Talk:Gamergate (harassment campaign)/Meta

Sanctions enforcement
All articles related to the Gamergate controversy are subject to discretionary sanctions.

Requests for enforcing sanctions may be made at: Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement.

GGC meta-discussion sanction info

 * original decision: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive173#TheRedPenOfDoom.2C_third_filing
 * discussion: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Archive272#Removal.2FModification_of_restrictions_on_editing_on_Talk:Gamergate_controversy
 * discussion: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Zad68/Archive_2015_May#ARBGG_DS_page_restriction
 * discussion: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Zad68/Archive_2015_May#Page_level_restrictions
 * discussion: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Village_pump_(miscellaneous)#500_edit_requirement_for_editing_Gamergate_controversy_and_Talk:Gamergate_controversy
 * appeal: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#Arbitration_enforcement_action_appeal_by_Handpolk

Rather than create a new page for each move
Per precedent and AE by Zad68 and Gamaliel create this page to move a meta-discussion off the main GGC talk page. However, rather than create a new page for each move, I'm creating a Talk:Gamergate controversy/Meta page and putting the move here and treating each move as a new section. ForbiddenRocky (talk) 22:44, 3 June 2015 (UTC)
 * &, this was a clunky solution. While it seems to stopped the constant meta-talk about the talk page itself, it seems to no longer have a purpose.  EOL this page? - ForbiddenRocky (talk) 00:50, 16 August 2021 (UTC)
 * {re|Gamaliel}} & fixed typo to ping.  Also, if the GC page gets moved... this page is going to be a pain.  Just end it? - ForbiddenRocky (talk) 00:41, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

Moved: Harsh language in the lede?
You will need to look at the main talk page history to see the proper edit history prior to this move. ForbiddenRocky (talk) 22:44, 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)
 * Our social policies are not a suicide pact. And " Violation of policies, such as engaging in sock-puppetry, violating consensus, and so on, may be perpetrated in either good or bad faith. There are processes for dealing with all of these, and sanctions for repeated violation of policy will apply regardless of whether bad faith was involved or not. In this case the procedure for dealing with it was the ArbCom's imposition of discretionary sanctions allowing Administrators to take actions they believed would improve the situation. The discretionary sanctions taken by administrators has been to extend restrictions on participants to minimize the effects of the continual socking. --  TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  12:36, 4 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)
 * If the 500/30 rule gets little use, why it is needed? And why creating a record of its effects is such a huge problem ? Diego (talk) 19:01, 6 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Pssst, you spelled Koncorde wrong. FYI. ForbiddenRocky (talk) 09:26, 7 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks, fixed. Diego (talk) 09:34, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

Split this section?
Fellow Wikipedians, The information in this section covers both an initial discussion on article content, which is on topic for the "main" Talk page, but off topic for here; and a second discussion on Talk page management, which is on topic for this "Meta" Talk page, but off topic for the "main" Talk page.

This suggests that the section should be split, with the initial discussion kept on the "main" Talk page; and the later discussion kept here. Thoughts?

Note: The section was copied from the original, which was "double hatted", so this may be a matter of removing the off topic components from each Talk page, and removing the external "hat"; which only hides discussion which would be moved here. (The internal "hat" of the original article content discussion to be removed based on the discussion here.) - Ryk72 'c.s.n.s.' 08:53, 5 June 2015 (UTC)


 * Support splitting this section, returning the initial article content discussion to the "main" Talk page; discussions should be kept where they are on topic. - Ryk72 'c.s.n.s.' 08:54, 5 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose Let sleeping dogs sleep. Not mention the original discussion shouldn't have been opened. ForbiddenRocky (talk) 20:54, 5 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Other than us does anyone even care, Ryk72? ForbiddenRocky (talk) 21:06, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

Consolidate other subpages to this one?
Fellow Wikipedians, Should we move the other subpage containing "meta" discussions to this one, providing a centralised point for such discussions? Thoughts? - Ryk72 'c.s.n.s.' 08:27, 4 June 2015 (UTC)


 * Support consolidation - with some reservations about the double move of the discussion. - Ryk72 'c.s.n.s.' 08:31, 4 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Support from this point forward. The other discussion page should be archived after it's expiry date. ForbiddenRocky (talk) 16:36, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

archive bot?
Summon the bot? ForbiddenRocky (talk) 17:29, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

Should archives of this page be to the "main" Talk page archive or to a separate archive? If to a separate archive, should the "other" "Meta" Talk page archives be split from the "main" Talk page archive into this "Meta" Talkpage archive? - Ryk72 'c.s.n.s.' 22:58, 4 June 2015 (UTC)
 * The other move got put back in the main archive. I wonder if we should ask Zad68. ForbiddenRocky (talk) 07:24, 5 June 2015 (UTC)
 * This page hasn't yet gotten all that big, is archiving urgent? If an when this page really fills up to the point where archiving is needed, we can move archive-able discussions to the main archive.   18:12, 5 June 2015 (UTC)
 * I wasn't sure since they came from the main talk page. And those are archived regularly. And I think one or both of the other moves got archived back to the main archive. ForbiddenRocky (talk) 20:51, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

This is at AE BTW
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#Arbitration_enforcement_action_appeal_by_Handpolk Rather than assume you all noticed: There's related discussion at AE again. ForbiddenRocky (talk) 17:32, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

"Main" Talk page - include link to this page & notice on purposes/restrictions
Fellow Wikipedians, I just noticed (no pun intended) that while we have an excellent notice at the top of this page about its purpose; we do not have anything on the "Main" page which directs editors here for "meta" discussions.

I believe we should include something there which describes the purposes, and restricted topics, of each Talk page. Doing so would assist with preventing "off topic" discussions at that page.

I have included a proposed draft notice below.

Thoughts? - Ryk72 'c.s.n.s.' 00:06, 12 June 2015 (UTC)


 * On the basis that there have been no objections, I will add this to the main Talk page; in a similar position to the notice on this page. - Ryk72 'c.s.n.s.' 07:03, 20 June 2015 (UTC)
 * I don't object, but perhaps clearing this with Zad is good idea? ForbiddenRocky (talk) 07:49, 20 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Hi, I had already left a message on their Talk page to let them know. - Ryk72 'c.s.n.s.' 08:38, 20 June 2015 (UTC)
 * And have left the same on Gamaliel's Talk page as well. - Ryk72 'c.s.n.s.' 08:46, 20 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Sounds good. ForbiddenRocky (talk) 17:06, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

Proposed draft:
Based on the notice on this page, I propose the following for addition to the "Main" page:

NB: Both templates Template:ivmbox & Template:tmbox do not seem to cope with a slash (/) in the wikilink.

GGC meta-discussion sanction info

 * original decision: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive173#TheRedPenOfDoom.2C_third_filing
 * discussion: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Archive272#Removal.2FModification_of_restrictions_on_editing_on_Talk:Gamergate_controversy
 * discussion: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Zad68/Archive_2015_May#ARBGG_DS_page_restriction
 * discussion: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Zad68/Archive_2015_May#Page_level_restrictions
 * discussion: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Village_pump_(miscellaneous)/Archive_49#500_edit_requirement_for_editing_Gamergate_controversy_and_Talk:Gamergate_controversy
 * an appeal: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive174#Arbitration_enforcement_action_appeal_by_Handpolk

Putting this here on the Meta page for posterity. ForbiddenRocky (talk) 19:00, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

the 500/30 filter
The filter: Special:AbuseFilter/698

ForbiddenRocky (talk) 06:59, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

500/30, this article, and beyond
Hello. I'm very pleased to see that the 500/30 restriction has cut down on the number of sealion accounts who register purely to edit this article drastically. My thanks go to for his implementing it- I may not agree with him on everything, but this restriction has been part of the solution to the enormous amount of trouble that tendentious editing around Gamergate has caused. I come to propose a small extension to it. I propose it also cover any direct references to the Gamergate controversy elsewhere on the wiki mainspace (aka just the articles proper, not talk pages or ANI etc.) due to SPAs extending their purview to other articles that mention it in light of their inability to edit here.

Obviously, a mechanical restriction such as in place in this article would be impossible to cover all mentions of Gamergate elsewhere on the wiki- perhaps, however, a discretionary sanction could be put in place whereby editors would be free to revert directly Gamergate-related edits by accounts with fewer than 500 edits that were less than 30 days, as was the case with the 500/30 restriction on this article before it was mechanically enforced. What are other editors thoughts on this? PeterTheFourth (talk) 06:17, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
 * I think this is a bit too extreme. Note how nobody has ever even been sanctioned for editing the List of scandals with "-gate" suffix page, no need to suddenly jump into massive sanctions. Also you should be going to AE to ask for something like this, where all the admins who have the power to put sanctions in place are. However, now that the Gamergate controversy article is no longer semi-protected, perhaps it would be worth modifying the 1RR in line with The ISIL sanctions where 1RR only applies to logged in editors. Also since this is the wrong place to bring this up, could someone hat?Brustopher (talk) 20:46, 27 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Hi, I appreciate your thinking on this, and concur that the extension discussed is extreme. W.r.t semi-protection & 1RR, I note that the 500/30 is a strict superset of semi-protection, and is implemented by way of an edit filter; so semi is effectively still in place, and non-autoconfirmed accounts are unable to edit.
 * Also, in line with your request above, I have refactored this discussion to a more appropriate Talk page. Hope this helps. - Ryk72 'c.s.n.s.' 22:11, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure how I forgot about 500/30... Nevermind then. Brustopher (talk) 22:14, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

As much as I like the 500/30, which has reduced throwaway account spam to ~0, it pains me to be unable to fix basic spelling errors because I don't have enough edits. That, and I'm afraid of drawing the ire of the people who sit on the article. Skeletos (talk) 04:54, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

on the the anticipated demise of the newly entering uninvolved editor
Sorry to bump back so soon but I found this amusing reddit thread about me, and couldn't resist. I'm just a regular old dude, and people think I'm going to get whacked from simply commenting on a talk page? Naw, man. But on a serious note, one user said "I'll be surprised if he lasts more than 2 days" and this was perfectly true, I only spent 2 days discussing, when I came here a week and a half ago. Hmm, why is that? I thought about this a lot, and I would like to share my viewpoint as I think some understanding will lead to a better article, in the future.

There seems to be a general concern about incoming editors here being discouraged. Yes, that is true in my case.

Although I avoided any serious confrontation, I got a clear sense that the battle for this article is not over (and a brief examination of recent talk page archives confirms this). This is not a fun place to edit unless you love bickering all day long. I have no desire to enter wikipedia politics and so there is absolutely no way I am going to try to help here, until the combative editors are gone. I am sure there are many more silent editors who would love to help but feel precisely like I feel.

The armies have left but a few determined snipers remain and reign; the city still lay in ruins and the regular folk await the day they can reenter.

--Nanite (talk) 23:37, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Yeah, this all sounds very likely. Artw (talk) 00:44, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Don't forget to take your ball when you go home! Good luck and godspeed.  Dumuzid (talk) 02:18, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Can we please stop with the "everyone's a sealion" witch hunt? Especially ironic coming from Dumuzid in this case, given that you were in agreement with most of the proposals Nanite was making. Multiple people from all walks of life have come here in recent weeks and said it's an incredibly unpleasant page to edit. Perhaps it's time to stop saying "well who cares what they think, they're just a sealion!" to every editor no matter who they are, and start taking this issue seriously. Brustopher (talk) 10:15, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Not seeing an accusation of sealioning. FWIW.  Anyhow, if anyone cares, I did a survey of new editors over the last year, and about 1/3 of ids got banned, blocked, or otherwise sanctioned. And there was a steady stream of "lede is NPOV" with single edits to the main article or talk page (no interaction), this has improved of late. So I think that some level of suspicion is not unwarranted. However, a reminder to keeps things CIVIL is worth it, but with some eye of the fact that this page has had a lot of WP:CPUSH. ForbiddenRocky (talk) 18:20, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
 * I understand why established editors here are wary of new ones, that is natural given what has happened with this article. But with the 500/30 restriction in effect, I believe it is time for established editors to start relaxing a bit when it comes to new editors.   Gamaliel  ( talk ) 18:24, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
 * "[...] 500/30 [...], I believe it is time for established editors to start relaxing a bit when it comes to new editors." I'm not so sure of that what with the recent issue on the main page. ForbiddenRocky (talk) 06:15, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Which animal is known for their love of balls? (Or is this some kind of common metaphor I've stupidly misunderstood? Brustopher (talk) 18:27, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
 * , I think you are ascribing to me motivations I do not have. I honestly didn't make the "ball" connection when I wrote that.  I was thinking more of the common idiom "I'm taking my ball and going home," meaning, more or less, a petulant exit.  I do not and did not have any problem with Nanite.  I have issues with extravagant exit messages and this sense of "everyone must go (or be banned)" before this article can be "cleaned up."  I hereby reserve the right to respond to passive aggressive talk page behavior with mild snark.  Thanks. Dumuzid (talk) 18:33, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Apologies. I really need to shape up on my common metaphors... Brustopher (talk) 21:30, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Well, I will agree that the GamerGate article and talk page is not a fun place to edit. You either give it your full attention or you stay away for the most part. It's not welcoming to new editors offering new perspectives. Suspicion is the name of the game unless the regulars know what your point of view is. Of course, I'm talking as an editor who used to edit here and then left as the squabbling seemed to be an end unto itself. Maybe things have improved but I gather from your message that you don't see it as an improvement. Liz  Read! Talk! 02:48, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

Moved from talk page ForbiddenRocky (talk) 06:46, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

I'm always concerned when I see post like this. How to address this is another story. I've skimmed the talk page discussions and I didn't see anything particularly egregious in the parts Nanite was involved in. I don't blame Nanite, s/he is free to have whatever reaction s/he wants to their experience here, but without actionable diffs or concrete ideas there's little we can do to address this situation. We're always open to suggestions on how to improve things here, but most of the suggestions are something like "ban these people I don't like or disagree with". Gamaliel ( talk ) 15:29, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

“This Page Is Bias”
Another editor returns after an absence of many years to edit war the lede, again leaving an edit summary that this article needs to be a lot less bias and then ''this article is Bias. Wikipedia has a neutral policy to say Gamergate is only about sexism is presenting only one side especially at the beginning of the article.'' What is it with Gamergate supporters and participles? Is this a common thing somewhere? Anywhere? A secret code? A dog whistle of some sort? It really doesn’t strike me as a common usage error; there must be an explanation. What am I missing? MarkBernstein (talk) 19:53, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Isn't it obvious? Masem must have covered it in his talk. On a more serious note, this section seems not to serve any purpose other than MarkBernstein's soapboxing and should probably be hatted. -Starke Hathaway (talk) 20:45, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

Moved from main talk page. ForbiddenRocky (talk) 06:08, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

ForbiddenRocky
should be topic banned as a single-purpose account whose wikilawyering is clearly intended to disrupt a neutral presentation of the subject. Has anyone taken this issue to some relevant forum during the convoluted history of this article? Eg: ANI, ArbCom, AE or whatever. - Sitush (talk) 18:40, 23 December 2015 (UTC)
 * I recall you suggested preemptively banning him as well as a couple other accounts quite some time ago, but other than that, I am not aware of any such efforts. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 18:51, 23 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Please take this to WP:AE. Calling out other editors on the talk page is rarely productive.   Gamaliel  ( talk ) 19:03, 23 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Dumuzid, I did? Can't remember but it wouldn't surprise me. Can you spot the diff? Gamaliel, believe me, this will end up being productive. FR is going to be gone and I'll make bloody sure of it. - Sitush (talk) 19:07, 23 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Unless we're going to use this space to engage in discussion regarding specific actions or provide diffs, I'm going to close this. A vague complaining session about one editor, whoever they are, is not appropriate.   Gamaliel  ( talk ) 19:12, 23 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Just to answer 's question, I believe is referring to the WP:AN post you made back in July, and specifically this comment. — Strongjam (talk) 19:31, 23 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Strongjam. I'll do some research during my block and then take it to AE if the Arb stuff permits me to do so (which my bet is it does not). Failng that, I'll take it to ANI as a simple SPA topic ban request. - Sitush (talk) 19:35, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

500/30 on talk page?
I think it could do with condensing these celebrities/professors opinions on the subject into a single section rather than sprinkling opinions throughout the article and removing some LABEL but was unable to comment on this due to the sanctions on the talk page. Why is the talk page also 500/30 protected? RotubirtnoC (talk) 18:49, 9 February 2016 (UTC) Right as I edit this 5 of my edits are deleted...? RotubirtnoC (talk) 18:58, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
 * this article and its talk page were protected due to ongoing disruptive behavior from all over the map. Apologies, but it really has seemed to help.  I was caught in the 500/30 blackout myself, but found it wasn't that hard to work up that sort of Wikipedia presence.  Best of luck.  Dumuzid (talk) 20:42, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Why is the talk page blocked, though? Very annoying. — Preceding unsigned comment added by RotubirtnoC (talk • contribs) 20:45, 9 February 2016‎ (UTC)
 * I can understand the complaint, but the talk page was itself the source of much consternation and bad behavior, thus the sanction was extended. Dumuzid (talk) 20:48, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

Percentage of Wikipedians barred from contributing
Am I right to say that only 1 in 1344 Wikipedia editors can edit the main Gamergate page or contribute to the discussion on the Talk page ? Ive calculated that by dividng the total number of editors by the number of extended confirmed editors ? WP:EDITORS Hmcst1 (talk) 11:30, 30 May 2016 (UTC)
 * We'll find a way to get to 100% one of these days! Dumuzid (talk) 12:01, 30 May 2016 (UTC)
 * No, that wouldn't be correct. Not everyone who is eligible for extended confirmed status has received it. Also, the total number of accounts on WP includes an incredible amount of inactive users. It would make more sense to look at active editors. Which at the moment would be about 1 in 6. — Strongjam (talk) 12:50, 30 May 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm confused by your point about extended confirmed status because User:Woodroar told me it was automatically flagged once one had done 500 edits and 30 days.(Though I'm still a long way from that).You're arriving at the 1 in 6 figure by taking the much lower figure of ACTIVE editors. I'm not sure why it would  make more sense to use the reduced number of editors. My original proposition of 1 in 1344 Wikipedia editors would appear to be correct, for what it's worth. I raise this because this article http://heatst.com/tech/how-the-media-get-gamergate-wrong/ said 'Wikipedia actively banned some editors from editing the page' . Heat Street's use of the word 'some' is clearly erring on the side of caution. It's a blanket ban. Affecting 83.2% or 1343 out of every 1344 editors, take your pick.Hmcst1 (talk) 13:37, 30 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Hmcst1, I don't believe the article in question is referring to the editing restrictions placed on the page. Rather it is referring to ArbCom and similar decisions which actively banned individual editors from the Gamergate topic area (as well as other venues).  Or at least that's my reading of it.  Dumuzid (talk) 13:42, 30 May 2016 (UTC)
 * is correct. It will be applied automatically. However it's a new permission and still being rolled out. At the moment it looks like it's only being applied on-demand. That is when an editor without extended confirm makes an edit the system checks to see if they should have edit confirmed and gives it to them. For example a formally active editor with thousands of edits, but who has not edited in the past few months may not be flagged as extended confirmed, if they were to login and make an edit they would then have the permission added to their account. Because of this most inactive editors who are eligible for the permission don't currently have it, and if they never edit again may never have it. This would skew the 1 in 1344 number as they count as not being able to edit the article, but in reality if they were to login and edit the article they would have the permission added to their account and their edit would be accepted. As notes the article appears to be talking about individual editors being topic banned from the article and not the extended confirmed protection. — Strongjam (talk) 14:02, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

Encouraging more uninvolved admins and drive-by administration
Aww, man. I've heard about recent controversies involving the current only uninvolved admin (though I do not agree with the concerns given), and I remember controversies relating to the old (sadly, disgraced) uninvolved admin, and I think that the right way to solve the problem is to encourage multiple admins (heretofore "admin-judges") to be judges instead of only one.

I know why this area is perceived as being difficult: off-site attention. People from outside get rankled about what goes on here, and give each other commentary, sometimes. I assume we will have more with this, and that not everyone likes the idea of angry commentary about them being on any website. I get that the concern is, historically, people have had unnecessarily wrathful commentary poured into their inbox and/or have had personal or revealing info get posted online.

If we continue to have only one admin-judge at a time, people who hold critical viewpoints will zero in on that admin-judge, and cause problems for them. We need to involve more of them so they can be accountable to each other. Discuss-Dubious (t/c) 16:45, 27 June 2016 (UTC)


 * Also, it would reduce strain on admin-judges if random drive-bys perform necessary actions and reduce how much power admin-judges have over the conflict. Discuss-Dubious (t/c) 00:01, 28 June 2016 (UTC)


 * Does anyone here think that having a lot of admins here will reduce anger directed to any one admin because they are not doing as much? Discuss-Dubious (t/c) 14:17, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

It will also help to ask admins who wish to judge long-term to self-identify their perspectives on the issue and have it upfront and not as private-seeming agendas. Discuss-Dubious (t/c) 14:17, 28 June 2016 (UTC)


 * I guess you'd ask for them to self-assess (probably rate on a scale) how supportive they feel towards GamerGate supporters, and how supportive they feel towards progressive reaction to the controversy. Discuss-Dubious (t/c) 14:17, 28 June 2016 (UTC)


 * I understand why the latter part of the statement risks being controversial among editors with left-wing viewpoints, but unfortunately, how a person perceives what they assume is an "anti-GamerGate" is likely to affect how much of a Gater/Gator they are understood to be.  Discuss-Dubious (t/c) 14:17, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

Does anyone else have any further ideas? Discuss-Dubious (t/c) 14:33, 28 June 2016 (UTC)


 * I was thinking about having a guide to know how to properly interact with the subreddits, but I can't make something like that work because no one wou'd agree to something like that... Discuss-Dubious (t/c) 05:49, 4 July 2016 (UTC)
 * What on earth does 'interacting with subreddits' have to do with Wikipedia editing? PeterTheFourth (talk) 06:21, 5 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Upon reflection, not much. The reason I proposed this is that Gamaliel and Wordsmith have attempted to interact with both WiA and Ghazi, for some reason, under accounts intended to be identified with their wiki accounts.

Discuss-Dubious (t/c) 17:30, 5 July 2016 (UTC)


 * For what it's worth, in my completely amateur opinion, the standards wouldn't really change on wiki or off: unless and until you give the impression that you are actively taking sides on a topic about which you claim to be a neutral overseer, have at it. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 18:31, 5 July 2016 (UTC)


 * Hi, Dumuzid. It can be hard for people to identify if they actually have formed an opinion on something they don't think they care about. The ideas were designed to allow people to come in and diffuse any power monopolies and affect any admin's power base. I can't say I particularly like the idea of a talk page/subject-area culture where we have serial admin monopolies that just get deposed and we don't just nerf the unilaterality of the decision-maker admins. Also, everyone should feel free to post replies to any of the statements in my rant above that has a sig following it.

Discuss-Dubious (t/c) 20:50, 5 July 2016 (UTC)


 * I honestly appreciate the effort. My point was merely that I think the standards for on and off wiki behavior are pretty similar, and not all that onerous.  I'll see if I can come up with any constructive suggestions (but don't hold your breath as I'm not that bright).  Thanks.  Dumuzid (talk) 22:04, 5 July 2016 (UTC)


 * I guess you'd start with "Don't call editors names off-wiki, because if the post can reasonably be connected to you without doxing..." Discuss-Dubious (t/c) 00:21, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

Talk:Gamergate controversy/Meta/Meta
Talk:Gamergate controversy/Meta/Meta should be introduced.--Izudrunkizuhadenough (talk) 06:31, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

500/30 amendment request
I have filed a request for amendment on the 500/30 restriction of this page. Rhoark (talk) 14:59, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

Point of Order
On what grounds was this talk page section collapsed? Chrisrus (talk) 06:10, 4 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Your reasons --Neil N  talk to me 06:22, 4 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Here you seem to be saying it was closed on the grounds that:
 * 1) It features editors "sniping at each other."
 * 2) It features "edit warring".
 * 3) The edit warring is over a perceived BLP violation.
 * 4) This article is "covered by discretionary sanctions".
 * Is that in fact what you are saying? Chrisrus (talk) 03:25, 10 June 2017 (UTC)
 * It's what I wrote so, yes. --Neil N  talk to me 05:33, 10 June 2017 (UTC)

moved from main talk page per: The purpose of this Talkpage is to host ongoing discussion among interested editors regarding the Gamergate controversy article itself. This page is not for discussing this Talk page itself or any other meta-discussion; use the Talk:Gamergate controversy/Meta subpage for that. The subpage's creation is an Arbitration Enforcement action.

I note that this meta page was largely the result of Chrisrus's meta discussions. ForbiddenRocky (talk) 05:29, 10 June 2017 (UTC)

I supposed I should let you know I did this. ForbiddenRocky (talk) 05:43, 10 June 2017 (UTC)

WP:NOTAFORUM and WP:BLPTALK apply to this page.
Just a friendly reminder that WP:NOTAFORUM and WP:BLPTALK apply to this page and you should consider that when posting. Walls of text that are violations of both will likely disappear quickly and so are a waste of your time typing/cutting and pasting things. Artw (talk) 18:07, 23 August 2021 (UTC)


 * Friendly reminder that this should be at Talk:Gamergate (harassment campaign)/Meta and that the NOTAFORUM warning already exists at the top of this talk page. Chess (talk) (please use&#32; on reply) 22:32, 23 August 2021 (UTC)
 * It shouldn't be necessary to say again or indeed at all, and yet here we are. Artw (talk) 22:45, 23 August 2021 (UTC)