Here threads were routinely being hidden and closed that pn any other talk page are just allowed to age off into the archives, and with justifications that contained claims of fact that didn't check out, even make sense, or even constitute a justification at all. Who does that?  Where else is this done?  It's unprecedented and I fear for the future of Wikipedia if it this precedent spreads to other articles and areas of Wikipedia.  Chrisrus (talk) 04:54, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
 * In sum, the usual. You should know; just look at some other busy talk pages.  When closing and hiding threads, cryptic ipse dixit justifications are not used, but rather clear justifications with reference to specific policy that we can verify and if it doesn't check out reopen and show.
 * The way that this talk page is being run in positively un-Wikipedian and should be nipped in the bud before it spreads. Chrisrus (talk) 04:54, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
 * That is not necessarily true. I've seen discussions that stray from the topic of improving editing of the article and wander into forum-style chit chat be hatted although, personally, I'd prefer that they not be collapsed. But discussion threads are hatted for reasons other than BLP violations. Of course, the hatting can be challenged by any editor but if the consensus is to hat the discussion, then it should be hatted. Liz  Read! Talk! 12:09, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
 * The fact that discussions which have gone off topic are sometimes closed does not contradict off-topic discussions being a good example of they type of thread that is sometimes closed.
 * Offering BLP-type violations as an example of the type of thread which is not only closed but also hidden is not the same as saying that only threads with BLP-type violations are hidden.
 * This cannot be treated like "any other talk page" because of the many months of conflict, the Arbitration case, the discretionary sanctions, and the specific restrictions placed on this article and talk page. Hatting threads is not "hiding things".  Those threads and archives that are hatted and removed from this page are not deleted, they are permanently preserved for all to see.  But this page is a work space and it must address the needs of the editors actively working on this article and should be used for discussions about proposed edits to the article, not the thousandth iteration of a drive-by complaint or long manifestos about principles of openness.  I have yet to see how any of your comments relate to how this space should function in the former way, and unless you are willing to address how your demands would facilitate editing on this particular article and in these particular circumstances, future remarks from you should remain off this page.   Gamaliel  ( talk ) 17:13, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
 * What did you mean by "drive by complaints"?
 * What is the connection between "drive by complaints" and that case?
 * For example:
 * Reader: "I think this article is not as good as it could be. Please improve it somehow."
 * Established Editor: "Can you give us something more specific? You're not really giving us much to work with here."
 * Reader: (says no more, because it's a "drive-by complaint".)
 * On this talk page, will you close, not just close but also collapse, or allow this type of thread to age into the archives?
 * Also, how might you word the statement that accompanies a close or a close and collapse? Chrisrus (talk) 04:55, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

false vs. unproven
Can we discuss the substance of this edit on the talk page please? Even if editors are under an IBAN they can post separate statements in this section that are solely about article content. Gamaliel ( talk ) 23:04, 16 May 2015 (UTC)


 * As discussed in the archives at immense length, a false allegation is one which, as here, is factually incorrect. An unproven allegation is capable of being true. The claim that sexual favors were exchanged for favorable coverage -- or that favorable coverage was bestowed under the influence of sexual favors -- was not true. Anyone making this claim either knew it to be untrue -- in which case it is a false claim -- or failed to ascertain whether it could conceivably be true by failing to confirm that favorable coverage had appeared. To make a claim with reckless disregard for the truth is to make a false claim. We have been over this, time and again. MarkBernstein (talk) 23:27, 16 May 2015 (UTC)


 * My interpretation of the wording (although this is very controversial, apparently) is that false means untrue, and is therefore fine to use describing something as untrue. PeterTheFourth (talk) 00:46, 17 May 2015 (UTC)


 * "Alleged" implies that correct/incorrect has not been asserted. "Falsely alleged" implies intent or else we would describe it in temporal order.  (i.e. "X alleged Y, which was later determined to be incorrect.").  By placing "false" before "alleged", we imply intent.  Consider the fictional case where a person convicted of rape was released after DNA evidence exonerated him; we would not describe the victims courtroom testimony as "She falsely swore that he raped her."  The use of "falsely" in that placement implies an intent to deceive more than the veracity of the statement and we wouldn't allow it.  This is pretty basic comprehension and we should not be using "falsely alleged" unless we have a source that describes an intent to make a false allegation.  It's too easy to write it temporally correct than to imply an unsourced intent at any level of English comprehension.  --DHeyward (talk) 06:23, 9 May 2015 (UTC)


 * In this particular case, the source itself uses "unproven". gamers grew angry over the unproven accusations her relationship with Grayson led to positive coverage of her game. I edited and paraphrased from that to Early users of the term "gamergate" believed the lack of media coverage regarding the unproven accusations that Grayson gave positive coverage of Quinn's game was an unethical conspiracy amongst gaming journalists. Before that edit, the article discussed it as "Quinn's private life" which seems to perpetuate speculation about her private life.  The reason is more to highlight the gossipy nature of twitter/internet as some of the "unproven allegations" that were made were proved true while others were false (e.g. at the time, the allegation that Quinn and Grayson were even in a relationship was an "unproven allegation" and our edit logs show it.  That relationship was confirmed.  We simply don't need to keep bringing it up or put modifiers like "correctly alleged a relationship" - it was still unproven when made and therefore not good publishing material).  The allegations, however, were simply repeated without verification and continued after the Kotaku review, which we cover in depth.    --DHeyward (talk) 04:42, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
 * We know that the allegations are false, as it was shown that Grayson only wrote about Quinn prior to their relationship. "Unproven" leads to the suggestion that it might be true, and per BLP we need to be clear that this is not the case. - Bilby (talk) 05:48, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
 * It's only in the narrow context of the beginning of the hashtag. No one is arguing those allegations were true or that was the only allegation flying around.  The source uses "unproven" because its describing a point in time.  A bunch of people tweeted portions of Gjoni's blog.  At the time, everything was unproven.  What we learned later was Grayson had a relationship with Quinn.  We also learned that Grayson only wrote about Quinn prior to their relationship.  We cover both of those allegations and emphatically state that Grayson did not review Quinn's games.  It doesn't change the fact that a number of allegations were unproven when they were being tweeted.
 * But "unproven" doesn't add much and I'm happy to drop it. Changing it to false, though, changes the meaning by establishing intent.  Example: "John Doe alleged that he received a credible threat from anonymous.  Police later determined there was a threat made but it was not credible."  We don't in hindsight say "John Doe falsely alleged that he received a credible threat...."  The first is a temporally accurate depiction that includes the findings, while the second example reads as if there was a motive.  Lastly if 20,000 of hist closest twitter friends repeated "John Doe received credible threats", the accurate way to describe a large number repeating an unproven allegation is to use "unproven" as the professional writer did in the source. --DHeyward (talk) 11:03, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

People, that sentence is a mess either way: Early users of the term "gamergate" believed the lack of media coverage regarding false/unproven accusations that Grayson gave Quinn positive coverage as the result of a relationship was an unethical conspiracy amongst gaming journalists. I know folks have been edit-warring endlessly over "unproven" versus "false" before, but neither of the two works here. The reason is simple: the whole clause is semantically within the scope of "early users... believed...". But those early users believed neither that the accusations were false nor that they were unproven, so the sentence ends up making an untrue assertion (about what those people believed) either way. Incidentally, the sentence is also a stylistic nightmare with its doubly centre-embedded "that" clause. What you need to do here is to reword the whole thing. Why not, at this point, simply leave out the details of what the allegations were about? It's been explained multiple times further up in the article. Why not simply: Early users.... believed that the lack of media coverage regarding Quinn and Grayson was due to an unethical conspiracy amongst gaming journalists? If that's not acceptable, the alternative is to rip the sentence apart in such a way that the explanation of what the allegations were about are moved outside the syntactic scope of "believed". Fut.Perf. ☼ 12:09, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
 * This works for me. I fully agree with the proposed wording. - Bilby (talk) 13:01, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Seems like it'd be fine. PeterTheFourth (talk) 13:45, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
 * some people can believe in things that are contradictory. Some can dream of things that never were. Oliver Wendell Holmes and Bobby Kennedy appear to disagree with you. MarkBernstein (talk) 14:55, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I think the sentence should be removed entirely as it is redundant. It is covered clearly unambiguously earlier in the article: "Statements in the post led Gamergate supporters to allege that the relationship had induced Grayson to publish a favorable review of Depression Quest. The claim was quickly investigated and determined to be false;". ForbiddenRocky (talk) 17:27, 17 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Alternately, Early users of the tag justified their false accusations of Grayson and Quinn with a discredited conspiracy theory. ForbiddenRocky (talk) 17:32, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Fut Perf's wording is great. FR's wording is worse than what's there now.  --DHeyward (talk) 20:01, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

"harassment campaign" -> "pre-Gamergate harassment"
Uh, no. This completely softens the language and implies that "gamergate" didn't exist until after the harassment started, which isn't a claim that is true. I'd revert but I'd run afoul of 1RR.--Jorm (talk) 06:01, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I agree and made the change back to "the harassment campaign." Dumuzid (talk) 06:23, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
 * When Zoe Quinn was being harassed though, it started under "The Quinnspiracy" or so I think Ylevental (talk) 07:15, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I honestly think this page should be named "Gamergate Harassment Campaign".--Jorm (talk) 06:25, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
 * It'd certainly be more accurate to the more recent articles which take a broader look at the event. PeterTheFourth (talk) 06:31, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
 * This could be a win-win situation for both sides actually. The pro-gg side would be told that this page only describes the harassment associated with gamergate.  Ylevental (talk) 07:15, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
 * It's not about sides so much as it's about accurately reporting what the reliable sources say. PeterTheFourth (talk) 07:19, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Nevertheless, I also agree with you there after carefully reviewing the data. Ylevental (talk) 07:52, 15 May 2015 (UTC)


 * And no sources have identified a gamergate supporter that has harassed anyone. They are all anonymous. IRL persons that actually are identified with GamerGate (i.e. Milo, Sommers, Baldwin, etc) aren't involved in harassment. This dichotomy is not trivial and splitting it into the anonymous harassment vs. the named movement will help define the article. By not splitting it, the line is blury and we fuel misinformation. Milo in particular has faced a lot of the same threats/fear/hatred that were thrust upon gamergate victims. The bomb threat in DC was only the latest.  I'd go so far as to say anyone that has been named is a victim of harassment whether pro-GG or against-GG. --DHeyward (talk) 07:53, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I would , but the article I'm thinking of that he's published contains BLP violations. PeterTheFourth (talk) 07:59, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Funny, that never stopped anyone before. More specifically, only you think it is harassment.  Find a reliable source that calls it harassment and we'll talk.  I could say the same thing about all the named anti-GGers too.   "I would link to some of the harassment performed by, but the article I'm thinking of that s/he's published contains BLP violations."  See how hilariously and grotesquely hollow that sounds?  --DHeyward (talk) 08:24, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm going to ignore the baiting- I have no interest  PeterTheFourth (talk) 08:30, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
 * It simply should be renamed to reflect that it's anonymous harrassers attacking living people. That's what the article chronicles.  --DHeyward (talk) 08:39, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
 * "Gamergate Harassment Campaign"- a harassment campaign orchestrated by those who use or support the gamergate hashtag. PeterTheFourth (talk) 08:41, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
 * "Gamergate Harassment Campaign"- a harassment campaign orchestrated by anonymous people using the #GamerGate hashtag against public figures fighting sexism in gaming. It spurred a similar response by anonymous people opposing GamerGate by harassing public figures that believe sexism in gaming is not the biggest cultural issue of the 21st century."  --DHeyward (talk) 09:46, 15 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Even if you consider Quinn's IRC logs that she claims she had to show when GG started, the timing of everything is so muddled between the posting of Gjoni's post, the initial accusations about Quinn + Grayson, the calls for ethics, and Adam Baldwin introducing the term that we don't know the chicken from the egg here. However, I do understand that if someone say "pre-GG harassment" they are talking about anything pre-August 2014, such as the cited cases in 2012 of Sarkseeian being harassed, or the earlier stuff Quinn had for the initial release of DQ. Nearly all sources treat the "start" of GG as August or last August 2014. (Mind you, I agree with reverting the addition of "pre-GG harassment" in the article as it was done so, irregardless of when GG started, Quinn is universally considered the first target of harassment within GG, even if she was harassed before). --M ASEM (t) 12:41, 15 May 2015 (UTC)


 * it's fairly easy to delineate. Pre-GG there was no galvanized criticism.  Sarkeesian was relatively unknown but had her set of detractors for the Tropes series.  Quinn was trying to get a twine game released by steam which drew some criticism (twine is widely considered to be a progressive space).  The only intersection between them were progressive causes.  Gaming journalists, too, were criticised for funding twine games.  This was all pre-GG.  Gjoni unleashed his post.  There were two reactions.  One was from Baldwin, et al, that highlighted Grayson's role as journalist but the apparent lack of distance from someone associated with a cause (i.e. depression awareness/DQ) trying to shape gaming.  As far as I know, Baldwin had never commented before on Sarkeesian but generally opposed exteral influences on gaming.  The second thing that happened was harassment of Quinn which galvanized Sarkeesian (then later, Wu, et al).  I think it's very clear distinction and not muddled at all.  For Baldwin, the Gjoni post was largely an affirmation of how game journalists were tied to progressive causes.  For others it was simply an excuse to harass and threaten Quinn.  The harassment and threats fit in with Sarkeesian's views of gaming culture and she pointed it out.  For those like Baldwin that want to keep politics out of games, it never strayed from criticizing attempts to influence games and game development.  For those like Sarkeesian, it never strayed from being an extension of the sexism in gaming culture.  What I think is being convoluted is the various responses to Gjoni's post being dumbed down into "Quinn was criticised for..." when in fact, it's pretty clear from the investigations that followed and the history of Baldwin is that he was criticising Grayson.  We muddle it by either being vague about it, or always describing it as if Quinn's behavior drove all the fallout.  That's simply not the case.  The allegation we recite that  It's like we wrote about a bank robbery with "A bank teller allegedly traded money for her life." --DHeyward (talk) 18:15, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I can't believe some folks are still discussing Quinn's sex life. It's funny how the focus was never on who other video game journalists slept with, they were never put under this ridiculous microscope and online scrutiny. Either way, sex is only important in the minds of Gamergate conspiracy theorists, not in this article. Liz  <b style="color:#006400;">Read!</b> <b style="color:#006400;">Talk!</b> 21:35, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
 * So you realize that I am proposing we take it out and talk about Grayson instead as it is his actions that came under scrutiny, not Quinn's.   --DHeyward (talk) 06:19, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
 * There is no reason to skirt so close to BLP like this. ForbiddenRocky (talk) 07:04, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Draft a sentence or two w/o mentioning previously identified BLP issues . Don't get meta on the talk page, just draft the sentences that might address Grayson w/o wandering into the mentioned BLP issues and w/o using RS that have BLP issues, also. I suggest you post the sentences here on the talk page rather than be too BOLD, but at least show us. And stop bringing up the BLP issue on the talk page. ForbiddenRocky (talk) 17:55, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Here's the article edit I made. . I already made other edits a couple days ago..  Why anyone has a reading comprehension problem that it was a discussion about anyone's private life is beyond me.  Read people.  --DHeyward (talk) 20:10, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Please remember to assume good faith about fellow editors and remain civil, . PeterTheFourth (talk) 00:42, 17 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Actually,, I have to disagree with you about this: sex is very important because it is so very useful. Every time we get dragged into discussing the details of the sex lives of female software developers, that’s another warning that helps keep women out of the field. Develop games while you're female, and they’ll write about your sex life here and send the clippings to your aged mother, or your kids’ classmates. It’s interesting, too, how we're so scrupulous about redacting a mistake that credited a male journalist with a B.A. rather than a B.S., but when we start talking about the right way to discuss Zoe Quinn’s sex life, well, that’s fine and dandy. (I'm wondering whether the "investigation" was some kids sending emails between rounds of Call Of Duty, or something substantive but unreported...) MarkBernstein (talk) 21:47, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
 * The sarcasm, it is thick in here. Liz  <sup style="font-family:Times New Roman;"><b style="color:#006400;">Read!</b> <b style="color:#006400;">Talk!</b> 21:56, 15 May 2015 (UTC)


 * You see,, I was right. Not only did we need to discuss Quinn’s sex life, but now we're edit-warring an additional long paragraph that argues in detail that we've got to discuss it -- but in a completely different way. Not the way our sources discuss it, because they're sexist! Nasty New Yorker! Bad Boston Magazine~! In fact, we need to go through the whole article, apparently, and examine every little bit of sex again from multiple angles, because .... tanks tops and short shorts, or something. Sigh. MarkBernstein (talk) 20:03, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Well, then I think we should examine the sex lives of journalists like Grayson and Milo to make sure they aren't asking for sex for positive media coverage...I've read these "allegations" online so who knows if they are false or unproven?! It's really about ethics in journalism, isn't it? So, let's put these dudes private lives under a microscope to make sure they are ethical. I mean, that's the heart of GamerGate, right? It's essential to this piece to include the truth. Liz  <sup style="font-family:Times New Roman;"><b style="color:#006400;">Read!</b> <b style="color:#006400;">Talk!</b> 00:40, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

(Comment by User:TheRealVordox removed by User:ForbiddenRocky per editor not having 500 edits)

Reminder: 1RR for GGC
I'm just putting this here, because more than a few people are getting sloppy about this. ForbiddenRocky (talk) 19:09, 17 May 2015 (UTC)