Talk:Gamergate/Archive9

Again, the literal Gamergate subreddit is mad that RW doesn't like Gamergate
And apparently this counts as "Censorship".

And someone wrote up a genius.it page, which quoted "despite that phrase never being used" and stated "Of course not…" and linked to [http://archive.is/l1kTW 'Gamers' don't have to be your audience. 'Gamers' are over.] The article, interestingly, doesn't actually use the phrase "gamers are dead" -- the comments do.

19:30, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

Deepfreeze
Can someone here expound on why exactly Deepfreeze is a "practical blacklist"? The website lists a lot of details and links, and throws the disclaimer "make up your own opinion about all this" at every opportunity.


 * Because Deepfreeze is a list of every single journalist that Gamergate doesn't like for whatever inane reason that they came up with when they put the list together, making it a guideline for Gamergaters to not read any website these people publish things on or go to those websites to attack them. That's what makes it a blacklist, regardless of whatever "honor system" disclaimers Deepfreeze has on it.--Sandflapjack (talk) 20:51, 13 April 2016 (UTC)


 * A blacklist is something kept by those in an industry of people they refuse to work with, typically for unethical or extraneous reasons. DeepFreeze really isn't that. People in the industry couldn't care less what DeepFreeze has to say about anything. The fact that the majority of people there are still employed writing about games kinda implies that. It might be better called an abuse directory or just good old fashioned libel but not a blacklist. Being on DeepFreeze won't lose you your job, or stop you finding a new one. Gators aren't in a great position to say 'You'll never work in this town again!' and while they might claim so DeepFreeze is just a website documenting a conspiracy theory. It matters to call it by the right words. Calling it a blacklist implies that anyone cares what they have to say.
 * I'm guessing the journalists listed on Deepfreeze are disproportionately women. Petey Plane (talk) 22:28, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

Poll: link-filled hatnotes?
Too much edit-war. Let's see what the mob thinks. - David Gerard (talk) 07:22, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Good initiative to seek consensus on this regardless of the outcome. The vote Gerard set up (here and here as well) is to decide for all three articles.
 * Now, first of all, the hatnote in question is this hatnote, or a variety on it (for the respective page). It appears as follows in the respective article;


 * Reverend Black Percy (talk) 11:30, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

Yay hatnote

 * 1) Hatnotes are commonly used all over the site, and are a popular and accepted way of providing helpful pointers for our readers. We also have three closely related (and very tall) Gamergate articles on the site (see above). In order that users visiting the site don't miss the extra content located in the siblings of whichever GG page they're on, I thought it would be wise and editorially sound to place the hatnotes seen above on the respective pages in order to get that through to the readers already in the summary. As the Wikipedia Manual of Style for lead sections reads: "The lead is the first part of the article that most people will read. For many, it may be the only section that they read.". There is also a difference between expecting users to category browse, to stumble upon the other pages in the form of internal links distributed inside the pages, or to visit the See Also section. Again, as the MoS phrases it, the summary is often the only section people read. Based on all this, I simply think that it would be helpful to the readers to have these hatnotes present, just like on many other types of pages. I have no other plans to alter the GG articles in any way, but I find it ludicrous that these completely normal, useful hatnotes couldn't be made a part of the articles. Worth noting is that the best of the three articles is rated Bronze (with the other two lacking brainstars altogether), and thus none of these three are to be treated as in any way "final" or "complete" - they're not Gold or even Silver rated, which is worth considering in terms of are-we-fixing-what-isn't-broken. Thank you. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 11:29, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
 * 2) Pbfreespace3 (talk) 11:45, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
 * 3) Also note (pun not intended) that the hatnotes are good for helping people to get to articles they are looking for. If you were to come to the Gamergate article looking for a refutation of Gamergate's claims, you will be happy to find a nice link on the top of the page to another article containing precisely that. If you happen to be in want of a general overview of GG, a note linking you to the correct page will be helpful. And as RBP noted, hatnotes are found all over the site. If these are to be deleted, why not all the other notes as well? Does every other note that redirects you to a related article also add nothing?--JorisEnter (talk) 12:14, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
 * The fact of the matter is, as you suggest, that these notes are inherently useful. I'm under the impression that the particular resistance to these hatnotes has more to do with the editing culture that has been allowed to prevail for the GG articles, and not with any sensible argument against these particular hatnotes. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 12:21, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
 * 1) Something actually useful. Keep the hatnotes. 142.124.55.236 (talk) 12:26, 15 April 42016 AQD (UTC)
 * 2) Even if they weren't useful (which they are), where's the harm? Those who don't want them can ignore them quite easily. Pippa (talk) 13:17, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
 * What is also funny is that just recently a talkpage discussion took place wherein Sandflapjack (who repeatedly reverted the hatnotes from several editors) had to make an additional statement just because the connection between the three GG articles wasn't clear without the hatnotes. It's like; The hatnotes don't help with navigation; also we need to issue corrections manually so that people don't miss half the content we have on the topic. Facepalm. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 13:20, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
 * 1) Yep. More than a thousand other articles have them; no reason why this one is different. 13:49, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
 * 2) --Castaigne2 (talk) 14:12, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
 * 3) They're useful, no idea why everyone is getting their panties in a wad here.--Kugelschreiber (talk) (mail) (block) 14:24, 15 April 2016 (UTC) 14:24, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Me neither... Reverend Black Percy (talk) 14:30, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
 * ?--Kugelschreiber (talk) (mail) (block) 14:38, 15 April 2016 (UTC) 14:38, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
 * You know, just... why even minor, sane improvements to the GG articles would require this much mob effort to implement without having to suffer reversion sprees. It's just unheard of with these articles. *whistles* Reverend Black Percy (talk) 14:44, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Oh, that. How could I have forgotten it?--Kugelschreiber (talk) (mail) (block) 14:47, 15 April 2016 (UTC) 14:47, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Well, considering that you only came here a month after Ryulong left, how were you to know about it in the first place? In other words, how could you forget something you shouldn't even know about?--JorisEnter (talk) 14:59, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
 * I did what any user wanting to join a forum, wiki, chatroom and so on should: I lurked moar.--Kugelschreiber (talk) (mail) (block) 15:36, 15 April 2016 (UTC) 15:36, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Let's keep this discussion on the topic of the hatnotes, shall we? Reverend Black Percy (talk) 15:38, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
 * 1) I think having them makes sense definitely but wonder if they're a little verbose. Do we need to explain what the timeline and list of claims are? Annquin (talk) 14:49, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
 * 2) It's fine Petey Plane (talk) 16:37, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
 * 3) I'm actually just complying with overwhelming social pressure to conform. ikanreed You probably didn't deserve that 16:51, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
 * ...yes, the, uh, Nay side has certainly presented an enthralling case...Reverend Black Percy (talk) 16:55, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
 * 1) Convenience to the reader trumps just about everything else. - Smerdis of Tlön, LOAD "*", 8, 1. 17:32, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
 * 2) ---Mona- (talk) 17:33, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
 * 19:36, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
 * 1) --Owlman (talk) (mail) 16:03, 16 April 2016 (UTC) 16:03, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

Boo hatnote

 * 1) Adds nothing the category does, is fatuous - David Gerard (talk) 07:22, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
 * You mean the one all the way at the bottom of the page buried in a gish gallop of other categories? >.> 142.124.55.236 (talk) 12:28, 15 April 42016 AQD (UTC)
 * --JorisEnter (talk) 12:35, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Nailed it, 142. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 12:37, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
 * +1--Kugelschreiber (talk) (mail) (block) 14:25, 15 April 2016 (UTC) 14:25, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

Yayboo hatgoat

 * 1) This is starting to look like the textbook definition of an absolute landslide vote. Let us all join hands in enforcing these hatnotes, that they never be stripped from the GG pages by any angsty troublemakers. *parts Red Sea* Reverend Black Percy (talk) 17:38, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
 * What makes this situation so interesting is that the guy that started all this, Sand fap flapjack, has not responded yet.--JorisEnter (talk) 17:51, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
 * At this point, any speech from him is akin to seeing Hitler yell orders for his non-existant armies in the bunker. Besides, he's already demonstrated the order in which he conducts his affairs. First, he edit wars ferociously. Then, he asks specific editors to fuck off on their particular talk pages in an attempt to avoid having things brought to a vote. The question remains to see what he does when he is voted out of existence on the exact thing he took for granted as absolutely right and true. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 18:00, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Holy fuck did you just Compare me to Adolf fcukin Hitler? I'm not responding because I refuse to give this stupid situation, and mona's clic, any mor attention then it deserves at this point. Sandflapjack (talk) 20:44, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
 * ...And so the boring question regarding how Sandfapfap would act when his precious pet bullying is deemed fake and toxic by a unified community is answered. Attacking outwards while failing to concede the points already taken from him by adults present. For shame. And for the record, if the above is "Mona's clique", that's every editor on the site. Sweet, sweet naive jonanist. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 22:56, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
 * I didnt know accidentally doubleposting on a talkpage is what is considered harassment these days, I mustve forgot me meds. Sandflapjack (talk) 01:41, 16 April 2016 (UTC)
 * If you think that's what people are mad about, you're hopelessly lost. 16:18, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

Section that is not about the article, its subject or the poll it's in a subsection of
This grossly abrasive editor keeps reverting endlessly with regard to multiple topic areas, even when it's clear he is in the minority, as he has been here on the GG hatnote issue. He has at least once refused to defend his reverts on the talk page until he was briefly blocked. Then he often just rants angrily and abusively. Pages should either be protected when he behaves like this, or he should be binned or banned. Certainly if he continues in that behavior.---Mona- (talk) 17:41, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
 * If his spelling wasn't so poor (and if he only swore more), I'd almost think it was Ryulong haunting us with one of his ghostly socks. Whoever it is, he's an abrasive moron teetering on the edge of the vandal bin. I see this as a victory for all the above editors (Gerard included, who gracefully started the poll) that clearly don't agree that a tiny butthurt minority gets to claim ownership of the GG pages, even in such trivial a matter as the addition of freaking hatnotes. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 17:46, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
 * I had to finally page-protect the Bernie Sanders article (for 24 hours) when Sandflapjack kept reverting myself and another editor, and refused to take it to the talk page announcing in an edit summary the talk page is a pointless "tea party." Then he ranted like, as you say, a moron against the majority and kept reverting. David made a mistake removing the page protection and claiming I did it "to win an edit war." He really could not have read the FR or talk page. We are dealing with (very) problem user.---Mona- (talk) 18:03, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Also note that he was the only one who considered the hatnotes a problem. He originally removed them (as one of his first edits), leading to some edit warring which was ended with DG removing them again (for some reason). You decided to re-add them yesterday (or today, dunno when it exactly happened) and the rest is history fossilised. In all the warring that ensued, the only person that supported his position was David, and he did so without being particularly partisan. Apart from a few edits to Timeline of Gamergate, pretty much all of his edits have been edit warring over the GG hatnotes, Bernie and Hillary.--JorisEnter (talk) 18:05, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
 * In my opinion, Mona was right to protect the page, and Joris was right to strip Sandflapjack of his mop (IIRC), when the guy conclusively showed that he had set out to ceaselessly abuse his new pet pages. The manchild in question is a textbook recidivist keyboard warrior, and needs to be resisted. Starting with polls like these. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 18:10, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Unless Joris did it as well, I removed SFJ's mop immediately after Hipocrit inexplicably handed it to him, saying in the edit summary he seemed to "need it." Not! ---Mona- (talk) 18:13, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
 * When the edit warring got out of hand, I removed his autopatrolled status as well. Made it easier to protect pages if necessary. For some reason, DG felt like giving it back to him.--JorisEnter (talk) 18:19, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Is what he's doing against the rules? No? Can it be resolved by methods other than Mona stridently campaigning he be marched into the bannination camp, mach schnell? Yes?
 * All right then. That takes care of that foolishness. --Castaigne2 (talk) 18:17, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes Castaigne. Edit-warring, especially when refusing to take it to the article's talk page, and reverting still when one is a minority on said talk page, yes Castaigne, that is against the rules. #simpleanswerstostupidquestions---Mona- (talk) 20:49, 15 April 2016 (UTC)


 * [moderator hat on] Take it to the coop if you think you have a case. Please don't spew complaints all over random talk pages, my talk page, etc. Then I can move this section there. Posting a massive barely-on-topic rant about your problems with another editor is not what article talk pages are for, and are precisely the sort of thing the Coop is supposed to contain somewhat - David Gerard (talk) 20:52, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
 * David is absolutely right about this, and it is a sensible request that we as good editors ought to respect. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 21:52, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

I am new here...
What is DiGRA? There's only one thing in the timeline. Can someone help?&mdash; Unsigned, by: Λ / talk / contribs
 * A trivial Google will answer your question - David Gerard (talk) 09:51, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

Alternate article structure
This article (1) is a lot of text and (2) relies on a lot of footnote citations. Neither works well for convincing GG'ers. I think we should cut the article to just:


 * 1) the Zoe Post [including direct quotes from its text and one quote on its intent from Gjoni] and a brief section on rise of the BurgersAndFries, and
 * 2) the studies of GG behavior on Twitter [including quotes from said articles and explaining their statistics in depth], and
 * 3) a list of people that GG has harmed, with strict requirements for minimum number of sources and links to GG

Everything else should go to the list of claims. Moreover, all Tumblr and "liberal media bias!!!" sources (HuffPo, Atlantic, Kotaku, Guardian, IGN, etc) should go, for less whining.

21:41, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Implying Gators can be convinced. At this point, the onces that still care have graduated to full alt-right idiocy, and there isn't much that can change that.  But, you're right about purging some of the more obviously biased sources, although they shouldn't be automatically trashed if their content is sound.  Petey Plane (talk) 21:51, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
 * That's probably fair. But it would make it harder for them to whine about how BIASED!!! RationalWiki is. 03:45, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
 * If it were reduced in size by about two thirds I might read it and give an opinion.--Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 06:18, 14 June 2016 (UTC)


 * There were past attempts at a summary in the history, discussed at length on the talk page. Have you looked at those? - David Gerard (talk) 07:10, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
 * I have glanced at them from time to time. The problem is that I find the talk page about as inspiring as the article. After about five minutes I worry that terminal ennui will overtake me and I need to do something more exciting like watching paint dry. :-) --Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 12:34, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
 * So the problem is actually "I'm not interested in subjects I'm not interested in, but let me tell you what we should do with them anyway, also words are hard"? - David Gerard (talk) 11:14, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes, I care just enough about this article to moan about it occasionally when RC reminds me of its existence. If you are not happy with this I suggest you sue me.--Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 11:56, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Fuzzy, you should read a lot of the archives. Most of what sucks about the article is literally from answering querulousness from gators who will not believe 1+1=2 if someone who doesn't hate Sarkeesian says it. Creationists are more intellectually honest than gators. Your fundamental criterion is a bad one here and you will not get a good edit from it. What on earth made you think "convince gators" was a useful criterion in the first place? - David Gerard (talk) 07:10, 14 June 2016 (UTC)


 * If a giant wall of text isn't good for convincing GGers, why do they need five thirty-minute videos to analyze a single ten-minute video? 20:58, 15 June 2016 (UTC)


 * "Moreover, all Tumblr and 'liberal media bias!!!' sources (HuffPo, Atlantic, Kotaku, Guardian, IGN, etc) should go, for less whining."
 * Wait, are you seriously suggesting we jettison reliable sources just to appease denialists? That's like saying we shouldn't use climate data because people who believe Climategate was an actual thing and not a manufactured controversy will whine about climate scientists, or that we're only allowed to use Fox News as a source for political information until Tea Party morons declare even that too leftist for their tastes.
 * I mean, sure, we should abridge the article because it disproportionately focuses on Internet drama that isn't of concern to most outside observers (I'd suggest siphoning the counterpoints off to another page), but I'm still astonished that anyone could suggest such a thing. Colossal Squid (talk) 22:20, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

Please don't ban me for asking this
I've lurked on this site for a while and loved it for a long time. It hates a lot of the things I hate and calls them out on their BS. Like HPMOR. I hate HPMOR. So I like this site, but... I have a question about this article... Why is it so anti-gamergate when gamergate is the inevitable backlash that happens when collusion and BS is detected, and why is someone below finding it funny that gamergate's subreddit disapproves of this article's anti-GG bias? Please, tell me how you saw useful idiot feminists and conartists VS gamers and decided the conartists and feminists are in the right. Tell me the rational thought process that led you there. SnansTheSkleleton (talk) 17:47, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Please give a few examples of these con-artists so you can be directed to the corresponding section in List of Gamergate claims. Hertzy (talk) 17:51, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Wait, people still care about Gamergate? But seriously, be sure to read List of Gamergate claims and the talk pages for all the GG articles before adding anything, because your objections have almost certainly been addressed innumerable times before.  Expect any changes you make that were not first discussed on the talk pages to be immediately undone.  Also, you're gonna need good sources, so Reddit threads and random blog posts by unknowns don't count.  Otherwise, have fun.  Petey Plane (talk) 18:01, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Because Gamergate isn't "the inevitable backlash that happens when collusion and BS is detected," instead it's a bunch of "whiny manbabies angry when people do things in their medium that aren't to their liking," coupled with "a bunch of ignorant buffoons coopted by the alt-right." Hipocrite (talk) 18:39, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
 * --JorisEnter (talk) 18:46, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
 * But, you know, I'll humor you. What "collusion" was detected by Gamergate? Be specific. Hipocrite (talk) 18:40, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Such a champeen, has already run to his safe space. . Hipocrite (talk) 20:30, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I got a "How do you do fellow kids" laziness off the "I hate the same thiiiiiiiiiings as you". Too fucking stupid.  ikanreed You probably didn't deserve that 21:47, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

There are so many extremist sharks here, including the people who wrote this turd of an article. I tried to clean it up a bit, but it is mostly a degeneration into gender theory and the defence of the con-artists Antia & Zoe and almost nothing to do with the gamer-gate controversy. I tried to make it live up to the name Rational but the second section is literally a Sarkessian tirade about how women and non-whites cannot be hardcore gamers. I was going to delete the section in its entirety but don't know if that is kosher. I feel like the section could be used to illustrate the opinions and extremism of the crazed anti-gators to compare and contrast to the crazed gators, as first and foremost GamerGate is a shitstorm.&mdash; Unsigned, by: 107.179.233.159 / talk / contribs
 * Yep, those are at all accurate descriptions of our page. For sure.    ikanreed You probably didn't deserve that 19:38, 26 August 2016 (UTC)


 * My advice is not to delete anything that is connected to a reputable source. And yes the "main stream media" is a reputable source.   Arawn Emrys (talk)
 * I'm kind-of an unaligned so I don't know how to go about making this article better without having the changes instantly revoked by an extremist. I purged the intro of weasel words and nonsense and someone was watching over it for a change and undid it in 2 minutes. I may settle on at least replacing the image captions with "an example of quote-mining" so this article does read as abusive/ as a parody, unless that is the intent.&mdash; Unsigned, by: 107.179.233.159 / talk / contribs

Uninteresting quote
https://www.reddit.com/r/enoughsandersspam/comments/4qultx/this_whole_election_saga_has_made_me_truly/d4w9mpb 01:16, 3 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Why don't you create a page in your userspace for your Reddit browsing history? This way you can avoid scattering it around article talk pages, and those of us who don't care can ignore it. --Ymir (talk) 01:31, 3 July 2016 (UTC)
 * something something useable reader feedback. 01:41, 3 July 2016 (UTC)
 * No, dude, you don't get to delete your talk page crap even though you get made fun of for it. Especially not if -I- don't get to. Good for the goose, good for the gander. --Castaigne2 (talk) 05:40, 3 July 2016 (UTC)
 * No dude. Don't criticize FCP or undo anything he or his bully friends do or you will be blocked. Conscience (talk) 14:31, 3 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Oppression!!! 15:40, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

Trolls
Hi,

I'd like a source for this:

"[Eron's] stated purpose was to appeal to trolls who had a history of hating Quinn"

Where did he state this? A quote of him would be nice

--87.179.46.158 (talk) 19:15, 17 August 2016 (UTC)


 * This article is non-Rational hysterical narrative, but is protected by its own community. You are wasting your fingers.107.179.233.159 (talk) 15:04, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

Nomination for Silver
This article is pretty ridiculously well sourced and now that the entire nontroversy is dead in the water, are we ready to reconsider a silver nomination? I'll open the discussion and just let fly. 16:25, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Nomination from me. The article was one of the major reasons why I joined this site. 17:45, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Seconded Thirded (?), this article definitely deserves the appreciation.--JorisEnter (talk) 19:25, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
 * I think it's ready for silver. --Cosmikdebris (talk) 19:51, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
 * considering that it doesn't even meet the criteria for bronze...107.179.233.159 (talk) 20:55, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
 * --JorisEnter (talk) 21:15, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Fourthed. --Castaigne2 (talk) 21:25, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
 * That would be fifthed, actually.--JorisEnter (talk) 21:26, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Sixthed.- 21:31, 27 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Embarrassingly this is the first time I've ever read the requirements for article grading. Seems like it meets all of them for silver.  ikanreed You probably didn't deserve that 03:00, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
 * While I despise gamergate and the importance that we give to it, the article itself definitely meets the criteria for silver. CorruptUser (talk) 13:56, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Since there's eight ayes and a single nay from a random butthurt vandal I've upgraded the article to silver status.--JorisEnter (talk) 14:01, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Well, at least Its obvious to any reader how this wiki functions. Thanks for the transparency, now I know not to waste my time at all. Also, thanks for blocking me during this process because I added ~five citation needed to the article.
 * Even though the vote is now concluded, let me just throw my hat in the ring (for posterior) as the ninth editor who was in support of Silvering. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 18:40, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

What's next?
Ignoring the butthurt rando, and since the silver was a bit overwhelming, let's break down gold status and see how well it does to see if we can get this article there.

So, what shall we do now? 17:21, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
 * The topic is highly relevant to RW's mission. - It is still a bit iffy in my mind, but considering how much social justice has bled into RationalWiki, I'm sure we can give this one a pass.
 * Article is essentially a "go to" resource for the topic at hand. - You bet. Between the subreddit GamerGhazi and plenty of other places, and apart from Wikipedia's article, this is essentially one of the main places to go for this subject.
 * Article covers all aspects of the topic at hand in-depth. - Now that it's finally dead in the water, I'm pretty sure we can say yes.
 * It is fully referenced with appropriate internal and external links, and categories. - With almost 300 references I think this might be our most sourced article to date.
 * Where necessary and possible, the article is supported by others that are of a good quality (e.g., homeopathy and water memory). - This is probably the hardest sell. There are a few articles linked to that need help to bring them even to bronze.
 * The cover status has been discussed and agreed on the talk page. This last criterion is the most important. - Well we're getting to that.
 * It is supported by other articles that are of a good quality. See List of Gamergate claims and Timeline of Gamergate, for starters. I support Gold, as things stand. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 17:54, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
 * I would support it simply to annoy the last active remaining Gamergator who for some reason happens to be around here right now. 17:58, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
 * I have my doubts about the missionality of the article (it might fall under "authoritarianism"?), but it definitely meets the other criteria. As a side note, this isn't our most referenced article (Donald Trump has 373, and there might be others with even more).--JorisEnter (talk) 18:11, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Doubts about the missionality?! But these people are as missional as anything we cover! Reverend Black Percy (talk) 18:22, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Ignore above point about missionality. There's indeed a lot of shit we cover.--JorisEnter (talk) 18:38, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Reverend Black Percy (talk) 18:40, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
 * The first question I have before voting on Gold status is whether GamerGate should be HIGH priority. If so, then yes I'd say that the GG article is worthy of Gold.  Personally I think GG is of MID priority, however I'm also not sure about voting on priorities since the only mob consensus we had on that section of the rules was "no one undid my edits to those rules". CorruptUser (talk) 22:07, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm torn regarding if it should be considered MID or HIGH. That being said, I'm leaning towards HIGH, and regardless, I endorse the current rating for now. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 22:14, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm actually tempted to touch up the rules on priority. The grammar is a bit iffy and the rules aren't quite right. CorruptUser (talk) 22:16, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Exactly the type of thing the mob needs to officially vote on (e.g. in a dedicated thread at the Saloon bar) for a day or two before settling on changing or not. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 22:19, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
 * The problem is we didn't have a mob decide on the rules for priority. So yeah, I think it's something we should have a vote on in the bar. CorruptUser (talk) 22:34, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
 * All the more motivation to finally getting around to actually rallying one before considering whatever steps we take next, in other words. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 23:17, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

Cover story (sticky)
After its overwhelmingly fast promotion to silver and a small amount of discussion related to gold, I'm opening up a formal nomination to turn this into a gold cover story. As a reminder of the criteria:
 * The topic is highly relevant to RW's mission.
 * Article is essentially a "go to" resource for the topic at hand.
 * Article covers all aspects of the topic at hand in-depth.
 * It is fully referenced with appropriate internal and external links, and categories.
 * Where necessary and possible, the article is supported by others that are of a good quality (e.g., homeopathy and water memory).
 * The cover status has been discussed and agreed on the talk page. This last criterion is the most important.

Vote below please.

Yay to covering

 * 1) I think it falls in pretty well. 17:03, 31 August 2016 (UTC)
 * 2) Mos def. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 17:41, 31 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Yippie-Ki-Yay, Gamergator! 18:08, 31 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Recanting my yay-vote. The criticism under nay convinced me that it still needs work. By the way my change of heart has nothing to do with the new leaks. However still believe it's a good article (but still not ready for prime time yet). What's up with all the joke sock accounts superficially trying to force the outcome of the vote? 12:37, 4 September 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm going to just state, as I already have several times on this page, that we're not voting on "if the current article is to be set in stone". To me, this is no different from the push to get the Shakespeare authorship article to front page as well. It's simply big enough that we should front that content a little more. Bring on some traffic, get some debate brewing, whatever. So for whatever reason you vote "no", don't do it because you think that a "yes" vote means treating the current article like holy scripture. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 16:14, 4 September 2016 (UTC)
 * But it is scripture, and it is set in stone. Everyone who paid attention knows this. Many editors came here because of that article and that direction, and are ideologically committed to it. They were specifically invited for that purpose. I agree with you that it should be on the cover, but please don't be dishonest. ~ Aneris 17:34, 4 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Aneris shines his investigative light on the festering underbelly of yet another SJW conspiracy! Reverend Black Percy (talk) 18:11, 4 September 2016 (UTC)
 * For the uninitiated readers, Percy (and others) think postmodernism is a conspiracy theory, or a conspiracy that intersectionality comes from that tradition. Percy, philosopher extraordinaraire (or so I'm told), maintains this even after I gave him primary sources (he ran to friends, in panic). This new conspiracy of mine can be viewed here: a certain "dgerard" (hmm, who could that be?) looks for replacement of Ryulong. That special individual was truly "on the beat". I am also perplexed why it would be considered a conspiracy in the first place. I thought it was plain obvious. ~ Aneris 19:33, 4 September 2016 (UTC)
 * 1) Defo! No other article shows bad reasoning, extreme one-sidedness and unreliable propaganda better than this one. Even battle hardened ghazi laughed at Ryulongs masterpiece. It's an indispensable, must-have cover story, as a warning for every sane individual that might otherwise trust the RW as a resource. And it doubles as an invite for the right people, too. Cover it. ~ Aneris 20:18, 31 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Please move this vote to the "no" section. 20:19, 31 August 2016 (UTC)
 * 1) Definitely per Aneris, who thinks the CON logs show ... anything - David Gerard (talk) 21:11, 31 August 2016 (UTC)
 * "There have been leaks! Open your eyes!" Reverend Black Percy (talk) 21:14, 31 August 2016 (UTC)
 * “[Quinn] released chat logs from #BurgersAndFries that revealed” (*dramatic music*). It's all a big conspiracy theory, isn't it, Percy? ~ Aneris 22:07, 31 August 2016 (UTC)
 * 21:22, 31 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Joke vote.-DD1Sock (talk) 21:39, 31 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Donald J. Trump (talk) 21:37, 31 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Mr. Trump, if I'm not mistaken it could be you've made a mistake. The mistake being that you placed your vote mistakenly under yay and not your intended nay. Only losers make mistakes. 21:41, 31 August 2016 (UTC)
 * You underestimate the super genius of all time. He knows this article's gonna be yuuuuuge! Reverend Black Percy (talk) 21:44, 31 August 2016 (UTC)
 * The nay voters are total losers. They sit in their parent's basement all the time.-Donald J. Trump (talk) 23:23, 31 August 2016 (UTC)
 * 1) Typhoon (talk) 08:41, 1 September 2016 (UTC)
 * SockSockSock (talk) 05:10, 4 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Hillary R. Clinton (talk) 05:11, 4 September 2016 (UTC)
 * 1) --Castaigne2 (talk) 18:38, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

Nay to covering

 * 1) Strong no. The coverage is Wikipedia-style where a Wikipedia article . What does that mean? In this article: [1] We don't do point-rebuttal, a la 9-11 or anti-vaccination movement. [2] We don't focus on science (eg, the statistics that prove that GG is (at best) associated with gender- and race-based harassment on Twitter) but instead on history (ie, all of the little, well-cited minutiae that aren't useful as an intro to the issue and don't convince those with made-up minds). [3] We don't focus on pseudoscience (eg, that women just aren't meant for vidya). [4] We don't focus on conspiracy theories (eg, really laying into the idea that 5 Guys happened, or that game journalists work together to orchestrate Cultural Marxism). [5] We, frankly, fall into tribal defense. We shouldn't defend anyone (with the exception of Quinn, who is merely incidental to the idea that a conspiracy exists), because our defenses fall into the historical minutia in (2). Yet we do. We shouldn't poison the well against GG supporters. Yet we do. Fighting pseudoscience and illogic, which I believe is the primary mission of RW, does not require dividing the world into heroes and villains. It requires statistics (2), does well with apersonal point-counterpoint (1), and abhors conspiracy theory (4). Summary: GG is an abhorrent movement that has sexist origins, abhors goals, and caused vile harassment. However, we write about Gamergate as liberals, not as "rationals". For RW to be more than a discussion board requires us to step back from the partisan fray, and we have not.  20:18, 31 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Even the last bits fall apart, see Chat Logs expose CON (Zoë Quinns) as online bullies. Shocking! And what about the official RW darling Nyberg, former nazi edgelord and paedophile? You're correct though, your mission statement needs to be updated that you promote the so-called “social justice” movement, then GG is missional and can be covered, problem solved. ~ Aneris 20:47, 31 August 2016 (UTC)
 * The fact that Aneris' heart is pounding over all of this is just the motivation we all need to vote yay to covering. Some men just want to watch the world learn. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 20:52, 31 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Wut? I'm enthusiastically for covering, too! And want to be counted that way. I'd also support Scientology to print their Thetan-infestation story on their cover, so that everyone can see what they are about. ~ Aneris 21:08, 31 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Hellz yeah dude. Next project! Reverend Black Percy (talk) 21:10, 31 August 2016 (UTC)
 * The CON issue is exactly why this article shouldn't be covered. We shouldn't care about heroes or villains -- only statistics. Tying up our article with a defense of Heroes makes it seem like shit when shit like this happens. 21:17, 31 August 2016 (UTC)
 * We're not voting on if we're going to set the current content of the article in stone. We're voting on if it's good enough for Gold. It's been a long time brewing. Let's be reasonable here. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 21:21, 31 August 2016 (UTC)
 * 1) Weak no. 23:15, 31 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Any particular caveats? Reverend Black Percy (talk) 23:25, 31 August 2016 (UTC)
 * 1) God no. Any eejit voting yes should be required to try and read the fucker from start to finish in one sitting. It's a dire piece of reportage that mistakes the weight of its detail for the quality of its exposition. I usually start losing the will to live about halfway through. Robledo (talk) 21:38, 1 September 2016 (UTC)
 * 2) Full disclosure: Rationalwiki introduced me to this whole tempest in a teacup, so I may be biased in some fashion. Nevertheless, I agree with FCP's critique. In my opinion, although the history is interesting, the focus on story amounts to poisoning the well rather than a real rebuttal. I think the page doesn't spend enough time addressing the ludicrous arguments made by Gators- it should be formatted along the lines of an article like anti-vaccination movement, where the rebuttals are clear and well-supported. Gamergate (and gators) is just as moronic, and their arguments are easily refuted- so why deal with them directly? Jagulard (talk) 23:48, 2 September 2016 (UTC)
 * List of Gamergate claims --Sandflapjack (talk) 03:04, 3 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes, I think that's the article that we should be focusing on promoting, not the this one (the one on whose page we're talking). Jagulard (talk) 04:15, 3 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Nay, sir knight! Do not cover this story, for although this article is of decent make for its purpose, 'tis not of quality for displaying on a pedestal! 18:50, 7 September 2016 (UTC)
 * The hell Narky, I would've assumed you of all people would vote in favor of covering? :O Reverend Black Percy (talk) 19:03, 7 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Caring about our article being reasonable and accurate does not mean that normal, sane people are going to be interested in the tire fire that is gamergate.  ikanreed You probably didn't deserve that 19:48, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
 * 1) I am with Fuzzyand Robledo on this.--Owlman (talk) (mail) 16:48, 18 September 2016 (UTC)
 * 2) Nope. Subject matter is fundamentally pretty internet drama centric.  If that drama didn't seem to primarily come from a sudden onset of regressive ideologies, it wouldn't even be article material here, and would fit more nicely with ED or whatever.  ikanreed You probably didn't deserve that 19:48, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
 * I interpret that statement as meaning the article is non-missional, in which case, why not just unilaterally delete on that point? --Castaigne2 (talk) 19:59, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
 * You interpet it that that way because you ignored the conditional clause at the beginning of the sentence.  "Were it not for mitigating factor X, Y would be true" does not mean Y is true.  Gamergate did in fact, seem to come from a sudden onset of regressive ideologies.  ikanreed You probably didn't deserve that 20:14, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
 * You said "seem". "Seem" means "it look like it does, but it does not". Therefore, Gamergate looks like it does (but does not) come from a a sudden onset of regressive ideologies. So it doesn't come from regressive ideologies; it's just internet drama. Seeming is illusion, something to be disbelieved, because it's not so. --Castaigne2 (talk) 20:26, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Hmm, my words must have a really high plasticity to survive all the twisting you're putting them through. ikanreed You probably didn't deserve that 20:30, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
 * It's really not twisting. IRL, if someone starts saying "It seems...", I interrupt with "It IS or it ISN'T; don't give me this "seems" stuff." It's all about making definitive, objective statements, the creation of fact as opposed to opinion or waffling. "Seems" or other qualifiers just create Schrödinger's cat issues where clarity is required.
 * So more efficiently, does Gamergate come from regressive ideologies, or does it not? Forget about what it seems to do. --Castaigne2 (talk) 16:04, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Ladies and gentlemen... Castaigne, on nuance. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 16:13, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
 * There's no nuance to 1 + 1 = 2. --Castaigne2 (talk) 16:24, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
 * The OED called. Said stop talking shite about "seem". Robledo (talk) 17:49, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
 * 1) Delete all GG articles.--The (((Kigel))) (talk) (mail) 05:53, 25 September 2016 (UTC) 05:53, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

Goat to covering

 * Relevant links: 20:38, 31 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Zero querying /r/GamerGhazi's opinion
 * /r/KotakuInAction's reaction
 * It is not clear in what world that second one is worth a moment of anyone on RW's time, except your continued addiction to posting stupid Reddit reactions - David Gerard (talk) 23:01, 31 August 2016 (UTC)
 * So it's OK if it's Zero posting, or if it's a "friendly" Reddit, but not otherwise. Got it. 13:34, 1 September 2016 (UTC)
 * No, it's actually just stupid, and lots of people tell you this - David Gerard (talk) 07:58, 3 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Or, in more detail: are you seriously unable to distinguish between a subreddit with mostly sane people in it and one by and for alt-right shitheads? We have an article on the balance fallacy, which you contributed substantially to ... - David Gerard (talk) 14:48, 3 September 2016 (UTC)
 * This makes no sense to me- why should the reaction of execrable Reddit users influence the article's placement on the cover? Jagulard (talk) 04:24, 5 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Only posted b/c one was started by a RWian and the other was started by GG fanatics. 05:30, 5 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks for explaining. I understand the difference between the two threads, but I guess my puzzlement really comes from the use of Reddit as a sounding board for, well, for anything at all, ever. Jagulard (talk) 21:52, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

Results
In terms of votes, the final tally minus the socks and changed votes is 6-5. To me this is a statistical tie and therefore is not ready. Objections? 22:30, 10 September 2016 (UTC)
 * It currently reads 9-5, with one yay vote recanted by the voter. If there is any ballot stuffing going on, please cross out said votes where applicable (on both the yay and nay sides) and provide reasoning for each individual cross-out. There is no rush to conclude this vote, and suspected ballot stuffing is a serious matter. Thank you. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 13:19, 16 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Hurry up and make it a cover story already! Believe me, I know the best cover stories, and this one will be YUUUUGE!- 16:57, 18 September 2016 (UTC)
 * The one thing we should not do is rush the vote. That being said however, the interest in teh leakz seems to have died down quite a bit? Reverend Black Percy (talk) 19:28, 18 September 2016 (UTC)
 * You'd think it was some sort of manufactroversy - David Gerard (talk) 08:52, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

Sorry about the wait. I'll hit them in order: For: Against:
 * 1) Me. (1-0)
 * 2) You. (2-0)
 * 3) Redacted.
 * For, sarcastically. (3-0)
 * 1) David. (4-0)
 * 2) Diamond Disk. (5-0)
 * 3) Parody Account. Not counting this vote.
 * 4) Typhoon. (6-0)
 * 5) Sockpuppet/Parody. Not counting this vote.
 * 6) Parody Account. Not counting this vote.
 * 1) FCP. (6-1)
 * 2) Weasel. (6-2)
 * 3) Rob. (6-3)
 * 4) Jag. (6-4)
 * 5) Narky. (6-5)
 * 6) Owl. (6-6)

And we went from statistical tie to an actual tie. 18:05, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
 * I have voted aye. No longer a tie. Ayes have it. --Castaigne2 (talk) 18:45, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
 * A vote like this needs more than just a simple majority. We cross a 65% vote and it stays stable then I will consider ayes having it. 18:55, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

Proposition: Article rewrite.
The article is currently a mess, too long and rambling, and is often times echo-chamber politcal theory with a dash of GamerGate thrown in for no reason. The authors have constructed an a-priori abomination out of a situation typified by hysterical and shady people with huge audiences screaming at each other on twitter trying to grow their brands. How can you have such faith in such narrators?

The article could use Rational balance (not conservative...) in detailing the excesses and insanity of the gators AND anti-gators (it's a millions-strong nerd riot, no good guys despite your politcal faith) The most abusive sections that are furthest out of line with the community guidelines and the topic at hand could be deleted or re-written entirely. All this talk of a millions-strong mob as a uniform, united, singular entity is insanely irrational an is a humiliation on an otherwise fine wiki.

—Gender and gamer culture— An example of "horseshoe theory" with a far-right/regressive-left rambling and arguing for a fundamentally Racial, Gender, and Age based definition of what is to be a Gamer. The section is either poisonously racist saying non-whites can't be hardcore gamer, poisonous sexist that women cannot be, or ageist, saying that only young people can be hardcore gamers. The section further implies that either white men are unable to appreciate a story based narrative or that black women can not enjoy graphics or gameplay. It reads like your extremist relatives facebook rant and imo should be deleted in its entirety or used to show that both sides of the controversy are insane bigots.
 * I went ahead and deleted the section.107.179.233.159 (talk) 21:01, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

—The origins of Gamergate— Not as hideous as the previous section. Of particular note is the reasons for the Anita hate, how much money she milked from people, and how little she delivered based on the money she had per episode. The article heavily implies that Anita and Zoe are interchangeable sacred victims, (showing an ignorance by the others, try to go outside our echo-chamber blogs for data) rather than the reality of Zoe as a victim and Anita as a con artist hated for consumer reasons in addition to her controversial proselyting moralising crusade against gaming and media abuses.

In addition, this section ignored the events that so primed the fuse of hate in the gaming subculture for decades that the accusation of corruption ignited. This would be as asinine as if an article written about the French Revolution talked endlessly about Marie Antonette and refused to admit the revolution had other causes.

—Escalation— More horseshoe theory crap. regressive-left/far-right ranting about race and gender. Belittling the opinions of all non-whites and women based on nothing other than race & gender and what PoC and women are dared aloud to profess as ideology. Also, while a-priori defending Quinn from all slime it discusses how she doxxed people and tracked them down. Be back with more.107.179.233.159 (talk) 20:54, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
 * This is proof that gators are still alive. Evolution and Metamorphosis (talk) 21:01, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
 * As in they all should have been gone after two years of this bull. Evolution and Metamorphosis (talk) 21:03, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
 * If you want to drive the center to the right and the left to center, double down on that type of rhetoric. It is embarrassing.107.179.233.159 (talk) 23:21, 27 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Could this be? A psychological projection? After all, gators do claim they're liberal and libertarian at the same time. Evolution and Metamorphosis (talk) 21:50, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Which is to say, they're "librarian". Reverend Black Percy (talk) 21:58, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Evolution and Metamorphosis (talk) 22:15, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
 * (EC)I'm just going to focus on the first point for. Because I want to take a deep dive on one rather than try to deal with a million points at once.
 * First and foremost we don't at any point come even remotely close to saying that non-whites can't be gamers. We don't defend that point, we don't assert that point, we don't even imply it.  I'd like a much more clear assertion of how or why you consider this to be true.  If you'd like to drop it we can move on to the next point, but I'd sincerely like an answer either way.  What section or sentence implies this to you?  ikanreed You probably didn't deserve that 21:14, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
 * I think he's looking at this:

...stereotypical "hardcore gamer": teenage or young adult straight white men who allegedly care more about gameplay and technical innovation than storytelling Evolution and Metamorphosis (talk) 21:23, 26 August 2016 (UTC)


 * The entire article is a translation of the twitter feeds of one side of this shit-storm, and the comments section is like a bunch of baptist extremists talking about the Truth of the Gospel. I'm halfway through and its still about the thief and immoral boil on the face of feminism, Anita.


 * You might as well title this: How Anita became a famous millionaire off of a thousand angry teenagers, and how our Faith will never be shaken.


 * The mainstream video game industry regularly ignores women and focuses on the stereotypical "hardcore gamer": teenage or young adult straight white men who allegedly care more about game-play and technical innovation than storytelling.


 * Should be deleted completely.


 * They argued that the gaming media were using women, people of color, and the LGBT community as shields from criticism that they were corrupt (in whatever way Gamergate thought at the time). Posters using this hashtag were ostensibly people from outside the straight white male gamer demographic and they sought to contradict the assertions that Gamergate was in fact a reactionary hate mob made up of only straight white men.


 * Is an instant tell of the lack of perspective on the authors part, almost a translation of Anita and Zoe's twitter. Did you ever get a good source or did you just get anchored to a narrative then dove off the deep end?


 * This was all blown out of the water when Zoë Quinn revealed that she had been monitoring Gamergate's gathering places for the past several weeks.


 * You should probably omit or spin this one better, its like stubbing your head on the doorframe for a Rational or unaligned reader and is a big tell of the quality of the article.


 * Like I said, an article about the French Revolution that is ONLY about Marie Antionette.


 * And considering that GamerGate won every aspect of the culture war ( young people hate feminism, even young women, the alt-right is blooming across political lines, Gawker and the other media is dead and blamed GamerGates campaigns, large portions of social media redoing and firing their editorial staffs over bias, etc) its embarrassing to gloat about its 'Death' if you cared about liberalism at all or they need to have a glimpse at reality if we are to defend it.


 * I'm realising that I will never be able to convince this thousands word article if its 20:1 against the truth. At least purge it of excesses and balance it so its actually about GamerGate. Alas, I don't see myself convincing people with the logical ability of creationists anything.107.179.233.159 (talk) 21:06, 27 August 2016 (UTC)


 * I'm close to throwing in the towel, I was blocked for even adding a few 'citation needed' in a few of the most toxic and false claims...107.179.233.159 (talk) 15:02, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
 * It's wrong if it doesn't fit in your model of consiracy theories? Evolution and Metamorphosis (talk) 22:16, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
 * The "few"  s he added were in the dozens, sometimes immediately before the references he demanded and once in the middle of a quote. I believe this tells everything we need to know about this person.  22:27, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm downplaying his credibility about a "few" toxic claims. Evolution and Metamorphosis (talk) 22:34, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

CON (or not, actually) Skype Leaks
So with the recent leaked logs of the Crash Override Network basically implicating them in everything they've accused Gamergate of representing and then some, you guys are going to update some of the "List of Gamergate Claims" and even the main article to reflect these revelations right?

I mean, it would surprise absolutely nobody if you smug solipsists just shrugged this off as "doctored" or "fabricated" when several of the chat participants confirmed it, but it would still be nice to know the game plan in padding your own egos.
 * Coming by and insulting us is unlikely to get your case heard. More importantly, this article does not cite or said leaked chat logs in text format. Which makes it incredibly suspicious. 01:42, 30 August 2016 (UTC)
 * I love GG's release the data-approach. It's always another "leak", isn't it? Reverend Black Percy (talk) 08:13, 30 August 2016 (UTC)
 * That's not a Crash Override Network chat. To put it into Gamergate terms, "DURR HURR YOU CAN'T BASIC FACT CHECK" or some other crude, demeaning jeer. Except, when a Gamergater says that, it's usually because what was said went over their head. 16:06, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

For anyone who is interested in checking out the chat logs without clicking on 8chan links, go here. However I haven't checked them out yet and don't know the content. This article is given as "confirmation" that the chat logs are real. However beyond summarizing, the article doesn't list any evidence why this should be the case. 21:12, 31 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Am I the only one getting powerful Climategate vibes from all this? Reverend Black Percy (talk) 21:15, 31 August 2016 (UTC)
 * For now, it seems similar, however we should analyze the content first (or an independent third party, not affiliated to Quinn or GG) before we shall pass judgement on it. Anyway if it's indeed real, it doesn't nullify GG's previous actions. 21:28, 31 August 2016 (UTC)
 * And I will point out as I have before already — the above vote on covering is not a vote on setting the current article content in stone. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 21:31, 31 August 2016 (UTC)
 * You're correct I fully agree, but I meant we shouldn't jump to conclusions about the CON leaks here on the talk page, before we know the full deal about them. 21:36, 31 August 2016 (UTC)
 * As I've said, these aren't leaks of a Crash Override Network chat. 01:34, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

Then what are they? Made up? 02:57, 1 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Apparently from a #gamerghazi chat of some sort. In any case, there's nothing that would show any of Gamergate's ridiculous claims to be true, or somehow excuse the years of harassment - they're basically not relevant. So far what I've seen is gators going "LOOK AT ALL THESE LOGS" as if the existence of a chat log shows something; when they claim to quote lines showing specifics, I've been going "uh, what's that supposed to prove". Even the GG sources aren't actually doing anything resembling a journalistic analysis. They're a red herring - David Gerard (talk) 09:59, 1 September 2016 (UTC)
 * those are some incredibly mental gymnastics. First off, nobody ever said or cared that they were from the CON site. The issue is the people involved being those who work on that site. Second, we have verification of legitimacy from someone who was part of the chat at the time. Finally, these logs contain admissions of several acts as well as paint a very clear picture showing that all of these people who work for an alleged anti-abuse foundation against accused advocates of harassment and abuse actually CONDONE use of said tactics when it benefits them. Hypocritical behavior at its finest. Of course, I'm sure you 100% support the IIRC logs from the original 5 guys incident as your proof of standard Gater mentality. --72.185.115.170 (talk) 13:30, 2 September 2016 (UTC)
 * So basically, TL;DR? Reverend Black Percy (talk) 10:06, 1 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes, as you note above. The gators make SO MUCH OF A FUSS that third party observers assume there's a "there" there, and there just isn't. These alleged CON logs are of no discernible relevance whatsoever, much less blocking gold on Gamergate. They probably warrant some sort of mention in the Timeline - David Gerard (talk) 12:04, 1 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Helping David a little bit. When Nyberg offered self-admitted paedo confession, still whitewashing from her own keyboard, David Gerard dismisses it whole as nothing. RationalWiki still endorsed this individual on Twitter. Likewise when Ian Miles Cheong, who was present in CON himself, also does damage control by admittting to some things, Gerard also doesn't want to hear it, either. Of course, he readily believes every conspiracy theory in the interest of the right people, like that #NotYourShield was all fake (for example). Likewise, when statements go in the desired direction, they are readily accepted and parotted ("[Quinn] released chat logs from #BurgersAndFries that revealed"). Ronald Reagan released chat-logs that reveal communists did something horrible. It must be true, because Reagan said so! Reagan admits to have taken dollars from oil industry: "that cannot be true, he's such a decent man!" Gerard-style authoritarian thinking in a nutshell. ~ Aneris 14:23, 1 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Aneris, if you feel that the article needs modification based on the information in these chat logs, why not just make the changes, cite the relevant portions of the logs, and let people look at it to decide if they say what you claim they do? Arawn Emrys (talk) 16:11, 1 September 2016 (UTC)
 * If he contributed it would mean he would automagically be associated with everything he dislikes about this wiki - correct me if I'm wrong if my observation is incorrect. It's not like I agree with everything here either, but I believe criticism can also be stated in a friendlier way. 16:49, 1 September 2016 (UTC)
 * I edit minor things, but I usually don't touch such articles. It's always reverted anyway, if not immediately, then tomorrow. This is why you find such a stark one-sidedness on the Wiki in virtually all such articles. Before you ask, it also doesn't matter whether it's sourced, e.g. FGM lost a third of all sources. Likewise, Jerry Coyne lost a third, too. Sources are unimportant. It also has nothing to do with lack of mission, lack of progressiveness, not liberal enough or any such things. All of these things are perfectly on track. The actual bias of this wiki is personal in nature, and represents a tiny group within the secular scene (the original core comes from the "Horde"), but no longer does. ~ Aneris 19:51, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

This is exactly the problem with the Gamergate article.
If we wish to have heroes, they must be defended. Actually read the logs (whether it's CON or Skype or whatever) and it shows prominent actors in the anti-GG community laughing about harassment GGers received and trying to organize publicity against GG.

Or:


 * 1) If chat logs are good proof, then 4chan collectively created Gamergate (a movement about sexist trolling) and CON orchestrated the counterattack.
 * 2) If chat logs aren't good proof, then Gamergate (a movement about video game ethics) spontaneously appeared from nothing and CON did nothing wrong.

Internal consistency is not met here. 13:21, 2 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Given our experience with the anti-gator brigade here, it's hardly surprising that they are almost as horrible as the GGers. In any case, GG is about as irrelevant as it gets these days; the whole episode could be covered by one paragraph about sexism in gaming. 202.89.161.226 (talk) 04:41, 3 September 2016 (UTC)


 * or possibly you're unable to tell good things from bad things (which is a plausible hypothesis given your inability to tell Reddit commentary from possibly sane humans from shitheaded alt-right Reddit commentary, above). In any case, if you're as convinced as you sound that THIS CHANGES EVERYTHING, you'll need to source the claim. So far there's absolutely nothing to point to - as I noted, there's a lot of rabid GGers yelling that THIS CHANGES EVERYTHING either without backing it up, or with quotes they think backs it up that don't. Are you going to write it up? - David Gerard (talk) 14:15, 3 September 2016 (UTC)
 * To people who were always critical of SJWs, it simply illustrates what we knew all along. For example, whereas your story and focus begins with an episode of harassment of feminists (I think), mine begins with pharyngula and how it hurled rape-based-schock insults at other people. This was that extreme, that the co-blogger Chris Clarke called it quits. PZ Myers himself admitted that it went too far many times and eventually closed his social threads. He and his gang also officially doxed, and since I know the story well, I know that their claims why they did it are outright lies. So in other words, the perspective on things is very different when your priors include such information. I have no idea where GamerGate is at, but since the context is very similar to many other similar cases (e.g. RaceFail, ElevatorGate), I think this leak makes sense in that light: it casts a light on the other side that consistently tries to stay out of scrutiny, because the SJWs want to be the mob that calls out from around the stage, and not find itself on the stage of shame. ~ Aneris 18:53, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

DG: Toss aside the ad hominems. Your criticisms of the CON/Skype "leaks" can be easily applied to the GG leaks. Step back and reconsider the fact that you place a burden of proof on the opposition that you do not place upon yourself. 20:19, 3 September 2016 (UTC)
 * "ad hominems"? You are literally claiming you can't tell good things from bad things. Not only did the 4chan/GG logs actually show something, they came from GG itself and were relevant when first revealed two years ago. The new Skype chatlogs show absolutely nothing - and you still haven't shown they do, and if you did you'd be the first - and are mostly being entirely and intentionally misinterpreted by the people who want to find a justification for the awful shit (per real-world evidence) they did. You are behaving like Strawman the Bad Example. Please be smarter than this - David Gerard (talk) 00:04, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

Im disappointed that I even have to address you of all people FCP, I really thought that you would be the one to push against such accusations. The whole conversations around said leaks, before we dig into it, appeal to the attempt to see multiple sides of something when not called for. A type of "this thing is bad but the people who are against it are just as bad! congratz. you found a way to be morally superior to every side of the argument. Its the same type of people who decry all political parties are "equally bad" Its telling that the link is not to the skype logs, but to a person commenting on them indirectly. It is also telling that the person who wrote this article is a notorious gator, Ian Miles Cheong, which shows what direction they choose to go. It may seem like poisoning the well, but it is important to show the context behind these things.  As for the article, there are a lot of missteps and taking things out of context. It is also noted there is a slight conflict of interest, as Ian was a participant of the claims. These chatlogs are also very fragmented, which strip the context away from the chats, unlike the 4chan logs which retain the context of every word. " with unkind remarks about his health and chemotherapy treatment." is a good example of straight-out lying about the contents and context of what was actually posted. The actual contents say "I really like how TB does all this awful shit and then he or his fan boys are like “cancer so be nice!”" this isnt making fun of someone cancer or being unkind, but criticizing him and his followers use his cancer as a shield from criticism. the chatlogs themselves were foudnd by broteampill, out of seemingly nowhere. In the end we really arent entirely sure of the authenticity of the logs. We are basically taking the word of broteampill over actual verified logs of the past. The broteampill logs were also released much later after the original 4chan logs. Before we even continue, the contents need to be officially verified and scrutinized as the original 4chan logs were, and by someone who doesnt have a direct conflict of interest. Keep me posted Cat, youre not an idiot or some gator. You know what youre talking about. Im sure we can come up with a resolution to this dilemma. Cheers. Sandflapjack (talk) 01:21, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

On Girl Gamers
This is stereotypical and misleading. It implies that girls and women are only now getting interested into gaming, when in reality, people are simply paying more attention nowadays. JRPG fandom has always been substantially female, for one thing. The Nancy Drew adventure game series has been running since just before the turn of the millennium. And the whole "girls like indie and mobile games" is painting with broad strokes, because so do a lot of boys, again, big name RPG franchises are hugely popular among boys and girls. Heck, Tales of Festival's attendance was 90% female.

I mean, the "not a real game" stereotype is important to note, but can we at least acknowledge that male and female gamers do have overlapping interests, and that it's not a Mars/Venus thing?Colossal Squid (talk) 18:25, 31 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Slipped it in. 18:35, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

Relevant blog post to the politics of Gamergate
They at least seem to report being liberal: https://www.allthink.com/1588852 03:00, 8 November 2016 (UTC)


 * They also like their coffee black. Hipocrite (talk) 15:10, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

Section "red pill rabbit hole" formatting error
One of the bullets in aforementioned section is broken, please fix it. I can't because of the lock. 46.120.236.109 (talk) 13:34, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
 * I think I got it. 22:18, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

San Bernadino and beaches
Okay, I'm only really seeing reports of this on far-right sites, but did the AP really publish someone's false claims that San Bernadino was perpetrated by a Gamergater? And did twitter really reroute the Gamergate hashtag to beaches?KrytenKoro (talk) 21:05, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

Proposed rewrite/nuke
Like, OK, I think we could totally have an article almost as long as it is now. But we really need to start from scratch. Even the introduction is a headache.

Here's what I propose replacing the page with, and hopefully we can build on it and get more detailed and put the initial page in the introduction-

Gamergate was a clusterfuck of manufactroversies, real controversies, and old grudges all wrapped up together and unleashed on the internet starting in July of 2014 when a man named Eron Gjoni made a blog describing his dating experience and alleged abuse history with Zoe, hinting, among other things, that she cheated on him with five guys, some of whom were in the video game industry. Those with more traditionally anti-establishment politics saw that this was either a very stupid move that should not be acceptable or almost certainly corruption, citing a paragraph one of these men had written on Zoe Quinn's "game" without disclosing personal affiliation. Shortly, her Twitter was inundated with harassment, like everyone else who's pissed the internet off, and she cried sexism (just like, as we all know, crime lords tend to get shot due to racism). Those in video game journalism saw an excellent curve opportunity and tried to portray any concern at all as sexism, which pissed off those who were concerned and increased the group's anger at video game journalism. Someone had the bright idea to coin the phrase "trying to get women out of gaming" (a hilariously shallow analysis, especially given most groups will, you know, state their objectives, which in this groups case was generally "reforming games journalism and keeping what happened to comic books from happening to video games") in relation to this group. Eventually a conservative actor came up with the hashtag #Gamergate to describe this whole mess, which continued exploding and imploding in various echelons of daily drama for about six whole months and even through to the present as standers-by gradually learned that neither side of the conflict was what they described themselves to be (two sides of the "no bad methods, only bad targets" culture warrior coin), causing many defections such as Ian Miles Cheong and Mark Kern. Gamergate, in many respects, was a proxy culture war, with one side pushing for the dominance of word police-type ideas by creating a culture that relinquished the need for a formal Games Code Authority and the other pushing for liberal ideas to become taboo in gaming and in general; many grunts caught in between being used on one side or another. In the end it was more or less acknowledged that there were genuine journalistic ethics concerns in video game journalism as many outlets adopted ethics policies, and many social networks and public discussion avenues cracked down on harassment (for the better and for the worse- Twitter, for example, now lets you report posts just because you don't like them) while average internet denizens became more wary of both parties and what they represented. Gamergate is also notable for being the birthplace of many smears hurled at Bernie Sanders supporters, which may or may not be a sign of something sinister. And not even all of that is what anyone can agree on.

Also, fuck you David.--165.111.2.146 (talk) 15:13, 6 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Instead of "Proposed rewrite/nuke", you could've just titled it "fuck you, David" for clarity. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 15:21, 6 September 2016 (UTC)
 * I would have titled it "A lede with hardly anything to do with Gamergate". 15:49, 6 September 2016 (UTC)
 * thx --75.1.54.24 (talk) 00:49, 7 September 2016 (UTC)
 * If you were serious you would have added that the GG side eagerly hopped in bed with some of the most disgusting rightwing assholes on the Net, like Vox Day, Milo, and Breitbart in general as soon as they were given the chance despite said folks calling gamers the exact same sort of names as the anti-GG feminists do now up until they saw a useful culture war tool. (this is also likely the source of the antiSanders stuff) Arawn Emrys (talk) 16:05, 6 September 2016 (UTC)
 * I actually did get into that in the last couple of sentences, I just didn't namedrop anybody. The "accusing others of what you are doing under the veil of 'you have to because they're doing it too'" stuff is more alt-right in general and could be discussed on maybe the /pol/ page. I'm surprised we don't have a page on Operation Trans Genocide even if it went nowhere. --75.1.54.24 (talk) 00:49, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

Building new bridges to gamers could be difficult, a lot of them are burned ex-allies now due to the sweeping blanket accusations and shunning and banning that happened during GG. LarkhillFive (talk) 08:36, 26 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Reverend Black Percy (talk) 11:20, 26 October 2016 (UTC)


 * The Rewrite is more accurate, Facepunch was critizing this article because we were the ones that oversaw it all and how it was becoming a shitshow. In fact this was the birthplace of the modern Alt-Right.OmniConsUme (talk) 01:04, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
 * I don't think it's more accurate, but it has the right number of words, more or less.Ariel31459 (talk) 14:22, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

Citation Please?
The first citation of this article is for: Nintendo has officially referred to GamerGate as an "online hate campaign".[1] Unfortunately [1] links to a brief blog entitled "Did Nintendo make a Gamergate reference in a new Paper Mario game?" Nintendo denies it did any such thing and is quoted in the article and defensively says "It was brought to our attention today that these two jokes have been spliced together and misconstrued as a crude reference to an online hate campaign." This statement does not assert the existence of a hate campaign, only that an alleged hate campaign had been brought to their attention. If there is an "official" referral, it is not in the given reference.Ariel31459 (talk) 02:36, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

Is Gamergate a moral panic?
notes on the talk page there should be a clarification on what is and what is not a moral panic, with reasonable risk of danger disqualifying classification. I think given the death and rape threats, the harassment involved in gamergate would cause panic for most people in that situation, while the idea that anti sex radical feminists are trying to take away all the sexual content from video games and impose mandatory employment quotas for game development companies regardless of job skill is more in keeping with the other examples of moral panic, however the label would apply to the issue overall and not specify which camps are panicking. X-Factor (talk) 18:21, 17 May 2017 (UTC)


 * Also I think this paragraph should be added, "As a founder member and former executive chair of Brietbart News, Steve Bannon had a hand in creating Milo Yiannopoulos. With 2014’s Gamergate, Breitbart seized the opportunity to harness the pre-existing ignorance and anger among disaffected young white dudes. The same voices moved into other geek communities, especially comics, where Marvel and DC were criticised for progressive storylines and decisions, like how comic books are always breaking new ground in the name of sales, justice and fantasy violence. They also moved into cinema with backlash against the all-female Ghostbusters reboot conflating the separate issues of producing an endless stream of nearly shot for shot reboots of 80's movies that are safe bets for studios, with social progress for ethnic minority movie stars winning Oscars and for actresses starring in multi billion dollar film franchises." What Gamergate should have taught us about the 'alt-right'. X-Factor (talk) 01:48, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

I think the term "moral panic" could be used in a limited sense. But the number of people in this panic is limited to a small collection of players in the electronic game industry. Most people in America are entirely oblivious to it, as might well be expected. Games are similar to sports, and a close comparison would be the domestic violence cases in the NFL paired with the media response; or perhaps "Deflategate," where no one was actually threatened, yet harsh accusations were made and legal action taken with a concomitant uneven division of media sympathies.Ariel31459 (talk) 12:42, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

" We Know More About This Subject Than Most People Would Care to Know."
"This Internet related article has been awarded SILVER status for quality. We like it, and you should too! This article is of HIGH importance to the wiki." And doesn't that say it all? Why is this article of high importance to the wiki? I am familiar with the Gamergate story, but don't think much about it. I certainly don't enjoy plowing through the avalanche of text that has been presented. The Nine pages of archived talk suggest that this topic reaches into to a lot of wheelhouses. And also, that some people need to spend their time more productively. Why is this article as long as it is for an ephemeral series of incidences that will eventually be forgotten? Consider the following articles (with number of references in each article) in this wiki: Martin Luther King (34), Noam Chomsky (62), Mohammad (16), Freedom of Speech (35), The American Revolution (1), Psychoanalysis (6), Intersectionality (25), Feminism (21), and finally Gamergate (302). Noam Chomsky, for example, has more citations in academic literature than any other scholar in the world. Never-the-less, there are about five times more references in the Gamergate article than in the Chomsky article. I suggest the page editors have a drawing, pick 50 random numbers, and eliminate the text corresponding to the other numbers.Ariel31459 (talk) 17:21, 27 June 2017 (UTC)


 * It remains one of the most popular articles on the Wiki overall, and one of the most informative articles on the subject - David Gerard (talk) 10:27, 28 June 2017 (UTC)
 * At Wikipedia, "A gamergate (/ˈɡæmərˌɡeɪt/) is a mated worker ant that is able to reproduce sexually." See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gamergate. Yet RW is not far off the mark in its brouhaha of documentation: its big brother at W has an article almost as excessive under "Gamergate Controversy." with more than 50 pages of archived talk. Bon appetit.Ariel31459 (talk) 13:51, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

Gamergate: Report by The Federal Bureau of Investigation
Somebody ought to append the (2017) F.B.I. report on its Gamergate investigation, to end the tail of this monster. https://vault.fbi.gov/gamergate/Gamergate%20Part%2001%20of%2001/view. A few hands got seriously slapped. No crickets were injured.Ariel31459 (talk) 04:54, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

Such a biased article
It's so one sided. Really, what is this doing on rational wiki?&mdash; Unsigned, by: 61.68.139.176 / talk / contribs
 * On talk pages, please sign your comments using four tildes ( ~ ) or by clicking on the sign button: SigButt.png on the toolbar above the edit panel. (You can indent successive talk page comments using one more colon (:) for each line.) Thank you.


 * Anything specific wrong with the article? Christopher (talk) 11:04, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Also, RoninMacbeth (talk) 14:48, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, you were hoping to see a bunch of apologetics & justification for the blatant misogynists & MRAs making death & rape threats? Maybe "well, they DID commit several felonies by harassing women - including normal female commenters on gaming sites - with threats of rape & murder (and committing slander/libel), but they might actually be the good guys because reasons"? How is that different from "let's hear the serial killer's side of the story, maybe he had a good reason"? 69.249.111.215 (talk) 16:52, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
 * People on both sides got death and rape threats, so I guess we should delete the article. Nog Bogmire (talk) 16:56, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, Gamergaters got rape threats? Care to cite sources for that? As for "death threats," all I've seen is non-serious dismissals such as "DIAF." If anyone DID seriously threaten a GGer with death or rape, they're just as bad as the MRAs/MGTOWs that make up Gamergate. Also, "they did bad things too so they're just as wrong!" doesn't work here. GG started as a group of misogynists & alt-righters trying to "teach women & SJWs a lesson" for daring to bring up issues about sexism in gaming culture.69.249.111.215 (talk) 00:08, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

Specifically, the article comes across as extremely one-sided and as essentially one long rant against the gamergate side. Example: "Gamergate is a distillation of the worst of the worst of the Internet..". "...heinous assholes..", "..conservative reactionaries..". What I was hoping for was a dispassionate synopsis of the entire thing. Equating gamergate to serial killers (which would make the other side the innocent victims) is precisely what I'm talking about.61.68.139.176 (talk) 21:32, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Gamergate made itself notorious by its skeevy origins and skeevy tactics. It basically undermined any point it might have made by its doxxing and dishonesty.  I personally don't think much of 'feminist' catalogues of the sins of popular culture, myself.  When YouTube celebrities shame young men for masturbation, that looks a lot like "punching down" to me.  There probably is an excellent case for a forthright and honest rebuttal of those claims.  Gamergate is not it. - Smerdis of Tlön, LOAD "*", 8, 1. 02:19, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
 * This argument that gamergate are assholes and therefore their points don't count is another example of what I'm talking about. Its not a rational discussion of amergate, it's simply a personal attack. I wouldn't know what gamergates point is reading this article. .120.18.111.176 (talk) 02:22, 22 September 2017 (UTC)
 * I don't think anyone nor this article has actually argued that "Gamergate are assholes so that means their points don't count". That Gamergaters are assholes and wrong and hypocritical assholes. Their methods entirely contradict with their supposed message of "honesty, openness, and accountability in gaming journalism", and most of their campaigns they claim to be responsible for involves targeting and bullying critics (who are disproportionately women and vulnerable women at that) or doxxing and threatening people who argue that maybe, maybe women aren't depicted so well in the gaming world. Gamergaters have practically no legitimate claims for them and trying to argue in favor of their point just for the sake of balance is straight-up balance fallacy because of this. 04:28, 22 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Note also the essential difference between arguing that "they're idiots — based on which, their arguments are consistently invalid" and "their arguments are consistently invalid — based on which, they're idiots". Reverend Black Percy (talk) 06:03, 22 September 2017 (UTC)


 * The person I was responding to said gamergate's skeeviness means their points don't count. It's a common argument. 61.69.83.186 (talk) 07:18, 22 September 2017 (UTC)


 * LEFTYMARIO, if they have "practically no valid points", then why not simply list their scant points and let the facts speak for themselves? That's not a balance fallacy, that's just putting the facts out there. I don't understand why a rational site is so reluctant to lay out the facts simply and impartially, as opposed to all this silly rhetoric of "these assholes", "these reactionary scum".61.68.139.176 (talk) 11:11, 22 September 2017 (UTC)
 * And FWIW, I didn't say that the skeevy tactics of the Gamergaters meant that their points didn't count. I specifically said that I find feminist moralizing against popular culture something that deserves pushback.  What I did say was that the skeevy tactics of the Gamergaters made their enterprise disreputable, something I couldn't endorse or identify with regardless of the validity of those points.  There is a difference. - Smerdis of Tlön, LOAD "*", 8, 1. 18:23, 22 September 2017 (UTC)


 * you said their skeevy tactics undermined their point. I’ve read that argument several times. I’ve read their points now. It’s quite interesting. I’ve worked for game mags and know it’s a bit dodgy like they say. I didn’t realise the extent of the relationships though. It would be good if this article covered it. It can do so without excusing the terrible behaviour of the gamergate people. 61.68.139.176 (talk) 21:33, 23 September 2017 (UTC)
 * But we do lay out the facts? Gamergate lays out MRA talking points which we debunk in the appropriate pages in both the MRA page and the article devoted to dealing with it. The main article deals with the narrative and completes the picture of Gamergate, being mainly a coalition of wrong assholes who asshole hard. 04:00, 26 September 2017 (UTC)