Talk:Gamergate (harassment campaign)/Archive 38

New page-level sanctions in place
NOTE Pursuant to an Arbitration Enforcement request, only accounts with at least 500 edits and are at least 30 days old may edit this article and its Talk page. Edits from accounts that do not meet these minimum requirements may be removed (without counting toward any "revert-rule" counting), but please leave a courteous edit summary indicating why the edit is being removed. 19:49, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
 * This is a "starting now, going forward" page-level sanction (for both the article and this Talk page). Edits made previous to this placement of this notification are not retroactively affected by it.   20:57, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Why did you do this? Chrisrus (talk) 12:46, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
 * This makes little sense to me - it is some sort of new protection level, which can only be manually enforced, and doesn't seem to address any existing problems on the page. In particular, it seems problematic to prevent people from commenting on the talk page - it is uncomfortable enough to say that only autoconfirmed editors can express an opinion here, but the more we restrict that without clear evidence of a problem, the further we move away from the core philosophy of Wikipedia. - Bilby (talk) 13:00, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Agreed. I cannot concur that preventing editors from commenting on article talk pages aligns with our core principles. I believe that we would be better served applying the policies & guidelines with rigorous impartiality.
 * Please note that I have asked a procedural question regarding this page level restriction on 's Talk page here. - Ryk72 'c.s.n.s.' 13:34, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

The history and reasons for these page-level sanctions can be found at this WP:AE request. They are indefinite, not infinite, and a request to lift them may be made in the future. 14:05, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I can't see adequate justification for this additional level of protection. Has there been a significant problem of accounts under this limit editing on the talk page? Looking back over the last month, I can only find three editors with accounts less than 30 days old, and none of them were difficult to handle or engaged in anything that warranted revdel. - Bilby (talk) 14:28, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I can't either. Those issues were can't be blamed on reader feedback, but improper established editor reaction to it.  Because of all the attention to this article, its talk page should be a shining example of how things are properly done on Wikipedia.  Chrisrus (talk) 23:49, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Well, I can find them, Bilby. There were two editors who had less than 100 edits who posted on this talk page today, May 19th. That's just today. I'm sure there have been many others. Liz  Read! Talk! 21:41, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
 * They posted, but were they disrupive? One posted a source that has led to an extended and valid discussion as to whether or not it is useful, and the other posted a perfectly reasonable comment about WP:NOTFORUM. What I'm looking for are signs of disruptive behaviour by editors with under 500 edits and which can't be adequately handled by normal means. Looking over the past month there were a couple of issues, but nothing that wasn't readily handled. - Bilby (talk) 21:53, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I've made a VPM post to discuss the decision over here. I do not have 500 contribs; I have 439 en.wiki contribs at time of writing and 487 Wikimedia project contribs in total. Nonetheless, I'd appreciate administrative discretion in leaving this post up (assuming the removal isn't automated) Thanks, Riffraffselbow (talk) (contribs) 01:39, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

(Moved from another section. Looks like it belongs here.)


 * I also wonder about the new restriction, Also, the article and this Talk page may not be edited by accounts with fewer than 500 edits, or by accounts that are less than 30 days old. Edits made by accounts that do not meet these qualifications may be removed. This prohibition would apply to some accounts who've recently posted to this talk page and article. Does this mean any editor can remove these comments and alert the editor to the changing rule? Liz  Read! Talk! 19:29, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
 * As it notes, it is a "going forward" rule, so any existing comment by such editors should not be removed. However, if they are still under 30/500, then I read that restriction that any subsequent comment is a violation. --M ASEM (t) 19:47, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Personally, I'm not willing to enforce that restriction. How other people handle it is their call. I would, though, like to know where people with concerns about this article and who do not meet the unusual requirements are permitted to express them. - Bilby (talk) 22:14, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I suspect the arbcomm (?) wanted to prevent new people touching GGC | per the closing here ForbiddenRocky (talk) 00:40, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I posted it a few sections up as well, but this is the bottom section and relevant to the topic, so: I've put up a Village Pump thread to discuss the restriction here, for those of us who cannot discuss the restriction on the only correct talk page for doing so. I do not have 500 contribs; I have 439 en.wiki contribs at time of writing and 487 Wikimedia project contribs in total. Nonetheless, I'd appreciate administrative discretion in leaving this post up (assuming the removal isn't automated) Riffraffselbow (talk) (contribs) 02:04, 18 May 2015 (UTC)


 * It's 500 mainspace edits, right? Surely decorating user and talk pages aren't edits.  We're not going to get an army of recent change patrollers showing up in 30 days with 500 minor reverts, are we?  --DHeyward (talk) 14:26, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I think it's just 500 edits without consideration for quality per notes. — Strongjam (talk) 14:35, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

Who Judges Which Is A Viable Source Or Not?
(rm per editor not having 500 edits) — Preceding unsigned comment added by J0eg0d (talk • contribs) May 18, 2015, 4:27 AM
 * (WAM Report that was linked in above, for discussion purposes below) --M ASEM (t) 01:26, 19 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Hi J0eg0d. I'm aware of the report, and the report would be regarded as reliable. The problem is that it is also a primary source, so generally we would have to wait for secondary sources to evaluate its findings. As it stands there isn't much we can say through using it other than perhaps noting that WAM found incidents of reported harassment that they identified as coming from Gamergate supporters, simply because any further analysis of the findings is original research, which we are not permitted to do. - Bilby (talk) 04:36, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
 * There's no requirement to wait on secondary sources to include a primary source. We actually have already alluded that WAM was doing this study already (that was noted by third-party sources), so it's fair to include it. We can report what they claim without any problems (stuff like their finding that only 12% of the tweets they monitered were GG related.) --M ASEM (t) 05:12, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Just as a note, however, outside of how they describe GG in a more neutral tone, the only data I see that really applies immediately to the GG is this 12% number ("During a study performed by WAM from (date to date) on harassment engaged on Twitter, they found that Gamergate-related events accounted for 12% of their total activity.") The bulk of the rest is about online harassment in general and/or Twitter. --M ASEM (t) 05:24, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

(Comment by User:j0eg0d removed by User:Liz per editor not having 500 edits)


 * This is a peer-reviewed, academic paper which we don't consider to be a primary source since the conclusions are drawn and then reviewed independently. It does have a few downsides, such as being a commissioned report rather than a competitive academic journal and also the reviewers are not named (in my field, reviewers are usually picked randomly from a body of experts or committee - only a few experts review each paper and give feedback and this spreads the work around but also gives anonymity if they choose.  The larger body is generally a published list so everyone feels comfortable that regardless of the reviewer, it's an expert.  It seems the reviewers here were chosen by an Assistant Professor without disclosing the method of choosing experts - also double-blind review processes sound great but by the time one becomes a reviewer, their quirks, peeves and theories are well known and virtually every contributor can identify the reviewer by their comments).  It's still more authoritative than virtually all other sources and it's not a primary source.  --DHeyward (talk) 14:51, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

I'm not seeing any issue with using this as a source, but I don't think it's that useful. The only bit that seems to be relevant is that 12% of the reported harassment could be linked to GG. — Strongjam (talk) 15:08, 19 May 2015 (UTC)


 * I'm wondering why we believe this to be peer-reviewed? It appears to be a commissioned white paper. The authors are sound and I have no idea either way whether the work is a reliable source. MarkBernstein (talk) 16:02, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
 * No one is asking if this is a peer-reviewed paper. (Oops I see now. I agree its not peer-reviewed and/or academic) It is a group that has an interest in tracking harassment (as to combat it), and they have outlined very detailed how they did their survey. Their non-interpreted survey results (eg the 12% of what they tracked as twitter harassment tied to GG) is no way a problem to include, but any interpretation of those numbers that is not stated by this source or a secondary source. It's the same situation with the Newsweek/Brandwatch data. Brandwatch ran the numbers, Newsweek made a secondary conclusion from that. We don't have anything like a Newsweek piece yet to go off but there's no issue with including the "Raw" study as long as the data's useful, and right now, the only thing that even stands out is the 12% number and that's begging the question of really how useful it is. --M ASEM (t) 16:33, 19 May 2015 (UTC)


 * It is academic. Matias is a brilliant young scholar at MIT. DeTar is at MIT too. Boneless is a fellow at Harvard’s Berkmann Center. Brian Keegan’s at Harvard Business School and Northeastern. And there is a statement that the paper was reviewed; this is not precisely what’s usually meant by peer review, but it's a reasonable facsimile. MarkBernstein (talk) 17:14, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Okay, it's not what I would normally consider academic (it's written not in a style standard for peer reviewed journals), but it appears the work was done with the care of scientific method/surveying techniques, and full description of their approach. I would not be surprised to see a more traditional academic paper from a peer-reviewed source that reviews the results outside of the WAM scope from those researchers. I'm certainly not dismissing this as a possible reliable source just because it doesn't look like a traditional academic paper. --M ASEM (t) 17:56, 19 May 2015 (UTC)


 * I agree with Strongjam. And I agree with Masem's point about need a secondary source for anything interesting conclusion-wise. ForbiddenRocky (talk) 17:26, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Footnote 62 is interesting, but would need secondary RS. ForbiddenRocky (talk) 17:28, 19 May 2015 (UTC)


 * It is peer-reviewed using a standard method of review. Double-blind, revise and resubmit is a standard peer-review process. This report was reviewed by five academic reviewers in a double-blind, revise-and-resubmit peer review process chaired by Zeynep Tufekci, Assistant Professor at the University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill. The authors are deeply grateful for the detailed feedback and high standards of these reviewers, whose efforts have led to a much clearer, stronger report. What's missing from normal peer review is the gate to publication (i.e. "commissioned" report even though voluntary) and the qualifications of the reviewers (reviewers or reviewer pool not named).  That doesn't make it a primary source.  What makes footnote 62 interesting?  It says nothing happened - not sure we need another secondary source to say 'nothing happened.'  "On November 8, nothing happpened."  Not quite compelling regardless of the number of sources.  --DHeyward (talk) 18:07, 19 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Probably interesting along the lines of 'Gamergate supporters are not as capable as they tell each other' re: wave of false reports proving underwhelming. PeterTheFourth (talk) 18:11, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
 * It corroborates some level of cohesion and organization, as poor as it is. And it shows behavior after the events of 2014. I think the on-going (though dwindling) identifiable as gamergate behavior is historic/encyclopedic. (Though history looking back might not think this particular bit by itself is that interesting, but it does go to the pattern.) ForbiddenRocky (talk) 18:20, 19 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Umm, what? Three days earlier, on the November 8, WAM! was warned anonymously via its reporting form that ‘GamerGate’ was planning acampaign of fake reporting and spam, aiming to submit 10,000 spam reports over the subsequent few days. This was a significant overstatement compared to the number received. One anonymous tip from anonymous saying there will be 10,000 spam reports (not threats or anything directed at people, just reporting false harassment which is hardly GG MO - I'd be more inclined to believe 10,000 directly malicious posts rather than spamming the poll).  This is like the conspiracy movie A Force of One with Chuck Norris.  Maybe the Rabbit of Caerbannog army that was able to fend off attackers from multiple fronts.  Sorry, but this doesn't even sound like GamerGate.  A handful of 4chan users generated thousands of accounts and tweets and transitioned to various hashtags.  Rocky, you objected to "small number" as being an inaccurate description of the handful of hashtag trolls, yet now "1" is somehow indicative of cohesion and organization?  I'm beginning to think there is a conspiracy theory but it's not journalists.  --DHeyward (talk) 20:58, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
 * "We, Gamergate, are going to flood you with fake reports." - Gamergate supporters. Hm. Sounds like those fake reports they got later musta been third party trolls. PeterTheFourth (talk) 02:15, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Again, makes no sense if they can flood it with attacks as they did previously, why flip to surveys? Real attacks would count twice.  Both skew the reports.  How about "We, anti-gamergate, are goint flood the survey with reports of harassment and drive gamergaters off twitter."  Which sounds more reasonable and logical? You proposition sounds like a ballot box stuffing campaign with the convoluted logic that if the votes are stuffed for the other guy, the election would be automayically be voided and their guy would be declared winner.  You need to present your reverse psychology ideas to Chicago politicians as you must think they should be stuffing the ballot with dead votes for the other guy as counter to sampling statitics.  --DHeyward (talk) 05:40, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

coming up
— Preceding unsigned comment added by ForbiddenRocky (talk • contribs) 01:33, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
 * http://www.themarysue.com/will-prosecutors-act-on-gamergate-death-threat/
 * https://support.twitter.com/articles/20171366-trusted-resources
 * I don't think either is useful at the moment. Wu has written a number of excellent essays that have been published, but we should be careful with how we use them since she's obviously close to the subject. Crash Override Network becoming a trusted resource by twitter is interesting, but I'm not sure how much weight to give that, and it would probably be more useful for the networks article anyway. — Strongjam (talk) 01:51, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Found a secondary source for both:
 * I think we'd be better of using the Ars article for any claims. I'm logging off so I'll leave it to other editors to add. — Strongjam (talk) 02:03, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Actually I was thinking it was too soon for anything right now, but that it was worth knowing this would be coming up. ForbiddenRocky (talk) 02:12, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
 * If you take the Ars Tech article - specifically working on the fact there seems to be silence from FBI and others on the issue (and Rep. Clark's plea to push more) and this article from Slate on the difficulty of prosecution of GG-related harassment/cybercrime, there's a reasoanble short passage for this, or integrated with the second para of "Long Term events" to discuss the lack of visible legal action. --M ASEM  (t) 18:34, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I can see that. I was thinking more just about this event, but in context your suggestion makes sense. ForbiddenRocky (talk) 18:36, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Please review this addition. --M ASEM (t) 18:51, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Looks good to me, I did make a small change to avoid the open-ended 'to date' statement. — Strongjam (talk) 19:00, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Looks good to me, I did make a small change to avoid the open-ended 'to date' statement. — Strongjam (talk) 19:00, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

Removal of comments from the talk page
Per the WP:AE discussion regarding the other section above, I'm moving this meta-discussion to its own subpage. Gamaliel ( talk ) 15:08, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

Modification/Removal of editing restrictions on this talk page
Please note that I have opened a discussion at AN here concerning the removal or modification of the 500 edit/30 day account age restrictions. Mifter (talk) 16:17, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

Discussion of notice
Removed previous "hat"; editors wishing to "re-hat" may raise the issue at WP:AE - Ryk72 'c.s.n.s.' 21:50, 23 May 2015 (UTC):


 * And I have filed a complaint at AE as  so kindly proposed.    MarkBernstein (talk) 22:21, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

It's not our place to define or describe policy -- especially not in such complex matters. We could repeat what is written elsewhere, but that’s pointless: it's written elsewhere. Or we could describe the same things differently, in which case we might easily be incorrect and mislead our readers.

It is necessary and sufficient to warn people of the sanctions and to link to the page that describes them. There is nothing else we can do here -- and nothing else on this subject that we are permitted to do.

This interminable discussion has proceeded without explanation or justification. It’s neither pertinent to the topic nor productive of improvement to the encyclopedia. It’s gone on for weeks without making any progress whatsoever. Please, take it to AE or take it elsewhere, thank you. MarkBernstein (talk) 15:48, 23 May 2015 (UTC)}}

Added "Expand section" tag. This is a bit cryptic. What is the significance of this for the user? How about "dos and don'ts" that distinguish the guidelines of this page from Standard Talk Page Operating Procedure. Chrisrus (talk) 17:08, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

Please stop this. Take this up with the Admins at AE, AN, or ANI or anywhere but here. ForbiddenRocky (talk) 17:55, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
 * If this talk page is differen, we have to explain how. Chrisrus (talk) 19:15, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

To expand on the reference link above, it says, and I quote:

This is too cryptic to be of much use to users. Chrisrus (talk) 19:15, 19 May 2015 (UTC)


 * If you believe that ArbCom should clarify this statement, I believe there's a page for that. [|Arbcom Clarification and Amendment] is thataway. Anything that one or two or more who are gathered in this place is just the sound of a tinkling cymbal. If you're believe that Arbcom doesn't understand what it said, there are plenty of newspaper and magazine reports about this page and Arbcom who agree with you -- but again, that's neither here nor there. If you're hoping to convince some administrators to be more accepting of Gamergate-recruited socks, zombies, and "new" users who are remarkably fluent in Wikilaw, well, it's a free country but at this point I think it's going to be an uphill struggle to find many administrators who enjoy that sort of thing. I don't see that there's much we can do here. MarkBernstein (talk) 20:06, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
 * This thread is about this sanctions enforcement announcement. If you have anything helpful to add the topic of this sanctions announcement; what it means for this article and this talk page, please feel free to let us know here.  Chrisrus (talk) 21:03, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
 * What specific suggestions do you have to add regarding this topic?  Gamaliel  ( talk ) 21:30, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
 * That an explanation be added here here so the people can understand anything important about it that talk page readers should know. Chrisrus (talk) 21:56, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
 * "All articles related to the gamergate controversy are subject to discretionary sanctions. Any uninvolved administrator is authorised to place revert and move restrictions on this article, as well as interaction bans, topic bans, and blocks of up to one year in duration on editors who have been alerted of the sanctions" Would something like that (perhaps with shorter sentences) work?Bosstopher (talk) 22:01, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes, I think so, thank you. It seems to say that those specific people named there have those specific sanctions on what they can do here.  They are to last up to one year.  If they do these specific things before that time, any uninvolved administrator can undo it.  Is that correct?  Is there more?  Chrisrus (talk) 00:29, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Hi &, Bosstopher's wording looks good, but, if I may, the page level restrictions don't seem to be limited to "move and revert". Suggest: "All articles related to the gamergate controversy are subject to discretionary sanctions. Any uninvolved administrator is authorised to place restrictions on this article, and to impose interaction bans, topic bans, and blocks, of up to one year in duration on editors who have been alerted of these sanctions". Hope this helps. - Ryk72 'c.s.n.s.' 08:56, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I think it does. To improve it further, the significance of this for users could be elaborated a bit.  For example, we might say what users can do to avoid the sanctions.  Chrisrus (talk) 11:30, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Ok; how about "This article and talk page, and all others related to the GamerGate controversy, are subject to certain discretionary sanctions. Any uninvolved administrator is authorized to place revert and move restrictions on contributors to this article, as well as interaction bans, topic bans, and blocks of up to one year in duration, on any editor who has been alerted of such sanctions placed on them." (Assuming we could turn those red links blue, of course.) Chrisrus (talk) 17:36, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Why? This is already out there. Admin know this. New users are warned to learn what's going on. What's with this? ForbiddenRocky (talk) 19:18, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Hi, Unfortunately, we still have the issue that the page level restrictions are not just limited to moves & reverts. I'd suggest linking to WP:Protection Policy for that aspect; although the restrictions don't seem limited to the types listed there either. But still, it seems like it would provide more information to the reader. We could also use WP:Blocking Policy and WP:Banning policy for the blocks & bans links. Hope this helps. - Ryk72 'c.s.n.s.' 20:36, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I think I see what you're saying. With that in mind, if you would, please do take the next stab at it. Chrisrus (talk) 15:40, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Ok I think we've turn all the red links blue:
 * "This article, like all others related to the GamerGate controversy, is subject to certain discretionary sanctions. Any uninvolved administrator is authorized to place move and revert move restrictions on contributors to this article, as well as interaction bans, topic bans, and blocks of up to one year in duration, on any editor who has been alerted of such sanctions placed on them."
 * I found subsection redirects called "WP:UNINVOLVED", "WP:IBAN", and "WP:PP" (protection Policy) for both move and revert restrictions, but Ryk72 seems to be right, that might be improved but it's the best I could find tonight. Chrisrus (talk) 05:00, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Also, we are still providing no definition of the term "discretionary sanctions", we just link to those specific sanctions. Chrisrus (talk) 05:00, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
 * How about "This article, like all others related to the GamerGate controversy, is subject to discretionary sanctions. Any uninvved administrator is authorized to place move and revert restrictions on contributors to this article, as well as interaction bans, topic bans, and blocks of up to one year from the time of an alert to that effect." See Arbitration/Requests/Case/GamerGate for more information." Does that summarize this announcement well? Chrisrus (talk) 05:02, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Nope. Discretionary sanctions allow administrators to do far more than that. PeterTheFourth (talk) 05:09, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Hi &, Thanks for your work on this aspect. While I'm not sure that I would agree with " far more", PeterTheFourth is correct that Admins are empowered beyond what we have currently written here.
 * If I may suggest, "This article, like all others related to the GamerGate controversy, is subject to discretionary sanctions. Any uninvolved administrator is authorized to place restrictions on contributions to this article, as well as interaction bans, topic bans, and blocks of up to one year on editors who have been formally alerted to the presence of the discretionary sanctions." See Arbitration/Requests/Case/GamerGate for more information."
 * Reasoning: Removing the "move & revert" from "restrictions" opens that aspect up to cover a lot more. Page level restrictions are more properly restrictions on contributions than on contributors. I'm not sure that the "ALERT" date sets a limit on any editor sanctions.
 * Hope this helps. - Ryk72 'c.s.n.s.' 22:14, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

Point of Order

 * , In this subsection, users discuss this notice. Exactly which, if any, improvements to the talk page will result is not 100% clear at this point, but at the moment, it's looking like it might be useful for improving maybe the "Warning" hatnote or the FAQs or something.  Also, even if improvements of that type don't result,  it seems likely to increase and spread understanding of this notice and its significance for this article and talk page. However, at least one other topic, perhaps best described as a  point of order, is also found.    This may make the subsection harder to conduct and/or follow the first thread at times.  Therefore, to facilitate efficient communication, please help keep these threads (and any new threads that might arise) separated within this subsection.  Consider starting another section, subsection, or thread, as TheRedPenOfDoom has done below. Thanks, and happy editing! Chrisrus (talk) 15:40, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Why are you bringing this up here? The editors here aren't the ones imposing or admining the sanctions, so what's the purpose of asking the non-admin editors about all this minutia? How about talking to Gamaliel or Bilby or Zad68 or Future Perfect at Sunrise on their talk page or over at AE? I hope you're not trying to get the editors to exhaustively list how they each might seek remedy within the given sanctions, because that's so situtional that it would take up millions of words. ForbiddenRocky (talk) 18:25, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Listed admins have posted here recently. I think Masem is an admin, but he's involved. ForbiddenRocky (talk) 18:28, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

There is plenty of information in the multiple tags at the top of the page. How many times do we need to repeat content for people who are unwilling to read them? -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  09:46, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I've assumed that, if there's nothing new in the announcement, why announce it, so if this announcement was placed here, we assume that it has more to say than just repeat what's in the hatnotes and so maybe we could improve the notes by doing this.
 * But even if I've been wrong about that and it's just a reminder of information already on this talk page in the talk page notes and such. Then this thread cannot be improve those notes and such, but we're still supposed to understand reminders.  People who remind people of things still want their words understood.  So as this thread works towards that end as well, and it's still worth doing for no other reason.  Chrisrus (talk) 05:29, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
 * the link to the AE page and the link to the case itself are not included anywhere else in the notices, so that is why they are "being announced" -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  05:41, 22 May 2015 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure but there seems to be some confusion about who brought this up. I didn't start this thread.  You'll have to ask them what their point was, but we assume that they thought it was important for us to know this. We've just trying to help to that end, and, insodoing, it is starting to look like it might be another hatnote or an improvement to the existing hatnote or something like that, but at the very least, it's informative and on-topic.  Chrisrus (talk) 05:29, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
 * The first person to have commented in this thread (ie the person who started it) seems to have been... ? PeterTheFourth (talk) 05:36, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
 * yup. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  05:46, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I didn't start this section. I was the first to come along and ask for clarification.  I didn't "bring it up".  Chrisrus (talk) 06:44, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
 * If you go to Talk:Gamergate_controversy and hit "edit", you can see some hidden text there that says "Purposefully not signed to eliminate the auto archiving. TheRedPenOfDoom." So it seems that you started this, not me, isn't that correct? Chrisrus (talk) 07:03, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
 * No, if you're the first to mention it that means you brought it up, Chrisrus. Please stop filibustering. If you're going to turn this into the same situation as the last time, it might be necessary to hat again. PeterTheFourth (talk) 07:06, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Fine, as long as it is clear that, although I was the first person to ask for clarification, but I wasn't the one who introduced this subject to the talk page by starting this section. If you want to know why this section was created, ask the person who started it, not me. Chrisrus (talk) 07:22, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
 * In 6 months you were the very first who found a link to the source of the sanctions and the link to where problems would be resolved as something that "needed clarification".--  TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  11:31, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

Where meta-talk pages discussions should take place
Please move this meta-discussion off the GGC talk page. ForbiddenRocky (talk) 05:04, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Please change your apparent belief that discussions about ways to improve a talk page of an article don't belong on that talk page. Thanks and happy editing! Chrisrus (talk) 10:45, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Please stop wasting our time with wikilawyering and bikeshedding. Protonk (talk) 15:47, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

Well, I suppose we could move this meta-discussion to Arbitration Enforcement. Would that be good? MarkBernstein (talk) 12:01, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

bot archiving
The template says it archives in 5 days, but I think it actually archives every 2 days (ish). Someone with bot knowledge can confirm one way or the other? ForbiddenRocky (talk) 17:42, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Fixed by adjusting the archive notice template. The problem is that the archiving template, the archive index template, and the archive notice template are all completely distinct and will get out of step with one another from time to time.


 * As I said in my edit, you may find that the two day archive period is a little on the short side for optimal operation, though it may have been appropriate before the recent tightening of editing restrictions. --TS 18:01, 23 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Hi, I think you might be correct with the two day period being a little on the short side. I think we should have 3 days as a minimum (more than a weekend, for those in countries with "5+2" working weeks), but perhaps going back to the 5 days would be preferable. If there are no objections, I will bold to 3 days, and we can discuss if it should be more. - Ryk72 'c.s.n.s.' 23:05, 23 May 2015 (UTC) - reping resign Ryk72 'c.s.n.s.' 02:10, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
 * As there have been no objections, this is now changed to 3 days. - Ryk72 'c.s.n.s.' 21:07, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep an eye on it. If after a couple of weeks you find that some productive discussions are being prematurely archived by the bot, you may want to increase the period to 5 days or more. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tony Sidaway (talk • contribs) 14:57, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Gamergate_controversy&diff=664127270&oldid=664123612 Zad68 changed it 7 days & 5 threads. FYI.] ForbiddenRocky (talk) 19:05, 26 May 2015 (UTC)


 * I'm much more comfortable with those new parameters. --TS 19:15, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Agreed. Many thanks, . FYI, I have updated the "Mirzabot" notice box to reflect this change. - Ryk72 'c.s.n.s.' 00:02, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

GX3 + GG
http://gamepolitics.com/2015/05/27/anita-sarkeesian-anthony-burch-named-bosses-honor-gx3-everyone-games-event#.VWarwM9VhBc Though perhaps better at Anita Sarkeesian's entry? ForbiddenRocky (talk) 05:48, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
 * That doesn't even mention GG, so yes, probably over there. --M ASEM (t) 05:51, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

Edit check please - Paste magazine statement in "Gamer Identity"
I readded something from Paste magazine a few months ago, in which that article used the word Balkenization to describe the GG situation. Issue was taken with that word specifically (given how the WP article does not seem to reflect on the usage the author was). As such, I reworded the term to be, based on the author's intent, "broadening of the demographic scope", so there should be no issue with that. The diff is here. --M ASEM (t) 22:40, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

Also as a suggestion for improvement, I'm trying to find a way to show the shifting demographs, likely measured from the ESA, to have as a visual aid in that section, but I can't seem to find a good set of data to work from. (As long as numbers are published, we can safely recreate any graphs under a PD license). --M ASEM (t) 22:42, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I don' think Rhodes means that GG was a result of this, but just that it highlighted the differences that were already there "If we’ve long behaved as though there was a community it made sense to talk about in the singular, the divisions sharpened by GamerGate have made it clear that the audience for videogames is far from monolithic. I'm not sure if "broadening of the demographic scope" is quite how I would characterize the authors point. At first read I took it to mean that people who play games are becoming more diverse while the author says "Now, the façade is breaking apart, revealing that what is often referred to as “the gaming community” is, in fact, many communities, made up of people with disparate backgrounds and points of view. It has been that way almost from the beginning.". I would characterize his point as more that GG highlighted the existing diversity of the community and that it's moving away from being a unified identity of itself.— Strongjam (talk) 23:22, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
 * The narrative that I get (and why he explains the history of the word Balkanization) is that while diversity of gamers was always there, the industry which once opted to focus on the young male gamer demographic, has now decided they need to serve all these various demographic groups at the cost of not producing as many games for the young male gamer - it was, as Rhodes writes, a conscious decision to move the industry in that direction. Rhodes accepts that they needed to be more diverse, but how they chose to do that is what Rhodes believed led to the feedback that created the backlash that GG grew from, and why he compared it to Balkanization. He's critical of the industry's response to GG, though not to their aim for trying to be more diverse. --M ASEM (t) 23:37, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
 * "while diversity of gamers was always there, the industry which once opted to focus on the young male gamer demographic" definitely agree on this point. I'm sure there is a better way to say that then "broadening of the demographic scope" which seems imprecise and open to different interpretation, nothing comes to mind at the moment though. Something like "companies having broaden their focus away from the "core gamer"" maybe?. — Strongjam (talk) 23:49, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Maybe "seeking to reach a wider range of demographics in the gamer community instead of focusing on core gamers"? (which implies the demog. was there, but they shifted form the core gamer (which the statement does point out). --M ASEM  (t) 23:59, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I like that. - Strongjam (talk) 00:02, 30 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Don't think of it as a zero sum financial issue. It's a growing market along with mobile devices.They are new markets.  This isn't robbing Peter to pay Paul, it's a whole new revenue stream that game development companies are tapping but it's not necessarily hurting their existing stream.  It's inherently "Balkanized" by platform and platform user growth, not by fracturing the existing community. Understanding that is key to understanding how the industry reacted (and reacts) when they see a new a set of eyeballs ready to buy their product. If a billion potentially new subscribers is considered diversity, there will be a lot of companies lining up to be diverse.  I think Rhodes missed it when he lumps them together.  There may come a time when a new type of platform disrupts the existing model (like the Doom engine destroyed arcades and made PCs a gaming platform) but right now these are different market segments and that is what makes Rhodes confused/disappointed about the industry.  --DHeyward (talk) 14:30, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

Harsh language in the lede?
A new participant in the talk page with about one year of Wikipedia experience has provided an evaluation of the lede (at 03:52, 3 June 2015 UTC) and opined that the overall result seems unbalanced. Do you have thoughts about how terms "rape", "misogynistic" may be considered as harsh language and about their neutrality in the lede? (That comment has been removed from the page because of the restriction on participants with less than 500 edits, you're not expected to engage in conversation with that user here). Diego (talk) 11:17, 3 June 2015 (UTC)
 * "Rape threats" may be a harsh language, but they have also been a reality of Gamergate which have been widely recorded. In my opinion the word misogynistic as a subjective value judgement is unnecessary. We can trust our readers to come to their own conclusion regarding whether or not threats of rape are "misogynistic attacks."Bosstopher (talk) 11:32, 3 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Neutrality is achieved when we represent the reliable sources.
 * The reliable sources are quite consistent in their identification of the antics as "rape threats" and "misogynistic" so our depiction of "rape threats" and "misogynistic" attacks as "rape threats" and "misogynistic" attacks is quite appropriately neutral point of view- while not presenting them as  "rape threats" and "misogynistic" attacks would be a dire violation of neutrality.
 * The reliable sources focus on the "rape threats" and "misogynistic" nature of the campaign, and so when we focus on the "rape threats" and "misogynistic" nature of the campaign we are providing a neutral presentation of the subject- and not presenting  "rape threats" and "misogynistic" attacks as the central issue would be a dire violation of neutrality.
 * The reliable sources, when they cover the inane, untrue and conspiracy theories associated with gamergate, cover them as inane, untrue and conspiracy theories and so our presentation of them as inane, untrue and conspiracy theories is the neutral presentation - and not covering them as inane, untrue and conspiracy theories would be a dire violation of neutrality.
 * So all in all, this "completely uninvolved" perspective of non neutrality is, like all of the other "completely uninvolved" editors who have pushed the same "concern", completely baseless and has been thoroughly covered multiple times in the 38 pages of archives.
 * Can we hat this pointless repetition? -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  12:10, 3 June 2015 (UTC)


 * While the rape threats and misogynistic attacks are truthful to how the majority of RSes present the harassment and thus are elements that should be called out in the lede, we cannot judge this as "inane, untrue and conspiracy theories" as that is not a view taken by the majority of sources. Some (but far from a majority) sources do call GG's ideas as conspiracy theories, but few if any consider them inane or untrue, and that's judgemental language that is not present in a majority of sources that taints discussion. There's no question that the ethics concerns are lost under the weight of harassment and in many sources considered inactionable, but that's a far different stance from "inane, untrue and conspiracy theories". --M ASEM (t) 12:58, 3 June 2015 (UTC)
 * We ABSOLUTELY must treat the untrue claims about women's sex lives as untrue - fully loudly and repeatedly.  --  TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  14:10, 3 June 2015 (UTC)
 * On that specific claim, yes but that's not what is being called out as a conspiracy theory by sources that use the term; those refer towards things like GG's stance towards GameJournalPro, DIGRA, and the like. --M ASEM (t) 14:39, 3 June 2015 (UTC)
 * (e/c) exactly - the the conspiracy theories that there is a massive journalistic conspiracy against gamergate or a massive conspiracy by feminists to take over games are clearly and uncontestedly presented by the reliable sources as nutjob conspiracy theories, and we also present them as such. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  15:30, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

I object to closing and hiding this thread on these grounds and plan to undo it after waiting an appropriate amount of time. Chrisrus (talk) 15:36, 3 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Which grounds do you object to? the fact that this is yet again a rehash of claims that have been beaten to death or the fact that the AE decision on how to deal with the unhelpful rehashing is being applied? -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  15:46, 3 June 2015 (UTC)
 * As I see it, the AE decision was intended to avoid that newcomers were bitten ("I don't think anybody would argue that that particular article, in the current environment, would be a great place for a truly new, good-faith editor to start their editing career" was the motivation stated by the admin imposing the ban), not to restrict the topics that could be brought to the talk page. There is no policy that forbids discussing already treated subjects - quite the contrary. Diego (talk) 15:54, 3 June 2015 (UTC)
 * WP:DEADHORSE WP:CRUSH WP:TE -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  16:08, 3 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Surely you know how to distinguish policy from essays? Diego (talk) 16:12, 3 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Surely you can read the policy "Editors may propose a change to current consensus, especially to raise previously unconsidered arguments or circumstances. On the other hand, proposing to change a recent consensus can be disruptive"-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  16:15, 3 June 2015 (UTC)
 * And what makes you or MarkBernstein the arbiters deciding when consensus has been reached and what discusions shouldn't be held? The wording in the lede in particular has always had editors worried about its neutrality and the problems of using loaded terms and judgements of value stated in Wikipedia's voice, as this thread demonstrates; it's far from a settled concern. Diego (talk) 16:22, 3 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Policy. The one that you linked to earlier: "Consensus on Wikipedia does not mean unanimity (which, although an ideal result, is not always achievable); nor is it the result of a vote. Decision-making involves an effort to incorporate all editors' legitimate concerns, while respecting Wikipedia's policies and guidelines." There have been no legitimate concerns that have been raised that have not been repeatedly addressed by the sources and the polices and the guidelines.  --  TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  16:32, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

Engaging in what amounts to a war of attrition by repeatedly reopening and re-arguing well-covered points (without a significant change in the parameters like sourcing or content policy) until others are simply exhausted, is indeed a form of disruptive editing recognized as tendentious editing. However, for tendentious editing to be actionable, it has to be tied to an individual account over time. The history of this Talk page shows that there have been attempts to exploit a weakness in the Wikipedia open editing model by engaging in tendentious editing without having it tied to a single account. The purpose of the AE page-level minimum qualification is to curtail disruption by making doing this more difficult. So, there is no restriction on established editors from picking up on points made by ineligible editors, but they need to do so under their own responsibility with their established accounts. If every time an ineligible account posts a general, inactionable complaint ("I feel the article is biased!" with no grounding in Wikipedia content policy) an eligible editor reposts it, that may establish a pattern of tendentious editing that can be actionable at WP:AE. 16:36, 3 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Here you seem to be in clear violation of WP:ASSUMEGOODFAITH, a principle without which everything can fall apart, as you've provided no evidence that anyone in this thread is guilty of belonging to such a disruption campaign.
 * There seems to be another danger here, that we overreact to on-topic reader feedback and violate core principles that we hold most dear, such as The prime values of Wikipedia talk pages: Communication, Courtesy, and Consideration and WP:ASSUMEGOODFAITH. This danger makes the "danger" of repetitive, less-than-helpful talk page threads pale by comparison, because we have normal remedies such as directing readers who provide such feedback to the FAQs, providing stock replies, or just ignore them and let them age off into the archives, until such time they will make it less likely that others will open similar threads again.  Closing and hiding this thread in this way make it more, not less likely that another such harmless, if annoying to some, threads will be opened tomorrow.  Chrisrus (talk) 17:51, 3 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Could we at least revisit the banning criterion? Handpolk has been around here longer than PeterTheFourth, yet the former is restricted and the latter is not, merely for being more prolific. That doesn't feel right. Diego (talk) 17:52, 3 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Please take this up at Zad68's talk or at AE. sigh ForbiddenRocky (talk) 18:11, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

I concur with (active since 2007, over 12000 edits). If my calculations are correct, in the two or three weeks so far that the ban has been enabled, there have been no more than five comments removed because of it. None of which seemed particularly disruptive, and at least two have triggered civil conversations between established editors.

This seems fairly manageable, so the problem doesn't look as severe as those supporting the feature make it appear. In fact the ban seems to have produced more discussion and disagreements about how it should be applied than the amount of problems it has prevented. Diego (talk) 18:18, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

I would request that editors refrained from hatting the thread, trying to stop it every coment of two. Some of the discussion being held here is about how we collaborate to improve the article, you know. I've replied here because here is where Zad68 has posted his clarification. If you want to move the conversation elsewhere, at least first put a note that you're going to do so and wait until we all notice it. Sigh, indeed. Diego (talk) 18:18, 3 June 2015 (UTC)
 * No more than 5 comments...and this is a problem how? Your argument demonstrates how little the actual policy is enacted. Koncorde (talk) 19:23, 3 June 2015 (UTC)
 * I propose that we follow the recent practice and move this meta discussion to its own subpage for those who wish to discuss for the sake of discussion. --  TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  20:24, 3 June 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm OK with moving the discussion to a subpage as was done with other previous threads, please just don't do it without previous warning while the conversation is ongoing. First create the target page and post a link to it, then hide the original thread when people has migrated to the new place. That's common sense. Diego (talk) 20:36, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

Katherine Clark
Speech to the US House Of Representatives, 3 June 2015. CSPAN video and transcript


 * "THEN THERE'S THE STORY OF MY CONSTITUENT, BRIANNA, A VIDEO GAME DEVELOPER WHO HAD TO FLEE -- FLEE HER HOME WITH HER FAMILY IN THE MIDDLE OF THE NIGHT AFTER SPECIFIC THREATS TO RAPE AND KILL HER AND HER HUSBAND. HER ONLINE ATTACKERS RELEASED HER HOME ADDRESS AND DESCRIBED IN GRAPHIC DETAIL THE ACTS OF VIOLENCE THEY WERE PLANNING."

OK: we just had a long, long thread at Brianna Wu, speculating that Wu had never reported actual threats. Can we finally, definitively, put that to rest?


 * "THE PRIORITIZING ONLINE THREAT ENFORCEMENT ACT WOULD GIVE THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE AND THE F.B.I. THE RESOURCES AND THE MANDATE TO INVESTIGATE AND ENFORCE THE FEDERAL LAWS ON CYBERTHREATS. IT IS NOT CONGRESS' JOB TO POLICE THE INTERNET, BUT WE HAVE A RESPONSIBILITY TO MAKE SURE THAT WOMEN ARE ABLE TO FULLY PARTICIPATE IN OUR ECONOMY. I URGE MY COLLEAGUES TO SUPPORT THIS CRUCIAL BILL. LET'S KEEP THE INTERNET OPEN AND SAFE FOR ALL VOICES."

We probably should mention the introduction of new legislation specifically intended to curb the abuses of Gamergate. MarkBernstein (talk) 21:32, 3 June 2015 (UTC)


 * Adding the bill - done (though in the actual language, it does not address GG at all, just all types of cyberharasssment). And while I personally have zero question that Wu legitimately had these threats against her, it should be noted that just because a congressperson says something does not necessarily make that something true. The realness of the threats towards Wu was established long ago. --M ASEM (t) 21:41, 3 June 2015 (UTC)


 * Which didn't stop Wikipedia from spending days on the talk page as people claimed there was doubt, claimed there was controversy, claimed we couldn't say it in Wikipedia's voice. Of course the realness of the threats was established long ago-- but it was a controversy on wikipedia a couple of days ago.  Why? Oh, wait. MarkBernstein (talk) 22:13, 3 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Where was that being said? The only section related to Wu recently has been how to treat the updated articles on how she was frustrated with lack of response in law enforcement (a few sections up). --M ASEM  (t) 22:54, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

and subsequent sections -- some hatted, some rev-del'd. As to Gamergate not being mentioned in the bill, it can't be: that would be an unconstitutional bill of attainder. The Congresswoman’s speech makes the proximate reason clear, and is, I think, compelling (and only five minutes long). But of course it's really all about ethics, right? MarkBernstein (talk) 23:02, 3 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Okay, thought it was here at gg page. Agree that the doubts to her claims are inappropriate to consider. --M ASEM (t) 23:18, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

Here's the text of the bill. It's pretty general and low budget and I can't imagine it not passing. The language seems broad enough that the money/manpower would include crimes such as the cyber "murder-for-hire" charges against Silk Road founder and now permanent guest at a Federal prison, Ross Ulbricht and possibly even broad enough to include monitoring terrorist threats. As I commented at the other page and tried to mediate a bit with language that removed doubt but also attributed the quantity of threats (I think its 50 now with her last interview so e.g. "Wu disclosed 50 threats...") ), I'll comment here as well. I believe she worked out the issue with Columbus, Ohio.  The last source I read on it had really only one takeaway and it was a primer on how to report threats.  "Call your local police department" is what the Ohio prosecutor said.  That would be at least useful to add to the article as that's how most anonymous crimes are handled.  The local PD calls the PD in the other state where the call originated (or the PD where the ISP is located).  The remote PD gives info to their prosecutor.  In at least most reasonably sized metro areas, there is always an empaneled grand jury that the prosecutor can get a criminal subpoena to identify the IP owner or phone number owner for potential criminal action and takes about 10 minutes. It's then faxed to the ISP person that is the designated recipient who gathers the information and replies to subpoena. It's common enough that it's a well-oiled mechanical process. Local police and prosecutors are well-versed in how to trackdown POTS and regular IPs and respond accordingly. If it's sophisticated, it is nearly impossible anyway without tremendous amounts of resources (i.e. Ulbricht). The legislation introduced is nice, but a token gesture, but the advice/comments from the Ohio prosecutor will help a lot more victims if we are going to add that type of information. It would be very misleading to imply the FBI is or ever will be the first step in dealing with anonymous threats or that ten new FBI agents would address anything the Gamergate threat victims went through at this point. Wu vented her frustration with law enforcement and the good that came out of that venting was the followup by the Columbus prosecutor and his advice - I think Wu expressed appreciation for what the prosecutor did and had to say. I hope he's already completed the subpoena and ID'd the suspect but I haven't heard anything further on that part. --DHeyward (talk) 07:44, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

SCOTUS decision related to GG and online threats being brought more inline with prosecuting other types of threats
Synopsis from Forbes. It is probably relevant to the other section regarding legislation. It seems the decision makes online threat prosecutions closer to other threat prosecutions (i.e. it must be specific and credible) but it did overturn a conviction the court decided didn't meet those requirements (I will get the full opinion to see if it was a remand but it probably wasn't). If nothing else, it makes legislation mentioned in the other section more difficult or moot as the source comments on it. --DHeyward (talk) 05:15, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

Here is SCOTUS decision regarding the Facebook threats made by self-styled rapper that apparently used Eminem lyrics to allegedly threaten and terrorize his ex-wife and co-workers. --DHeyward (talk) 05:20, 4 June 2015 (UTC)


 * Doesn't tie strongly to GG. ForbiddenRocky (talk) 05:22, 4 June 2015 (UTC)
 * This makes a stronger link, but I'm not familiar with the source: http://fusion.net/story/142924/elonis-supreme-court-dont-make-facebook-death-threats/ ForbiddenRocky (talk) 05:33, 4 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Agree, this is more towards cyberharassment in general. The bill introduced by Rep. Smith Clark above, on the other hand, was direct fallout from Wu's GG harassment, even though the bill is general to cyber harassment. --M ASEM (t) 05:34, 4 June 2015 (UTC)
 * The Forbes piece I cited juxtaposed it GG and the proposed legislation. I just finished reading the opinion and it's a straight-up mens rea case and the district courts instruction to the jury was more of actus rea and strict liability.  It was remanded back to District court.  Don't know if they will retry but it's a jury instruction.  Legislation can address some of what is a culpable mental state but not too far outside reasonable construction - words like "intentionally", "knowingly" or "negligently" in legislation would clarify it but those are normal constructions.   Also, it would be okay to mention Gamergate in the legislation.  The Adam Walsh Child Protection and Safety Act for example specifically mentions a victim.  A Bill of Attainder would be legislation that declares a person or group to be illegal or tailored to be only enacted to punish a specific person or group rather than an action directed by thought.   It could easily be named "The Gamergate Online Harassment Prevention Act" if they wanted.  --DHeyward (talk) 06:08, 4 June 2015 (UTC)
 * On the bill, the language of the legislation is in the Register (the source in the article) for all to read, and they simply don't mention GG, but do focus on any online harassment, though this all follows from what Rep. Smith Clark has been doing over the last few weeks in respond to Wu's plight. On the SCOTUS case, I would really like to see something better than a Forbes contributor's opinion (we've rejected Eric Kain for the same reason before) to include. I'm not saying that the decision will impact how GG legal cases will be handled (if they are ever handled), but because it is speculative, we need a good secondary source to avoid a crystal ball effect; let other sources make it clear they see this decision not helping to stop the GG harassment. --M ASEM (t) 06:50, 4 June 2015 (UTC)
 * I read the bill (tell me if this link isn't it and its connection to GamerGate is largely through the connection of Rep. Smith Clark and Wu.  I think comments by Smith Clark are more noteworthy than the contents of her bill which didn't appear to create any new laws other than a money shuffle.  I think a secondary source on the bills impact is also necessary because at first glance, it's a token sign of support rather than a bill that would impact federal law enforcement let alone Gamergate in particular - the legislation by itself isn't notable.  For the Forbes piece by the "contributor" (I'm not sure how to classify it as they don't describe it as opinion - and Eric Kain is still cited in the WP GG article) but there is Forbes piece by the Forbes journalist is here.  What's notable is the decision 8-1 with only Thomas not overturning and the similarity of threats.  Elonis (the person convicted, overturned and remanded back to district court) posted his rap/threat on facebook, posted his ex-wife's address and map to her house, posted remake of a stand-up comedy about how he wanted her raped and killed (and the map showed a cornfield and escape route).  He posted rap about how the protection order made him want to shoot up a kindergarten class.  That last one generated a visit by the FBI.  He then posted another rap threat about cutting the female FBI agents throat.  These were rape and death threats dismissed by 8 justices, including all the female justices, in favor of free speech.  The case is scary similar and he was prosecuted under 18 USC §875 which is the section in Smith Clark's bill (Extortion and Threats in Interstate Communication).   for Signpost if you want, even more infamous, Wikipedia was mentioned in the SCOTUS opinion (page 7 in PDF pages).  Freedom of speech article was linked in the Facebook death threat which apparently makes everything okay now. --DHeyward (talk) 10:26, 4 June 2015 (UTC)
 * On the bill - the introduction of the bill is simply following up on the chain of events since the PAX threat, which lead to Rep. Smith Clark becoming involved, which led to this legislation. As it is only a bill, there's little else to talk about it since it's not passed yet, and as you say, all it is is giving the FBI more money to enlist more agents to help, but otherwise not creating new legislation that gives them more power. It's completing the thought, to speak - that a congressperson got involved and is trying to help.
 * On the SCOTUS decision, I don't disagree it will potentially affect prosecution of GG games if that ever happens, but the situation of GG - where you have the same targets being harassed over and over by some people, possibly coordinated - is different compared to one person sending another repeated threats. There's a lot more potential to showcase intent and malice with GG given the scale. As such, while the SCOTUS decision does impact the legal strength of cyberharassment enforcement, its impact on GG is highly speculative, and I would rather see a better analysis or one from a more expert source than a Forbes contributor (such as a legal expert or professor) to tie it in than for us to engage in crystal-balling even with secondary sources. --M ASEM (t) 14:14, 4 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Agree with Masem re: "rather see a better analysis or one from a more expert source than a Forbes contributor". I think making a stronger connection with Forbes is treading toward OR. ForbiddenRocky (talk) 17:05, 4 June 2015 (UTC)
 * We need secondary sources for both. Both the legislation and SCOTUS relationships to GG are "connecting the dots."  It's not clear that either is relevant to GG.  --DHeyward (talk) 17:21, 4 June 2015 (UTC)
 * While a secondary source for the bill would be helpful, it's not required because we just had secondary sources on her getting the House committee to approve her introduction of such a bill, for example. So stating the bill that we had clear sourcing was coming is fine. If we didn't know this prior bit, then yes, there would be a need for a secondary source to address the fact the bill was a culmination of events from before. (It looks like we have some now, but at worse, we could have pulled from CSPAN's recording of her introduction of the bill to the House floor.) (And please note, I misstated Rep. Clark's name as Smith instead of Clark and I think your comments picked up on my misnaming; I've edited both yours and my comments above properly to fix this) --M ASEM  (t) 17:37, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

FYI, I just added a source that makes the connection. — Strongjam (talk) 17:39, 4 June 2015 (UTC)


 * There are plenty of press pieces that make connection SCOTUS case to GG, especially when the case was heard last fall. Here's the NYTimes and Washington post both connecting the case to GG. . Contrary to the NY Times and Washington Post's expectation, SCOTUS didn't decide anything about free speech nor is it harder to prosecute after the decision. It seems they cleared up a statutory construction issue in one circuit court of appeals and punted both free speech and minimum level of culpable mental state. --DHeyward (talk) 17:45, 4 June 2015 (UTC)
 * One other thing is the flow of the current wording will need to change a bit specifically as it relates Gjoni to a crime. There's an implicit synthesis that he started a hate group and committed a crime and to some extent our article reads like the Clark bill would make prosecuting Gjoni easier or "expected".  That is certainly false and Gjoni should not be portrayed in that light.  --DHeyward (talk) 17:56, 4 June 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure if Quinn's quote about his targetted posting is a BLP. Given that she did factually get a restraining order placed on him, the courts found something about his activity to give her the order. It doesn't say he started the hate group directly or that he's been charged with a crime. --M ASEM (t) 18:24, 4 June 2015 (UTC)
 * I'll start a new section as it's a bit off-topic. It's not Quinn's quote that caught my eye (I don't think I even saw it), rather it was the proximity and flow of "Gjoni" to "hate group" to "domestic violence" to "death threats" to "more prosecutions."  I haven't read the "restraining order" but the court doesn't need to find much of anything to issue a no-contact/restraining order (or whatever her state calls an intimate partner no-contact order) other than one party doesn't want contact. Like a divorce, there isn't much of a finding to grant it if one party wants it regardless of the other party's desire (it's a catch-22 in that if two people can't agree on whether to stay married, it's irretrievably broken - same with two people that can't agree not to contact each other).  In fact, here, a judge has to show good cause not to issue it on request and must report denied initial requests to a court of record with a reason why it was denied.  The person receiving it can fight it but if there is no pressing need, it usually stands.  Note that most of these orders are based on a desire for no-contact and don't express any fear of violence. It's usually a no-brainer for intimate partners that don't have children in common and aren't alleging domestic violence to be given a restraining order on request (they show contact to the judge to show that contact existed in some form).  Two unmarried people living in different states without any rights removed would have really no reason to oppose the order.  I would not assume that the restraining order is prima facie evidence of the court finding anything more than one party's desire for no contact.  --DHeyward (talk) 00:14, 5 June 2015 (UTC)
 * I would think we'd like to include the SCOTUS case - it's certainly got a potential connection - but I'm trying to find something stronger that the Forbes article. I think I got something, however, let me check. --M ASEM (t) 18:04, 4 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Two sources, Pacific Standard and Fast Company (citing a legal expert), added. --M ASEM (t) 18:17, 4 June 2015 (UTC)
 * The SCOTUS case made a bigger gamergate splash in december (as you can see by the WaPo and NYT coverage). It's very narrow ruling kind of took the splash away.  The ruling was 7-2 with all three female court members voting to overturn a federal felony conviction for online death threats.  Only very specific groups seemed to take issue with it and it's mostly the result rather than the argument made.  PS Mag was one of the cites I listed above next to NYT and WaPo. --DHeyward (talk) 00:14, 5 June 2015 (UTC)
 * So, what did you want to add? Make an edit to the entry? ForbiddenRocky (talk) 20:59, 5 June 2015 (UTC)
 * I was going to add what the Forbes, WaPo, NYT and Pacific Standard sources said. I then read the whole decision.  The expectation set out in December was either a first amendment ruling that makes it harder to prosecute (i.e. overturn the conviction) or a ruling that reinforces the tools already in place and GamerGate threats would be easier to prosecute (this is what WaPo and NYT said in December).  The ruling did neither despite some of the positions taken by interested parties.  Three of the 7 justices that overturned the death threat convictions were women and they overturned only on the very narrow "negligence is insufficient" to convict and consistent with a more liberal courts interpretation of culpability.  Alito dissented because the court didn't provide guidance on what the minimum culpable state for that statute should be even though they discounted the least culpable.  The majority deffered that until someone else appeals.  Alito believes the court should have adopted "reckless" as the minimum standard for guidance (the majority simply didn't say, but I suspect Alito's dissent will be guiding instruction and we'll never hear it again - Clark could attempt to ammend 18 USC 875 with a statutory requirement and remove all doubt but that takes longer than an appropriations bill and it doesn't appear there is much interest to create new law).  Only Thomas believed the plain interpretation of "threat" was already sufficient to convict.  In short there was a bunch of sound and fury in the Reliable Sources but reality fell short of that and this case signifies nothing.  Elonis will be retried, the jury will be given mental states from reckless to maliciously to consider.  the question will be "Did Elonis recklessy or knowingly or intentionally or maliciously communicate a threat?" instead of "Did Elonis communicate a threat?"  That's all that happened.  if the jury finds it was at least reckless, it will be appealed but probably not make it up the ladder again.  If you want to blindly add stuff the reliable sources said, go ahead but I can't as the ruling/reality doesn't live up to that hype.  --DHeyward (talk) 00:41, 6 June 2015 (UTC)
 * I think go with the RS sounds right. Your concerns sound like trying to guess the future and/or OR. ForbiddenRocky (talk) 01:07, 6 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Which, using the ones written after the SCOTUS decision, still relate it to what difficulties might come if/when it comes to prosecuting GG harassment, which have been added already about the difficulties of enforcement. --M ASEM (t) 01:17, 6 June 2015 (UTC)
 * I'll look again, but I suspect I'll end up agreeing with Masem on this one. ForbiddenRocky (talk) 01:20, 6 June 2015 (UTC)
 * There's no dispute. I, personally, wouldn't have added it because I think it's faulty reasoning that's laid out plainly in the decision as a very narrow mens rea opinion, not a "threats vs. free speech" as it was being billed in December.  All three female jurists sided with the person convicted of making threats and overturned his conviction but only because of a construction defect in the statute as it related to minimum culpable mental state.  I had no problem providing the sources, though, that were upset with the outcome and there is no reason to remove the sourced material.  Usually, SCOTUS decisions breakdown along ideological lines according to the type of case and this was no different.  It turned into a straight law and order case, not a vulnerable person protection decision.  In other words, in terms of gamergate/anti-gamergate - in this decision, Samuel Alito and Clarence Thomas sided with anti-gamergate/social justice concerns while Elena Kagan, Ruth Ginsburg and Sonia Sotomayor sided with the concerns of pro-gamergate/misogynist threat makers.  I hope it makes sense as to why it's hard to write it in a way that's meaningful in this article's context regardless of who is upset and got media coverage.  --DHeyward (talk) 04:19, 6 June 2015 (UTC)
 * While there may be no dispute (I haven't had a chance to investigate Masem's point thoroughly yet), I am wondering what point you might be trying to make with so much commentary. Also, from what I've read so far, I think perhaps your claims about alignment (alito/thomas/pgg kagan/ginsburg/sotomayor/agg) are stretching the analysis considerably. ForbiddenRocky (talk) 06:53, 6 June 2015 (UTC)
 * There's no analysis. Elonis didn't align on GamerGate as it ended up being a straight up mens rea case that only narrowly defined what wasn't a culpable mental state for conviction under 18 USC §875(c) ("negligence" wasn't enough).  That's why the court in majority with all the liberal members overturned the conviction of a man making death threats to his ex-wife on social media.  I take the time to explain it because news sources often a) get it wrong (especially if they are not generally covering cases) b) sensationalize or c) manufacture conflict.  The original story I saw didn't match the decision.  Coupled with a few other incorrect assertions made in other sections regarding law, it seems there is quite a variance in understanding which makes picking wheat from chaff difficult.  We don't have a deadline though so being accurate is desirable.   --DHeyward (talk) 09:25, 6 June 2015 (UTC)
 * You have RS to back this up? What you're saying looks like OR and/or SYNTH. ForbiddenRocky (talk) 14:44, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

Justice Thomas: Lower courts are thus left to guess at the appropriate mental state for §875(c). All they know after today’s decision is that a requirement of general intent will not do. But they can safely infer that a majority of this Court would not adopt an intent-to-threaten requirement, as the opinion carefully leaves open the possibility that recklessness may be enough. (elonis, pg. 30). Justice Alito: Why is recklessness enough? My analysis of the mens rea issue follows the same track as the Court’s, as far as it goes. I agree with the Court that we should presume that criminal statutes require some sort of mens rea for conviction. (Elonis, pg. 23). ROBERTS, C. J., SCALIA, KENNEDY, GINSBURG, BREYER, SOTOMAYOR, and KAGAN, Elonis’s conviction was premised solely on how his posts would be viewed by a reasonable person, a standard feature of civil liability in tort law inconsistent with the conventional criminal conduct requirement of “awareness of some wrongdoing,”...The Court declines to address whether a mental state of recklessness would also suffice. Given the disposition here, it is unnecessary to consider any First Amendment issues....[Conviction] reversed and remanded. (Elonis, page 3). This is pretty basic stuff FR. --DHeyward (talk) 22:36, 6 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Looks like a lot of SYNTH and OR to me. The facts are one thing, but the conclusions are not coming from the RS. ForbiddenRocky (talk) 09:10, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

Lead is missing something very fundamental
The lead is missing the hashtag #GamerGate and it's origin. I propose organizing the lead into three main parts:
 * 1) Sexism in videogame culture before the hashtag and August 2014 when the harassment wasn't connected.
 * 2) The hashtag created by Baldwin who alleged wrongdoing by journalists.
 * 3) The hashtag became a banner for anonymous harassment using doxxing, rape and death threats mainly involving Quinn, Sarkeesian and Wu - and gave a single name to all harassment in gaming

The hashtag creation is what galvanized the harassment into a single thing. Before that, harassment of Sarkeesian was seperate from Wu, Quinn, et al. The hashtag creation is the seminal event and the namesake of the controversy. I don't think we can leave it out of the lead despite "but journalism." --DHeyward (talk) 10:05, 6 June 2015 (UTC)


 * No, we cannot (and will not) argue that Gamergate is not responsible for its threats against targeted women because some other people threatened women before Gamergate. No source consensus supports this innovative and highly original theory. MarkBernstein (talk) 10:25, 6 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Strawman as that's not argued or proposed. --DHeyward (talk) 19:44, 6 June 2015 (UTC)


 * I do not support this proposed change to the lede, as I don't believe it's reflected in the article or the reliable sources we use. PeterTheFourth has made few or no other edits outside this topic. 11:43, 6 June 2015 (UTC)


 * (slightly off-topic) I'd suggest that editors be especially careful of the article's tendency to ascribe actions to "the hashtag." A hashtag can’t rape, assault, or murder anyone. A hashtag can’t threaten anyone with dire consequences if they don’t quit their job or if they don’t give up their writing.  Ascribing these actions to a hashtag is thus a convenient fig leaf for those people -- whoever they are -- who did so. (While we do not know who issued the threats, it is a truth universally acknowledged that the threats were made.) It’s also bad writing practice. MarkBernstein (talk) 14:33, 6 June 2015 (UTC)
 * I'd suggest that editors be especially careful of the article's tendency to ascribe actions to "the hashtag." and No, we cannot (and will not) argue that Gamergate is not responsible for its threats against targeted women seem inconsistent. --DHeyward (talk) 20:30, 6 June 2015 (UTC)


 * You have RS to support this kind of change? ForbiddenRocky (talk) 14:43, 6 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes. Since it's a proposal at temporal ordering of events of "before," "creation", "after", a calendar will suffice.  --DHeyward (talk) 20:30, 6 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Your second point is already wrong. ForbiddenRocky (talk) 09:12, 7 June 2015 (UTC)


 * the above proposal fails WP:LEAD as an appropriate summary of the contents of the article/appropriate summary of what and how the reliable sources have covered the topic. Baldwin's coining of the term might merit mention in the lead on purely historical basis, but other than passing mentions "the term was first used by Baldwin..." the sources really do not pay any significant coverage or analysis on that specific incident. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  15:33, 6 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Sources also don't back up that as the summary for the hashtag creation. Reason and Ars say it was used tweeting links to a video critical of Quinn. — Strongjam (talk) 15:40, 6 June 2015 (UTC)


 * Very important to note- the second point is wrong. The hashtag was created by Baldwin when he was referring to one of Internet Atheist's Quinnspiracy videos. So, not really about 'ethics in journalism' after all. PeterTheFourth has made few or no other edits outside this topic. 15:43, 6 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Baldwin critiqued the media for trying to "enforce arbitrary 'social justice' rules upon gamers & the culture" and described the events that followed as "a skirmish in the long culture war". straight from our article. The important point and moment was that it became the tag/cause associated with harassment and threats.  Prior to that, there was no connections.  After that, "gamergate" was used for virtually all threats.  It gave a name to theats against women in gaming when before it was topical.  Prior, Sarkeesian fighting tropes in gaming and Quinn fighting radical feminism in game jam were not similar.  After, they are all galvanized under the name "gamergate."  --DHeyward (talk) 19:44, 6 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Yeah, that's not even close to "alleged wrongdoing by journalists" — Strongjam (talk) 20:13, 6 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes, it is. Journalists consider it an accusation of unethical behavior.  But it's the structure that I'm proposing.  Word choice is not particularly germane. --DHeyward (talk) 20:35, 6 June 2015 (UTC)
 * No reputable organization has taken that position. We'd need a source to summarize as such, otherwise we risk putting words in Baldwin's mouth and run afoul of BLP policy. The actually naming of the controversy is hardly covered at all in our sources, and mostly it seems like this would give it undue weight. — Strongjam (talk) 00:04, 7 June 2015 (UTC)
 * The wording at its genesys is not particularly important. We don't have hardly any sources that refer to it as "GamerGate controversy" yet it's an apt, descriptive summary.  It's notability is derived from various sources alleging various things that it represents.  One thing that is overarching, though, is that it galvanized a number of disparate elements into one point of interaction.  It's still the rallying point for so-called "gamergate" and "anti-gamergate" elements that, previous to the phrase, were not identifiable as two opposing factions and didn't clash on a clean boundary.  That's apparent in how gaming culture is  now portrayed in all of our sources.  The term framed the debate.  --DHeyward (talk) 00:45, 7 June 2015 (UTC)
 * I'd argue that we're not talking about its wording at its genesis, but its description in reliable sources full stop. None of them seem to take this peculiar position you do. PeterTheFourth has made few or no other edits outside this topic. 02:03, 7 June 2015 (UTC)
 * I dont see any sources talking about "galvanizing" - in fact the sources cover it the opposite way: after the harassment became noticed there was a mad scramble to the four corners of the earth to try to find some some cover to hide behind "we are ethics in journalism" "we are against social justice warriors" "we are revolting consumers" "we are objective reviews" "we are people of color who dont care that video games are all [elite Caucasians]" . That's not galvanization. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  02:53, 7 June 2015 (UTC) (previous comment edited per request) --  TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  11:05, 7 June 2015 (UTC)
 * They do in the sense that what was once a multi-faceted issue involving sexism in gaming culture that had various components: female tropes, sexism in game development, sexism in game play, LGBT discrimination, etc, etc - after "gamergate" it all became "gamergate/anti-gamergate." That's in all of our sources.  Nobody "scattered" or it wouldn't be 10 months old.  PtF's point about the overall description is accurate but the elements of gamergate existed prior to gamergate terms without cohesion. The sexism issues facing Wu, Quinn and Sarkeesian were not necessarily treated as a single issue.  After genesys, all the recipients of threats became a single entity - bonded by their shared experience of threats under a single banner.  It didn't matter that before gamergate, they were treated as different issues - gamergate unified them.  We certainly have sources that discuss Wu's company addressing tropes and Sarkeesian addressing other sexism/feminist/discrimination issues besides tropes after "gamergate" galvanized them.  Even the evolution of "quinnspiracy" to "gamergate" illustrates how these groups aligned and galvanized into very simple sides.  --DHeyward (talk) 04:50, 7 June 2015 (UTC)
 * wait wait - i thought it was all ethics? -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  11:02, 7 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Ah yes, it's all about sides. The side that makes death threats to women because they want to be able to speak, and the side that thinks that's not okay. I mean, it's all just politics right? PeterTheFourth has made few or no other edits outside this topic. 05:07, 7 June 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure what you're babbling about but it's not about anything I wrote. Would you like to comment on the differences in video game culture pre- and post- GamerGate genesys in August 2014?  --DHeyward (talk) 09:07, 7 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Dude, seriously, it's spelt genesis. PeterTheFourth has made few or no other edits outside this topic. 09:12, 7 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Dude, seriously, did you have anything to add? --DHeyward (talk) 11:28, 7 June 2015 (UTC)
 * He just did. --Calton | Talk 15:48, 7 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Let's remember that Adam Baldwin is an expert in (a particular province of) character acting. He's not an authority on contemporary journalistic practice, and as it happens we do have authorities -- CJR -- on contemporary journalistic practice. This proposal has scant merit and scant support. MarkBernstein (talk) 03:34, 7 June 2015 (UTC)
 * We aren't debating whether he was right or wrong or taking sides. Just the timing and genesys of what is now a 10 month old controversy that is known by the name Baldwin gave it and alignments that take labels like "pro-gamergate" and "anti-gamergate".  --DHeyward (talk) 04:50, 7 June 2015 (UTC)
 * However, there seems to be some injection of SYNTH meaning attempted here, and that is being opposed. ForbiddenRocky (talk) 09:14, 7 June 2015 (UTC)
 * You think I synthed a number into the calendar? --DHeyward (talk) 11:28, 7 June 2015 (UTC)
 * I synthed a date into the calendar?
 * A date? That's unlikely. More likely significance upon that date. ForbiddenRocky (talk) 15:22, 7 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Charles Darwin and Abraham Lincoln were born on the same date. That fact alone is not synthesis; attempting to link Darwin and Lincoln via that fact to anything else, is and persistence in the face of that led to consequences. --Calton | Talk 15:48, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

I cannot support any changes to the lead. I think it is perfect as-is. Besides, if you read the archives we've probably discussed this before, and we are not allowed to discuss things more than once per the five pillar policy WP:DEADHORSE. I don't believe we should attempt to define the "Gamergate" group or describe its origin or stated goals in the lead. In fact, we shouldn't discuss the group at all, other than to vaguely assert that they are comprised primarily of men who are in favor of harassment, doxing, and misogyny. It's our job to focus on the word "controversy," not the word "Gamergate," because readers do not come to the Gamergate controversy article to try to understand the history and context of the Gamergate controversy. They come here to be outraged at the horrible sexism and harassment perpetrated by Gamergate. I would recommend an involved non-admin editor immediately close this section because nothing has ever been achieved through discussion, and talk pages should have a maximum of 37 pages. At the very least this comment should be hatted because of WP:FORUM or WP:POINT, or, I don't know, I'm sure you can find something in WP:BLP. ColorOfSuffering (talk) 20:01, 8 June 2015 (UTC)


 * Very funny. Unfortunately, you're right about WP:FORUM. It’s not Wikipedia's fault that Gamergate is an anonymous and amorphous organization without officials or spokespeople, which prevents us from knowing much about them beyond their activities -- and be far the most notable of those, as judged by our sources, are harassment, doxing, and misogyny. MarkBernstein (talk) 20:16, 8 June 2015 (UTC)


 * While I cannot suggest anything new to change the lede at this time, I will say that the argument that " They come here to be outraged at the horrible sexism and harassment perpetrated by Gamergate." is absolutely the wrong way to approach an encyclopedic article and leads to non-neutral coverage. We're supposed to teach the controversy, not comment on it. The sources are doing a fine enough job to be critical about the GG movement so we don't have to worry about how the controversy is seen or the validity of the GG claims (or lack thereof). But we objectively should be trying to find out how to cover the nature of the reasoning of why GG exists in a neutral manner using reliable sources, as part of teaching the controversy. We can't do anything else at the present time simply because there are very little reliable sources that we haven't already sed that have dug into the background of the situation from the perspective of the GG supporters (and considering any possible case from being truly earnestly about ethics or being a coordinate harassment campaign from the start) to be able to write anything more, but I personally do keep watching for anything that's usable. I would suspect that until the inevitable arrest and trial of someone shown to be part of the harassment, we will never really know. --M ASEM  (t) 20:26, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
 * "teach the controversy"?? Some people think anonymous misogynist harassment harassment campaigns are bad. Others participate in them. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  20:38, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
 * It's the difference between keeping to an academic neutrality, verses soapboxing on the issue. We have more than enough sources that get onto a soapbox that we already use and attribute/quote extensively on the nastiness and immorality of the harassment aspects, but as an educational resource, we should be seeking to be able to document and explain motivation for the GG side, even if, in reality, they are morally corrupt. We don't have anything we haven't already used that we can do that, it's something to watch for in the future. --M ASEM (t) 20:45, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
 * What exactly is the "motivation" for the harassment? "girls are smelly - send rape threats!" "a girl designed a game we don't like - send rape threats!" "a girl got her game reviewed - send rape threats!" "a girl said sending rape threats is bad - send death threats!"--  TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  21:32, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
 * There is no reliable sources to explain why harassment has been used (though plenty of theories and explanations of why they turned to harassment), and it could simply be "girls are icky" reason. Even if it is a morally degrading reason, if we can source it to a high quality source we better try to include it, and let the reader come to the conclusion that it's morally degrading themselves. We may never get any type of direct explanation and may never be able to answer that, either. That's fine. I'm just saying that we should be seeking to try to identify high quality sources that would allow us to fill this out as to be "teaching the controversy", instead of simply scorning the GG side. We cannot do anything now to change the article to reflect this, clearly, but we need to keep a healthy attitude about what might come in the future. --M ASEM (t) 21:40, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Masem, you can live in a world where you hope the heavens will open up and provide a reason why a campaign of death and rape threats is not morally reprehensible. However, Wikipedians must go by what the reliable sources actually state. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  21:48, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Since WP is non-judgemental, yes, that is an attitude we are required to take. We have plenty of sources that explain the moral problems with harassment to do that for us, but we need to avoid the soapboxing of this moral stance in WP's voice. --M ASEM (t) 21:58, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
 * No Masem, it is not "neutral" to hope for sourcing that will magically appear sometime that will provide a justification that sending rape threats is not morally reprehensible. We go by what the actual sources say. THAT is being "neutral". -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  22:44, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
 * It's not about looking for sources that "accept" the harassment - it's simply keeping an open mind to look for sources that determine the philosophy behind the GG supporters. The harassment might be explained by these, and if so, more than likely will be for amoral reasons, no question. But there may be reasons for the "but ethics" side too. I don't know if we'll ever get these, but it fully within neutrality policy to watch for these from RSes so they can be included as to teach the controversy. --M ASEM (t) 23:26, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Again you can keep hoping for some kind of sourcing to fall from heaven that will provide a moral justification for campaigns of rape and death threats, but we actually write the article on the sources that actually exist. the multiple multiple multiple sources. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  23:30, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
 * I never said that I am only looking for such a source. I'm looking for any sources that get the motivations directly from GG's mouth. And it s very likely that if such sources do come along (consider Singal's piece), there will be criticism towards these motivations that would also be included. We just need to keep a more neutral mind in trying to write an article that teaches the controversy, and not prejudge. --M ASEM (t) 23:40, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Masem, are you in some kind of timewarp? There is no "prejuding" going on. Reprehensible events happened. Sources, all of them, have POST-Judged them as reprehensible. We portray them as reprehensible. We do not wait expectantly for some heavenly sea lion to present us with the 11th Commandment "Thou Shalt look kindly upon internet trolls who send death threats for their justifications are valid and pure." It aint gonna happen. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  00:10, 9 June 2015 (UTC)
 * It is not what reliable sources have said, it is what we say as editors on WP, a non-judgemental source. I don't care if all the RS have condemned GG and consider the whole group guilty - there is zero legal case law that lets us take that same attitude. We certainly won't do it if there were living persons involved, and while being a anonymous group means that we don't treat them with BLP issues (though given that Milo and Christina are now officially part of GG, we have to be careful), we don't cast judgement in WP's voice.  We should not, in WP's voice, be treating GG as reprehensible, but make it clear that that is the attitude taken by the bulk of reliable sources. --M ASEM  (t) 00:26, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

I thought we'd promised to stop this after WT:NPOV. So much for that. Wikipedia does not, in its majesty, treat fringe science and real science as if they were equivalent. Similarly, we do not approach a group of anonymous misogynist harassers and their targets with even-handed detachment. "Teaching the controversy," is, of course, far from an academic attitude -- and "watching for data that has not been observed but that we hope will appear" is hardly a scientific approach! As for the motivation of the people sending rape and death threats, we can hardly know that until they confess -- and even then, we may have reason to doubt their word. What else could possibly inform Wikipedia? But yes, Masem, if you discover such a confession published in reliable sources, with a credible motivation attributed to a specific Gamergate agent, then I expect we'll all be delighted to find space for it in the article. MarkBernstein (talk) 21:44, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
 * In terms of usable sources, yes, we need to stick to RS per the NPOV discussion which is why I'm not suggesting any changes at this point. But we're never going to have a healthy attitude on this page if we don't detach our personal feelings about the GGers and keep open to new high quality sources that cover the GG side better. Editors can dislike GGers for all they want but we shouldn't let feelings discredit any information about them; let RS policy decide what is includable or not --M ASEM (t) 21:54, 8 June 2015 (UTC)


 * We already have a healthy attitude based on our reliance on reliable sources! As I said, if Gamergate prosecutions result in convictions, that might lead to new insights into the motivations for Gamergate harassment. If that happens, I'm sure we'll find space. Otherwise, what could possibly emerge? It’s hard to say what else is possible, but speculation is pointless. Until these sources emerge, this discussion is fruitless, contrary to policy, and over.' MarkBernstein (talk) 22:21, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Keeping a healthy attitude on talk pages by avoiding strong positive/negative judgement on a topic as editors is policy per WP:NOT, which was my point above to ColorOfSuffering's comment. Editors sticking to strongly praising or strongly criticizing GG in their own voice is not a healthy place in proper discussions here. --M ASEM  (t) 22:33, 8 June 2015 (UTC)


 * We do not distort, and should not deceive ourselves. We can (and should) designate crimes by their right name. Threatening to rape or murder someone because they work in a given industry is a crime, and we discuss it as a crime. To pretend it might not be a crime -- that it might be perfectly OK, for example, to conspire to cripple someone if they attend an industry conference -- is not impartiality and is unhealthy and improper, in Wikipedia or elsewhere. MarkBernstein (talk) 22:51, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
 * This isn't about dismissing harassment as a crime (as it is a crime), but condemning GG supporters as WP editors or in WP's voice simply because harassment has been done under the GG hashtag. (Same applies to elevating GG supporters with positive praise). If a discussion is already tainted by assuming GG supporters have done something legally wrong when no legal case has been established, that's soapboxing and should be avoided. --M ASEM (t) 23:16, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
 * There is no "assumption". Sending death threats IS legally and morally wrong. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  23:24, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
 * But assuming this has been done by GG supporters (not the GG hashtag) without any legal case against any specific one is prejudgemental, and what we should be avoiding. --M ASEM (t) 23:28, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Assuming that those using the GG hashtag are 'not real GG supporters' is original research, which we should be avoiding. PeterTheFourth has made few or no other edits outside this topic. 23:50, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
 * We have many RS sources that assert the strong likelihood that there are people using the GG hashtag that have zero interest in supporting GG (aka the third-party trolls), and that the harassers are a vocal minority of the overall GG supporter group. So no, it's not original research to make the distinction. At the end of the day, it could be that every so-called GG supporter is legally determined and tried as an harasser, at which point we would write the article to reflect that, but right now, there's no legal case to assume that all GG supporters are guilty of harassment. --M ASEM (t) 23:58, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
 * As has been repeatedly pointed out in the sources, there is NOT a "gamergate" - merely anons posted about a gagillion different things. the one core thing attributed directly to those posting under "gamergate" is harassment. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  00:15, 9 June 2015 (UTC)
 * No, the ethics aspect (even if their concerns are dismissed) is also called under the "gamergate" hashtag by reliable sources, as well as a contingent of "the GG conservative" which have been said to be fighting the harassment as well as Milo Y. and Christina Hoff Sommers as named members of GG. Yes, the anonymous nature causes more than enough problems for any message GG may want to try to give, but the point is that there are multiple activities and groups that all use the hashtag so saying it is only or all devoted to harassment otherwise (until the courts prove otherwise) is prejudgement and will never lead to healthy discussion. This is in no way trying to minimize the impact of harassment or deny it is coming from the GG hashtag since that is clearly the most notable facet of GG. --M ASEM (t) 00:23, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

Enough nonsense: Is there a specific item in the article that someone thinks should be changed? or can this be closed as yet another rant attempting the futile task of trying to convince experienced editors that we shouldnt follow the sources as printed? -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  00:46, 9 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Support closing this. ForbiddenRocky (talk) 05:04, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

(essentially a call for collaboration on removing inappropriate comments and content)
Some frequent editors of this page have asserted that they are privy to the inner thoughts and motivations of Gamergate and have perspective on what Gamergate really wants. If this is true, it would be greatly appreciated if those editors would kindly pass the word that the constant incursions of brigaded newbie editors is tiresome and unproductive. Just today, we've had a baby edit war here with an editor who doesn't pass the 30/500 qualification, and another attempt by a new editor to use Wikipedia to talk about Brianna Wu’s sex life on her page (by now, I trust, revdel'd).

Even if you're a great Gamergate fan, this is simply annoying and tiring your colleagues without prospect of any benefit to the encyclopedia, or any legitimate benefit to Gamergate. It's been going on constantly for months on end. If you were going to achieve a favorable consensus, you would have done so, and if your critics were going to grow too tired to detect and remove the BLP violations, that too would have happened by now. Nothing is being achieved beyond the waste of time and effort that could more profitably be applied to other things.

What last year might have been a content dispute is now mere spite. Some of your fellow editors have important commitments and meaningful work to do. These efforts are not doing Gamergate any good, they do not benefit the encyclopedia, and they waste our time. If you really do have the connections of which you boast, would you kindly use them to stop this? MarkBernstein (talk) 19:48, 9 June 2015 (UTC)


 * (P.S. I really would like to see some of these Gamergate-inspired BLP violations redacted by the experienced pro-Gamergate editors so active here. Why leave all that to TRPoD and PeterTheFourth and NBSB and Aquillon and Bosstopher and me? Just saying!MarkBernstein (talk) 19:48, 9 June 2015 (UTC))


 * This is a personal attack. I've stated many times before I do not interact at all with any of the GGers, so expect me or any other editor to "call them off" is a direct affront to this. --M ASEM (t) 20:03, 9 June 2015 (UTC)


 * There are other editors, Masem, who claim to know the real story of Gamergate, and I'm talking to them. In the past months, you've written what -- 100,000 words? 200,000? -- on this page alone; I'm sure you're intimately familiar with them, but I’ve only read them once and I might well have overlooked something you once said. However, it would be nice to see that Masem had deleted the most recent scurrilous sex post, just occasionally. You're certainly watching these pages, and you certainly post prolifically: do you never happen to notice these posts? They're not in short supply; why do we always have to clean up the mess? And, when push comes to shove, how do you propose stopping this waste of time? MarkBernstein (talk) 20:16, 9 June 2015 (UTC)
 * *cough* (although I guess it could be considered insufficient depending on your point of view) Bosstopher (talk) 20:21, 9 June 2015 (UTC)
 * I don't know about personal attack. Is it a personal attack to be linked to a comic about a boorish and stubborn marine mammal harassing a couple who made a careless and harmless derogatory remark in public? Personally I think this comment is a fantastic contribution to Wikipedia! Thank you, Mark, for your tireless dedication to the project. Why not sit down and discuss all of these pesky sea lions (if you're already sitting then you can continue to sit). First, we need to identify them. Can you help with that? Is it fair to say that you're something of an expert, due to the fact that you keep bringing up the reference on talk pages? Anyway, we could start here: Would you conclude that the top 30 contributors are these mythical sea lions of which you speak? I say we reach out to them all, personally, and ask them to keep their friends in line and redact all BLP violations that occur in any Gamergate-related article. Unfortunately some of them are already banned, but I'm sure the rest can pick up the slack. Of course, this section might be a little bit too meta for the article talk page, so should we move it to a new section? Perhaps a more experienced editor can help with this. I feel like this is an incredibly important discussion that should not be closed by an involved non-admin editor. ColorOfSuffering (talk) 20:26, 9 June 2015 (UTC)
 * I will remove BLP when I see something that I can clearly see fails BLP (but remember that BLPTALK also exists, and BLP violations can be in the eye of the beholder so it may not be immediately obvious). And by saying that there are editors involved here that can talk to GG to ask them to stop their attempt to interact on WP is still not assuming good faith with those editors. --M ASEM (t) 20:37, 9 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Good thinking, ! I hadn't thought of that. Four times is more than I expected -- thanks for that, Masem. Of course, many of us have done far more (under greater restrictions and onerous scrutiny, I might add). But, again, look who took care of the cleanup today?  MarkBernstein (talk) 20:28, 9 June 2015 (UTC)
 * You're talking about (for example) the reversions of this editor which occurred while I was asleep and only was a violation of the 500/30 rule and not BLP? Remember that everyone is expected to assume good faith and not comment on contributors but content. --M ASEM  (t) 20:37, 9 June 2015 (UTC)
 * If you come across anything that needs to be rev-del, email Oversight at . They're usually quite quick about removing such material. I've already emailed them twice today and received prompt replies. As for the rest, I don't see much good coming from this talk page section, suggest it be closed and if anyone has an issue with as specific editor take it to email or their talk page. — Strongjam (talk) 20:38, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

Masem, do you think the biweekly incursion of the "I am neutral and this article is not covering the subject neutrally." post is beneficial to the project? If so how? If not, Based Masem making a clear statement that "Guys, all you are doing is making yourselves into disruptive idiots" would go a long way to, if not stopping the biweekly incursion of sea lions, establishing your good faith as someone who is not actively enabling the pointless disruption. Although I do understand that making such a statement would turn you from a GG favorite into someone they consider a legitimate target for their next "operation" and understand why you might consider such an act something that you would not want to do. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  20:41, 9 June 2015 (UTC)


 * edit conflict My understanding, which may be flawed, is that oversight is reserved for emergencies and egregious violations (such as today’s Brianna Wu situation, about which I contacted oversight earlier today) . These pages have been such a snarl that one often has to gauge whether an undoubted BLP violation rises to that level; perhaps I am too cautious about this, but I have been contacting admins interested in these pages rather than oversight for anything that I regard as "not an emergency" -- which is to say, anything which seems unlikely to incur charges of negligence if not removed in the shortest possible time.
 * I did hope that some good would come of this section, some gesture of collegiality or at least of concern from the Gamergate crowd, something like what TRPoD suggests from each of Gamergate's fans might help. But that's not to be, it seems -- I second Strongjam in suggesting we close this and give up. MarkBernstein (talk) 20:51, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

Natalie Zed
http://www.vocativ.com/tech/internet/gamergate-newest-nemesis-phd-student-natalie-zed/ ForbiddenRocky (talk) 06:25, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

These Women Are Using Industry Discrimination To Change Tech
http://thinkprogress.org/culture/2015/06/05/3661042/women-using-gamergate-industry-discrimination-change-tech/

What's the RS status of thinkprogress.org? ForbiddenRocky (talk) 08:31, 10 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Relevant WP:RSN discussions:
 * Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 153
 * Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 184
 * — Strongjam (talk) 13:21, 10 June 2015 (UTC)


 * Thanks. I did a quick check on thinkprogress in the GGC references and didn't see anything. ForbiddenRocky (talk) 16:05, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

My awful life inspired Law & Order, Gamergate dev says
http://www.cultofmac.com/325789/brianna-wu-gamergate-inspires-law-order/ Another one I'm not sure about RS. ForbiddenRocky (talk) 05:05, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

GamerGate's latest target is the most uplifting gaming documentary yet
http://www.pcauthority.com.au/Feature/405118,gamergates-latest-target-is-the-most-uplifting-gaming-documentary-yet.aspx ForbiddenRocky (talk) 05:07, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

Coke vs Pepsi
I'd like to use an analogy to demonstrate this point. Please bare with me for a moment.

Say there is a controversy about whether Coke is better than Pepsi. And we created an article about it. The lede was two paragraphs. The first explaining why people feel Coke is better. The second explaining why people feel Pepsi is better. The only difference being that at the end of the paragraph explaining why Pepsi is better, a long sentence is added explaining how 9 different reputable publications feel that the claims that Pepsi is better are inaccurate. There is no sentence like this in the Coke paragraph.

It is my opinion such a lede would not be neutral -- and it would be biased for Coke. This is exactly how this lede is worded. As such, it is my opinion that the last sentence of the second paragraph of the lede should be removed. Handpolk (talk) 06:00, 11 June 2015 (UTC)
 * That's not how "neutral point of view" works. The sources are pretty clear: Gamergate isn't about ethics in journalism. You don't get to remove that.--Jorm (talk) 06:08, 11 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Whatever your opinions on my proposed edit, I would caution you to improve your tone. Your edit summary of "Uh, no." combined with 'You don't get to remove that' indicate that you feel some authority or ownership here, when you have neither. You are one editor sharing their opinion and seeking to build consensus for that opinion. Nothing more. Handpolk (talk) 06:25, 11 June 2015 (UTC)
 * The RS support the inclusion Jorm added back. Such removal would not reflect what the preponderance of RS are saying. So, no you don't get to remove that - because RS. ForbiddenRocky (talk) 09:08, 11 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Correction, it is your opinion that RS supports the inclusion Jorm added back. Thank you for your opinion. However I also caution you against telling me what I do and do not get to do. You are one editor sharing their opinion. Nothing more. You have no authority or ownership over this article nor the consensus building process. Handpolk (talk) 10:49, 11 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Hi, Core policy WP:NPOV clearly mentions both tone and structure; so achieving a "neutral point of view" is not just a matter of repeating what sources say, no matter how reliable we might consider them. W.r.t this particular point, the essay, WP:HOWEVER, also seems like it might be relevant. - Ryk72 'c.s.n.s.' 06:37, 11 June 2015 (UTC)


 * Your analogy is worthless to this discussion, in my opinion,, because truly independent reliable sources pay no attention whatsoever to whether Coke or Pepsi are "better" since there are no objective criteria to make such a judgment. On the other hand, we have ample reliable sources that evaluate the "Gamergate movement" and its claims. Accurately summarizing those sources is exactly what an encyclopedia article ought to do. We do not "repeat" sources, we summarize them. That is clear to experienced editors. So, if you truly believe that we have not accurately summarized the reliable sources, then please explain why, and be precise. This has all been discussed at great length previously, and experienced editors here yearn for new reasoning. Cullen328   Let's discuss it  06:42, 11 June 2015 (UTC)
 * I disagree that my choosing a subjective example rather than an objective one makes the entire analogy worthless. The concept was simply "A vs B: A. B + criticisms." That structure is inherently biased and non-neutral. Handpolk (talk) 06:59, 11 June 2015 (UTC)
 * RS guides what is presented. ForbiddenRocky (talk) 09:09, 11 June 2015 (UTC)
 * The issue here is that there aren't 9 reputable publications that think Gamergate is better, but there ARE (at least) 9 that think the opposite. At most you have one that thinks it's ok but contains some misogynist ringleaders (Reason), one that thinks it would be ok if it ignored Zoe Quinn and focused solely on Gawker (Slate), and one that thinks it's not entirely crap but has little grasp of what it wants (Forbes). In these sorts of situations we really have to stick with the weight of sourced opinion. Bosstopher (talk) 06:44, 11 June 2015 (UTC)