Talk:Gamergate/Archive3

This is an archive page, last updated 3 May 2016. Please do not make edits to this page.

Archives for this talk page:

<1>, <2>, <4>, <5>, <6>, <7>, <8>, <9>, <10>

, (new)(back)

You guys are full of bullshit

...and you know it. You guys ignore all the corruption in game journalism just so you can continue eating out one of your own cronies (Anita). And can't you fuckers see women already HAVE fair treatment in video games? Who the fuck is Jill Valentine? Who the fuck is Joanna Dark? Who is Lara Croft? Who is Alyx Vance? Who is Gina Cross? Who is Samus? Also, I just thought I'd let you know your defending a fucking methead, and animal abuser (Randi), but it's alright that she got away with all that, cause she's on your side, right? Bullshit

The gaming community is tired of you. The internet is tired of you. The American people are tired of you. The days of your ideologie's popularity is numbered. P.S. LOVE how you begin the article with a cherry-picked Tweet of a obvious troll. Hey, do you guys even know what a troll is? Real fuckin' rationale of you guys. 108.219.226.24 (talk) 02:16, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

You reference female characters in video games, and claim that that proves that females are fairly treated in video games. I do not believe this is correct. See Thunderf00t/Criticism of Tropes vs. Women for more information on why.

You claim that Randi is an animal abuser and a methhead. How is this relevant?

You claim that the gaming community, the internet, and the American people are tired of RationalWiki. Can you substantiate this?

You claim that our ideology is no longer going to be popular. What is our ideology? Can you substantiate that it is going to be unpopular?

You claim that our article begins with a tweet of a troll. Can you substantiate that this user is a troll?

Thanks for your helpful discussion. 32℉uzzy; 0℃atPotato (talk/stalk) 02:26, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

Case in point why I lean a bit more to Pro-GG but scoot back a bit whenever I actually come close to the "true believers" of the cause. Don't get me wrong, a good deal of people on both sides are horrible (Hotwheels and the masterfully deceptive Wu come to mind) but Pro-GG scares me a bit more than their rather cutely idiotic and laughable opposition.--Madman (talk) 03:16, 17 January 2015 (UTC)The Madman

FuzzyCatPotato (nice username, by the way), I'll respond to you first...

The female characters I named off are in-deed strong, and in some cases even self-reliant. Gina Cross is not known to have any relationships, Jill Valentine having a relationship only exists in fanfiction (to my knowledge), and Joanna Dark's dad died when she was young and got adopted by a corporate executive.

This is relevant because I do not see you guys mention it at all when she is brought up in the article, and if you did, I apologize for missing it.

The fact that GamerGate happened is proof enough. Anger towards game journalists has been building up for sometime. The Mass Effect 3 entitlement bullshit was the catalyst, and the Gamers Are Dead articles pretty much was the point of no return. In fact, I see no mention of the Gamers Are Dead articles in this whole article. Why is that? (And I mean that in both a smart-ass way and as a serious question).

Your ideology being modern, American liberalism. Don't give me that "Reality has a liberal bias" bullshit because I know some people who would tell you the exact opposite. You can obviously tell you guys have a liberal bias simply by looking at your pages on politicians, wars, and the works.

There is a shit-ton of rage on both sides, and it's impossible to tell what someone's intention was when they make a Tweet like that in the article, and while my tangent in my early post says otherwise, trolls seem to troll our side the most by posing as shit.

Oh, and Madman, sorry for scarring you away. 108.219.226.24 (talk) 03:50, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the compliment (?).

On the strong female videogame charcters point: I think everyone agrees that strong female videogame characters exists. The problem is (1) their relative scarcity, compared to strong male characters and weak female characters (2) the tendency to oversexualize females without comparable sexualization of males in videogames. The mere existence of Samus does not disprove this. (going pointbypoint because on phone) 32℉uzzy; 0℃atPotato (talk/stalk) 04:40, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

(EC) We don't ignore the fact that there are serious problems with games journalism. Hell, Zoe wrote an entire goddamn article all about it. The reason we oppose GamerGate is because it is extremely harmful to the entire game industry, by harassing women, causing devs to fear their own audience and turning the community into a civil war.

Personally, while I would prefer seeing more representation of women, I'm not altogether too invested in it. I don't think representation is the huge problem that Anita thinks it is. The huge problem here is that if GG had its way, she would be dead. I mean how many times do they have to talk about murdering her before someone actually does? The extremists in GG's ranks want to murder her and the rest of them just want to wash their hands of the violent rhetoric, rather than actually fix the goddamn problem. Same goes for Zoe, Brianna, pixelgoth, srhbutts, Dan Olson, Izzy Galvez and everyone else they've assaulted.

"Gamers are dead" wasn't mentioned because GG already existed prior to it. Indeed, by the publication of the first article in that bunch (the Alexander piece), the hashtag had already been coined, harassment had already been coordinated over 4chan and IRC, and Zoe had already been forced to leave her home by GG. The articles were responding to GG, not causing it. The fact that many people joined GG because of the articles doesn't change anything; it just demonstrates gators' inability to understand what they read.

People are tired of "anti-GG?" Of "SJW's"? I don't know who you're talking to with that line, but virtually every journalist outside of the game industry covering GG has harshly criticized it, so unless you're going to claim there's some massive conspiracy extending beyond the confines of our puny little circle-jerk of a journalistic community, it looks to me like people are tired of you. (Not to mention the fact that there is no such organization as "anti-GG" and no ideology shared by critics of GG other than an agreement that GG is horrible and needs to end.)

As I said above, anyone defending GG is defending a vicious, hateful, disgusting movement. Abed Nadir (talk) 04:54, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

All right, Abed Nadir, here we go...

GG already existed prior to the Gamers Are Dead articles? DO expand, because I've been here since virtually day 1 (or more like day 6) and would like to know more.

You honest to fucking God think we want to murder Anita? You on that good shit? No, some of the extreme faggots, and the trolls want her dead. WE just want her to shut the fuck up. THE END

Also, ya do realize Brianna doxxed... herself? Like, no shit, seriously.

And the hashtag became a thing on the 25th... but no-one gave a fuck about it until the 28th, when the Gamers Are Dead articles were published.

Us Gators (and we don't use that term but what the fuck, I'll use it hear only) don't even talk about Zoe, like, at all. I remember posts on our Escapist forum thread where we discussed distancing ourselves from the Quinnspiracy as much as possible, which is why that term (Quinnspiracy) now exclusively refers to her shit. Why do you think we nick-named her Literally Who? 108.219.226.24 (talk) 05:08, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

Ooh! Ooh! I know the answers to these

1. The people that make up Gamergate are the people who have been angry that Zoe Quinn's Depression Quest got any press because they don't think it's a real video game because it was a website she had made in Twine and also because it got any sort of mention in any of the websites and latched onto Eron Gjoni's master post of wanting to tear her down after they had a nasty break up because he was a physically abusive little shit. They now think that she's being a horrible horrible woman for daring to get a restraining order out against him which is why JuiceBro is helping him fight back. These people were also part of the large group of people who fucking hated Anita Sarkeesian for having any sort of opinion that the vast majority of fictional women in video games aren't treated as rounded out characters but exist for a means to an end, such as the various prostitutes in the GTA series and any AAA video game where you enact vigilante justice like WatchDogs etc. Their virulent hate campaign led her to obtain more money than she had been asking to produce her series and now they're mad that she hasn't been transparent on how the money had been spent which she would have never gotten if their greasy cheeto dusted fingers hadn't made her life a living hell for 2 years. This is also why you idiots are full on giving Davis Aurini and his replica human skull US$15k a month to make a movie that will never fucking see the light of day.
2. Those "extreme faggots and trolls" that you talk about are as much Gamergate as you are, Mr. BoN. Because Gamergate hasn't separated itself from this vast community of people who want these women dead because they don't agree with what they have to say are Gamergate.
3. How the fuck can someone dox themselves? Like you do fucking realize that the whole point of "doxxing" is obtaining someone else's address and the rest, regardless of how easy or difficult it is to obtain, and post it somewhere so the angry mob you're a part of can use it to threaten that person right? Like you can't possibly be this fucking dense. But here you are saying these things.
4. AND LOL IMHO the "Gamers are dead" shit. You babies have no reading comprehension. For a group that says "We no longer want to be considered a bunch of socially inept white neckbeared virgin geeks living in our mothers' basements", you all certainly didn't realize that that's what every fucking one of those "Gamers are dead" articles was trying to say but no, because those 36% of adult women playing video games are playing Candy Crush and Farmville on their phones while the 17% of teenage boys are playing BlOps or Destiny.

And also you use "Literally Who" to deflect blame and dehumanize your targets because day after day you constantly have to come back to the fact that your stupid shitstain of a movement wouldn't exist had it not been for Eron Gjoni wanting to tear her life apart and you ate that shit up like it was Cool Ranch Doritos and Baja Blast Mountain Dew.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 05:21, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

Ryulong beat me to the punch and I got edit-conflicted, but I'll post my original response anyway since the IP mentioned me by name.

Yes, it did. thezoepost was uploaded on August 16th. Adam Baldwin coined the hashtag on August 27th (not the 25th but the point still stands). The first "Gamers are dead" article was posted on August 28th. More importantly, Gamergate is the reason the articles exist. They all make reference to the then-already-underway harassment campaign focused on Zoe Quinn - hell, Alexander's piece even links to this Vice article detailing proto-Gamergate. So yes, they did indeed "give a fuck about it"; the tweet that coined it was a link to two videos detailing the conspiracy theories regarding Zoe Quinn.

Yes, some of you want to murder Anita. The rest of you don't, but hate her enough to perpetuate a culture of violent rhetoric that enables the ones threatening to murder her.

I am aware that Gamergaters believe that Brianna doxed herself. I have seen no evidence supporting the idea whatsoever. I have seen the 8chan thread where she was doxed, and the fact that the rest of the channers' response to the doxing was to instantly accuse the OP of being Brianna and doxing herself, without evidence, is telling of GG's need to instantaneously come up with an explanation - any explanation at all - that absolves them of guilt whenever they are found to be responsible for something horrible. And frankly, the thought that she would witness other women being doxed and subsequently driven from their homes with pervasive threats of extreme violence coming from people who have their personal information, and respond by freely posting her own information in an attempt to frame said harassers for something they're already widely known to be guilty of doing, is painfully stupid.

I think you named her "literally who" to put up a shallow pretense of not talking about her anymore, while still talking endlessly about her. As mentioned above, she is still dealing with your shit.

"I’ve been trying to take a day to just be a regular person, recenter myself, and have the energy to get back to work with the same enthusiasm I tend to have, but every attempt gets cut short by some fresh, new, horrible news about someone trying to get into my accounts, a new asinine conspiracy theory being used as an excuse to dox people I went to high school with, friends freaking out because anonymous message board people are talking about how to mail them bombs, or just another death threat. At least the death threats have become somewhat routine."

Finally, I want to point out that harming someone and then distancing yourself from the harm, without taking responsibility or making amends, does not magically erase the harm you've done. Even if she never received a single death threat for the rest of her life starting now, you still made her life hell for the past five months. Just because you don't talk about her anymore doesn't absolve you of guilt. Abed Nadir (talk) 05:32, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

AS WE SPEAK, Gamergate is shitting themselves on Twitter after Zoe Quinn and Alex Lifschitz revealed NOT EVEN 2 HOURS AGO that they had organized a company to deal with the online harassment that has been doled out. People with those stupid green and purple heart avatars are demanding transparency on a non-profit organization that is not even taking fucking money from anyone. Explain that BoN.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 05:45, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

Holy fuck, guys, even I'm doing shit wrong, or you guys are replying so fast it's fucking with me and erasing MY replies. Anyway, on to your shit...

First off, you have to also believe our point of view. To us, she's just some hack who used her ties in the industry to ride her way to fame, and when the Zoe Post went down, her friends in high places declared us dead for rightfully getting pissed. Now, someone who has done all that shit creating some shit to deal with "hate" online? Fuck that 108.219.226.24 (talk) 06:01, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

Also, have you visited /gamergate/? Because you should, as you'd find the only thread MENTIONING her is about her anti-hate online task force shit, and even then there are anons joking about who she is. I'm not involved with our Twitter shit, so I apologize for the actions of elaborate troll accounts and some of our more... zealous members. 108.219.226.24 (talk) 06:01, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

No, you see, we don't have to believe your point of view at all because from all outside views everyone knows it's all a big conspiracy theory you've collectively concocted to say that the evil SJW sluts are trying to take your Call of Duty away. It doesn't matter what's on 8chan now. It matters what happened in the past half a year.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 06:03, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

Also it doesn't matter what you, random idiot on the Internet who is now professing to be the ambassador of 8chan's side of the Gamergate conspiracy, say either. That's the whole point of the anonymity of the collective right? That anyone who dares be an individual gets shut out for making themselves to be anything other than a green and purple heart avatar.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 06:06, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

"Let it go, Indy..."

>Implying I play Call Of Bros >Refusing to see how little fucks 8chan Gators give about Zoe >Implying all SJWs are women

Bitch, please :)

Also, anyone can claim to be a ambassador to 8chan, I guess. We've had to deal with the bullshit that comes with annonymity just as much as the next group of motherfuckers. 108.219.226.24 (talk) 06:10, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

Christ you fucks take everything so god damn literally. No wonder you thought that the "gamers are dead" pieces were persecution.

It doesn't matter what fucking AAA game you personally play. You, the individual, are not important. It does not matter what cannot be seen right this second on 8chan. It is the culmination of everything that Gamergate and 8chan has done and represents because you absolutely refuse to centralize and formalize because that somehow takes away from the power of being the anonymous mob.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 06:35, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

And like fucking clockwork.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 07:03, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

"The gaming community is tired of you. The internet is tired of you. The American people are tired of you."- Why do gators often talk like a comic book character? I see that shit all the time on both r/kotakuinaction and 8chan. It's really hard not to laugh at them when they throw around such overly dramatic words when talking about video game journalism, or "SJW's" or pretty much anybody who ever calls them out on their shit. Typhoon (talk) 09:54, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

It's hard to take SJWs seriously when they talk like their victims all the damn time. Doesn't help that you guys openly call us a hate group, which is just hilarious. ^{— Unsigned, by: 108.219.226.24 / talk / contribs}

It's impossible to take seriously anyone who unironically uses the word "SJW". And our article gives tons of proof that GG is a hategroup. Typhoon (talk) 20:40, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

Who is?

Time for snarky answers, right after this Drink!

• Jill Valentine: Almost a Jill Sandwich. Seriously. In the original game she was slower, had less health and she wasn't as good at shooting as Chris was...for no reason.
• Joanna Dark: Brash secret agent who prefers to solve her problems by shooting everyone. (Incidentally the roundest and best designed character you mentioned.)
• Lara Croft: Fan service. She has gag boobs on purpose. (The reboot is a little better, but nowhere near stellar.)
• Alyx Vance: An unrealistic character. She finds Gordon and almost immediately becomes infatuated with him.
• Gina Cross: Unmemorable? (Seriously, I had to look her up)
• Samus: Flat as an ironing board. She has no personality and never speaks. When she does (Other M) the story portrays her as so pathetic she might as well be a fucking damsel. She is not a character so much as an avatar for the player.

So there you have it. You named really only one memorable and positive female character. Would you like to play again? Zero ^{(talk - contributions)} 13:55, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

Samus was okay, until other M. Really. And not as flat as you were arguing. But you missed a lot of the other sexist-as-all-hell bullshit they dumped on her then. Not just damsel, but

• Pining after the male lead for no reason.
• Oh whoa is me, I'm not a mommy because of my career boo hoo.(Like, seriously?)
• Emotionally fragile wreck.

And, of course, the coup-de-grace of representation isn't presence, or tokenism, it's proportionality. Anyone who pretends that a small effort on the part of a few devs who aren't complete shit completely buries things like GTA's hookers-for-health nonsense is lying to me. And I don't take anyone who lies to me seriously. Ever. Ikanreed (talk) 14:50, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

Nigga, sexualization is going to happen. Period.

Y'all bitches seem to have a problem with female characters simply being in a relationship. I'm sorry, women are GOING to have boobs. Period

Also, how come you only talked about Jill in the first game, but not the latter? 108.219.226.24 (talk) 16:37, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

You say sexualization is inevitably going to happen. Why do you think sexualization is inevitable?

You say that we have a problem with women being in a relationship. I think the question is again one of scale: Why aren't as many men portrayed in video games as in relationships, or seeking relationships, as women? 32℉uzzy; 0℃atPotato (talk/stalk) 16:53, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

Alright, FuzzyCatPotato, you first...

Sexualization is going to happen because the basic body features that turn people on (depending on that person) are going to be on said character's design because that's how humans work. For example, Jill Valentine's design in RE: Revelations shows very little skin, but I still find that version of her attractive because of her slim body, and women just seem to have slim bodies. Regarding Lara Croft's original design, some women do have pointy boobs, and there are shirts for women that make their boobs, well, pointy.

Addressing your second point, it could simply be that most video game writers don't know how to write men wanting to be in a relationship or being the first to engage in a relationship. That's not to say there aren't men seeking relationships in games. CJ's girlfriend(s) in San Andreas, and you can tell from Nathan Drake's eyes when he first sees Chloe that he wants to do stuff... with her. 108.219.226.24 (talk) 17:31, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

Oh, shut up already. You're not helping at all, with your incoherent arguments. I'd say that the medium has progressed in many ways (You don't see stuff like Custer's Revenge being sold in mainstream vendors anymore) and regressed in others when comes to portraying believable characters of either binary gender. The "strong female character" has practically become a stock character in every medium by now, and has been since the 80s. There's no need to make such a fuss over this when characters of this mold like Caroline Becker and Tekla are in Triple-A games, no matter what either side wants to believe.--Madman (talk) 20:29, 17 January 2015 (UTC)The Madman

IMPORTANT REPORT

Goats! [4] [5]—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 03:37, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

I am grateful for this extremely important report. Abed Nadir (talk) 04:00, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

This is of vital importance and I put it on the RW twitter immediately - David Gerard (talk) 09:47, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

Articleworthy content here: "Gamergate and goats" -- or perhaps, "Gamergoat controversy". 32℉uzzy; 0℃atPotato (talk/stalk) 17:11, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

Man, r/trollshieldinginaction is sure pissed at you guys.

Keep it up, I'm getting prime hilarity rib here.--Madman (talk) 03:01, 19 January 2015 (UTC)The Madman

Yeah, they're pretty much pissed at us. Typhoon (talk) 03:04, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

Temporarily locked

I have temporarily locked this page at the administrator level. I am working on throwing some code together that should help deter these trolls. When the Filter is ready, I will unlock this page. Noisemobile (talk) 03:19, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

The new filter is in alpha testing mode. Let us now see what happens so we can improve it and give it some teeth. Hugh Jass (talk) 03:48, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

I must say, you came up with a working solution fast. Most likely not perfect, but there's a start.--Madman (talk) 03:58, 19 January 2015 (UTC)The Madman

I wouldn't call it "working" quite yet. Most of the posts about it working (like this one here) are me running it through testing and improving it based on what happens. 65.128.147.239 (talk) 04:01, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

Something about Grace Lynn

You already know my opinion at this point: I think this article is terrible. Want to make it better? Here you go: This and this should be incorporated. These links shine a bad light on both GamerGate and on certain persons affiliated with Anti-GamerGate, and they seem pretty trustworthy to me. --Norman (talk) 23:28, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

No one here is going to watch a 30 minute video, give us the cliffs notes.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 23:38, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

You know you can also just read the article, right? The one that doesn't include a video, right? You can already use this one as a source, but if you want to wait for me to have more spare-time on my hands, no problem. That's your article, after all. --Norman (talk) 06:45, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

This isn't an article. Its a series of tweets that say nothing. Zero ^{(talk - contributions)} 07:02, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

Lynn clearly says she wants to build a bridge towards GamerGate. --Norman (talk) 07:04, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

Firstly, that storify contains deleted tweets from November, before she got swatted. And I'm still not watching that video until you give me a rundown of the important points.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 07:26, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

I will. Next week. If I feel like it. Which will not be the case if you keep whining about how you don't have the time and patience to watch a thirty-minute video after spending billions upon billions of hours watching Feminist Frequency. Jesus! --Norman (talk) 22:10, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

Nice ad hom bro. I've never watched her videos.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 22:37, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

Not being able to differentiate between an ad hominem and plain being mocked is a beginners mistake. I honestly expected more, even from you. --Norman (talk) 05:33, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

Well that's where you were wrong, as Gamergate often is.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 07:21, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

To cite the article: "Creationists sometimes make the mistake of calling a personal insult an ad hominem attack when it is not intended to address the truth or falsity of the creationist's claim, but merely to denigrate the creationist." So even rationalwiki admits you're wrong. --Norman (talk) 14:10, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

Ask me how many fucks I give.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 19:51, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

"Ask me how many fucks I give about properly identifying logical fallacies on a wiki dedicated to identifying logical fallacies!" - None, apparently- --Norman (talk) 08:07, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

This is where this argument fell apart so clearly. Anything after this is a fruitless endeavor on your part. "Why won't you take time and effort to digest an argument I'm not even willing to summarize myself from an annoying and time-consuming source?" is a pretty problematic attitude. Ikanreed (talk) 20:02, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

So you think it's annoying to hear a transwoman talk? Frankly, I'm appalled and disgusted. No, but seriously: You fucked this article up, so I expect you to fix this. By linking these sources, I already helped you more than you deserve. --Norman (talk) 08:07, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

Listen here, the only reason that none of us want to watch this video you gave us with absolutely zero context is because it is a fucking half-hour of @pixelgoth talking freely. It has nothing to do with her being transgender. You tell us exactly you want us to take from that fucking video to incorporate into this page. We are not going to take these asinine Gamergate tactics on RationalWiki of just posting a link with no fucking context, because all I can gather from outside of this video is that she told Cathy Brennan to die or apparently some sort of personal feud she developed with Brianna Wu (and Randi Harper). What does any of that have to do with Gamergate? Again, what exactly do you want us to learn from that video that you want incorporated into this article?—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 09:28, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

So this very talk page has been featured on GamerGhazi

And it just figures it's the one time I'm not feeding the GG trolls. I COULDA BEEN REDDIT FAMOUS YOU GUYS!

Also hi anybody on Ghazi who's reading this. I lurk there all the freaking time. Abed Nadir (talk) 08:12, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

Proposed PC Gamer edit

In response to: "Also: Chrimony, you have your sources about how Gamergate apparently reformed PC Gamer. Can you reformulate them into an edit that we could add into the section for actual achievements of Gamergate? (Ie, write up text and put those in as references.) FuzzyDogPotato ☢ To generalize is to be an idiot. 20:37, 18 January 2015 (UTC)"

First, thank you for the offer. Here is the proposed edit:

On January 14, 2015, PC Gamer's Executive Editor, Tyler Wilde, drew the attention of GamerGate when he released an article criticizing the term "PC Master Race". Gamergater "The Fart Rises" subsequently found an undisclosed conflict of interest due to the fact that Wilde had been dating an Ubisoft employee while also writing about Ubisoft games. Wilde initially tried to hide the evidence. However, PC Gamer quickly owned up to its mistakes, issued an apology, and promised to avoid the conflict of issue in the future. Anti-Gamergaters, refusing to acknowledge Gamergate as anything but a hate mob, harshly criticized PC Gamer in response. However, PC Gamer Editor-in-Chief, Evan Lahti, stuck to his guns and responded, "We have a responsibility to admit our mistakes, even if we don't believe it was a felony." Chrimony (talk) 18:31, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

References

I've asked others to look over this edit, to verify if it is correct. Thank you for your time. 32℉uzzy; 0℃atPotato (talk/stalk) 18:41, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

This is a non-story that started after gators got incredibly mad at a journalist criticising the term "PC Master Race" and proceeded to launch an attempt at character assassination. Here's an important part that Chrimony for some reason omitted when describing the events. Emphasis is mine:

There'd been GG chatter for a while but it took me some time to find the actual post on PC Gamer , first five pages of a google search just kept returning Gamergate sites screaming about this as a massive victory of some sort, and given the sort of insane conspiracy theories flying around it, felt it bore looking into.

Apparently Tyler Wilde is in a relationship with a blogger for Ubisoft. As a result of this conflict he avoided reviewing Ubisoft games, but may have made a news post about them at some point, and to avoid the impression of any impropriety they're going to keep him personally from writing news for Ubisoft.

That's... kinda the entire story, actually. It's good of them to be more open, but it also seems to have been unnecessary in the circumstances. PC Gamer's policy has always been that significant relationships should be disclosed, so no change to their policies. The relationship was known about, so no reprimand to any parties for lack of discretion. There don't seem to be any significant cases of where a conflict might have affected coverage, so no stories redacted or anything. Just a minor reassignment of what one person covers due to their personal relationships, of the kind they already practiced by and large.

Typhoon (talk) 21:11, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

References

So, now the edit should look like this:

On January 14, 2015, PC Gamer's Executive Editor, Tyler Wilde, drew the attention of GamerGate when he released an article criticizing the term "PC Master Race".

Yep.

Gamergater "The Fart Rises" subsequently found an undisclosed conflict of interest due to the fact that Wilde had been dating an Ubisoft employee while also writing about Ubisoft games. Wilde initially tried to hide the evidence.

Nope. Instead: Gamergater "The Fart Rises" subsequently found a disclosed minor conflict of interest due to the fact that Wilde had been dating an Ubisoft public relations employee while reposting Ubisoft trailers and providing negative commentary on Ubisoft games.

However, PC Gamer quickly owned up to its mistakes, issued an apology, and promised to avoid the conflict of issue in the future.

Nope. Instead: PC Gamer issued an apology, promised to make Wilde's possible conflicts of interests more publicly known, and expand their current no-conflict-of-interest to prevent Wilde from covering any Ubisoft products.

Anti-Gamergaters, refusing to acknowledge Gamergate as anything but a hate mob, harshly criticized PC Gamer in response. However, PC Gamer Editor-in-Chief, Evan Lahti, stuck to his guns and responded, "We have a responsibility to admit our mistakes, even if we don't believe it was a felony."

Nope. Instead: And that was the end of it.

Weak sauce. 32℉uzzy; 0℃atPotato (talk/stalk) 22:33, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

FuzzyCatPotato, you challenged me, asked me for sources, and I provided them. So why have you now decided to remove the part where Wilde hid the evidence? Why are you deleting the documented reaction by anti-Gamergaters and the response from the Editor-in-Chief at PC Gamer? Where's *your* sources? The relationship was *not* disclosed, that's the complete opposite of the truth. Disclosure for journalism doesn't mean telling your boss, it means *telling your readers on the articles*. Ah, right, but I'm debating editors on the "rational" wiki. Take a drink. Chrimony (talk) 23:19, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

I removed the "Anti-Gamergaters, refusing to acknowledge Gamergate as anything but a hate mob, harshly criticized PC Gamer in response." part because it's unnecessary to understanding the situation -- the people are pointing out that this change is unbelievably minor (the ethics code for one person who reviews video games at one company where there were already extensive ethics code became slightly more stringent) and yet would legitimize all of the 'activism' Gamergate has done (LOOK WE ACHIEVED SOMETHING, LET'S DO IT AGAIN!!!1!). In fact, I would probably include it, because it's true, and because of the overblown reactions -- YOU SUPPORT CORRUPTION! THIS IS A MAJOR ISSUE FOR FREE SPEECH!

My sources are the one provided by Typhoon and the actual statement by the company, where it is pointed out that (1) their relationship was public and that (2) this change is incredibly minor. This would be like a New York Times editor, while reporting on Obama's work at the White House, having to disclose that her boyfriend works in the mail room there. Is that really relevant? Fuck no. Neither is girlfriend works at Ubisoft blog relevant to reposting Ubisoft videoes. 32℉uzzy; 0℃atPotato (talk/stalk) 02:20, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

We shouldn't even remotely bother listing anything "The Fart Rises" has done because he's an asshole who has repeatedly evaded bans on Twitter every time he is found to be posting someone's dox over and over.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 03:02, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

1) The actual statement by the company does not excuse non-disclosure on the articles, and they actually admit they didn't disclose: "What we ought to have done was remove him from all Ubisoft coverage, or disclosed his relationship as part of the stories he went on to write." How can you possibly be defending what happened as a "disclosed minor conflict" when the *reader* wasn't informed? Nevermind, I know, "rational" wiki. Take a drink. 2) As for removing the reactions, you deleted it because it makes anti-Gamergate look bad and it explicitly acknowledges that despite pressure, PC Gamer admits they really did make a mistake and were right to acknowledge it and fix it. There's plenty of stuff in the current article that claims to show "this is what Gamergate is really about" (paraphrasing), well now I'm showing what anti-Gamergate is really about. Even Ryulong confirms it by saying that nothing can be sourced to "an asshole". 3) Do you want to claim that this glowing preview of Watch Dogs is "reposting Ubisoft video"? https://archive.today/zCEQr Chrimony (talk) 04:01, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

This is yet again an example of someone's personal human relationship being picked apart by an angry mob that has no real place to discuss possible breaches of ethics when that should be up to the author, his or her editor, and the ombudsman of the company.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 06:40, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

AAA-game gets a needlessly optimistic preview!? An unimaginable occurence like this must be a conspiracy! Vulpius (talk) 07:05, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

I don't think you get it, Chrimony. Having a girlfriend who works another company and isn't at all related to the product being reviewed ISN'T a conflict of interest. And even if it is, somehow, a conflict of interest, it's not something that he hid; his relationship was quite public. And even if that isn't enough, their magazine already has an extensive policy against conflicts of interest, that already applied and is something that Gamergate should be pushing for in all magazines, that was extended to 1 more potential conflict of interest.

I think that I pointed out that I wouldn't be against including such comments, if not for the incredibly stupid and overblown spam talking points responses from Gamergate below.

You link doesn't work for me, but I found a video here. I apologize; I don't follow Gamergate, and I was wrong, this is more than a repost. That said, if he's going for a "glowing" review, he certainly could avoid the parts critiquing: how the character moves, how the combat works, how the structure of the game is try/fail/try again, how it fails to distinguish itself from Assasin's Creed or GTA, how the game breaks suspension of belief, and one of the game's multiplayer modes. The whole review is positive, overall; but if he's trying to help his girlfriend, why not go for a totally positive review?

About him taking down the video: This is great. Gamergaters go, "HEY LOOK A CONFLICT OF INTEREST!" And he says, "Well, sure, I'll avoid doing anything with Ubisoft" and removes the purported conflict-of-interest material. Then you go, "HEY! YOU REMOVED YOUR CONFLICT OF INTEREST MATERIAL! CENSORSHIP!" It's hilarious, because he obeyed Gamergate and now Gamergate is mad that he did. 32℉uzzy; 0℃atPotato (talk/stalk) 19:58, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

The publisher admits they fucked up, the SPJ code of ethics is very clear they fucked up, but I'm the one who doesn't get it? Or maybe, trigger warning: "rational thinking" (take a drink), your bias that GamerGate is nothing but a hate mob is clouding your judgment. You think it's somehow inconceivable that a person might have a bias when the girl they've been fucking for two years gets a job at a company they're supposed to be writing critically about? Do you know that he wrote the glowing preview article (http://www.pcgamer.com/watch-dogs-preview/) a week after she announced she was hired at Ubisoft? Do you know that he wrote 8 positive articles on Ubisoft titles since the hiring announcement? How many did he write beforehand? I searched hard, and I found one. And not only did he take down the video, he also changed his Facebook profile pic. But you're a skeptic, right? Take a drink. Chrimony (talk) 20:22, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

We should be skeptical of everything except accusations made by gators. Ha. Listen, PC Gamer found nothing wrong with those preview articles, otherwise they would be already taken down. And the guy was intentionally avoiding writing REVIEWS for Ubisoft titles even before you guys started attacking him. And yeah, Gamergate is a hate mob. For example, right now they're engaging in some really disgusting doxxing of wikipedia editors on their /gamergate/ board on 8chan. I'm sure you know about that board because one of you was complaining there not long ago about RationalWiki.Typhoon (talk) 20:36, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

So, you decided to include the Twitter responses from anti-Gamergaters after all, despite arguing against it in this proposal. Only you decided to exclude the PC Gamer response and end with "And... that's about it." In the discussion we had here, FuzzyCatPotato tried a somewhat neutral approach by just eliminating all responses, but I guess that wasn't good enough -- best to keep in the criticism without allowing right of reply, because they confirm there really was a disclosure problem and they were right to fix it. Oh yeah, and Ryulong deletes the primary source about this story, because he's an "asshole". Keep up the "good" work, guys. Chrimony (talk) 08:53, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

When someone's banned from Twitter 5 times for dropping dox I think that's asshole territory.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 09:28, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

Hey Chrimony, did you ever read that part of my post where I explicitly stated that I would consider including said Twitter responses because I thought they showed how crazy GG responses were? No? Too bad.

I'm sorry, how was the PC Gamer response relevant? PC Gamer said "we're changing policy". Critics said "that's legitimizing a hate mob" (not necessarily that the change should be undone). PC Gamer said "we're still changing policy". You paint this as PC Gamer fighting against corruption while anti-GGers support it, yet pretty much nobody on the anti-GG side is supporting corruption, and merely criticized this way of fighting corruption.

And now apparently PC Gamer's response proves that this corruption exists. Obviously, they thought so -- or else they wouldn't have changed their policy! (Hence, why the response is unnecessary even for your goals.) And yet, PC Gamer doesn't actually admit any rampant corruption or even that Wilde's writing was influenced by his relationship -- they just realized that their current anti-conflict-of-interest policy had let a singular case slip through the cracks, and fixed it.

Why doesn't GG, instead of fixating on 'a single couple, having sex and doing their jobs, and not making much money doing either, fixate on the vastly more massive corruption that large game-making companies produce in order to maximize their profits? (You know, like the people gamergate hates on do.) Surely that's a bigger issue, when mass-produced games making billions of dollars are misrepresented in order to mislead the public? Or is it all about sex, like it always has been? 32℉uzzy; 0℃atPotato (talk/stalk) 03:08, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

I guess I can reply to you since the ban from Ryulong has been lifted, either by him or somebody else. Sure makes it easier to silence debates when you can just ban people you're debating, right Ryulong? Too bad you can't do that on Wikipedia...any more...but I digress.

Fuzzy: The PC Gamer response is relevant because it shows that, despite strong criticism, they did not back down from their statement or decision. This is important in GamerGate, because there have been many times where that pressure resulted in some kind of waffling statement as a response (examples: Intel, Adobe).

"You paint this as PC Gamer fighting against corruption while anti-GGers support it": I paint it as I initially wrote in my proposal, and I still feel it is completely accurate and describes the situation perfectly: "Anti-Gamergaters, refusing to acknowledge Gamergate as anything but a hate mob, harshly criticized PC Gamer in response. However, PC Gamer Editor-in-Chief, Evan Lahti, stuck to his guns and responded, "We have a responsibility to admit our mistakes, even if we don't believe it was a felony." "

"Why doesn't GG, instead of fixating on 'a single couple, having sex and doing their jobs, and not making much money doing either, fixate on the vastly more massive corruption that large game-making companies produce in order to maximize their profits?" What do you know about their salaries? And why is that even important? And don't you realize that one of the parties benefiting from this corruption is Ubisoft, a "large game-making company"? You want to hand-wave it away as just some people having sex, but this point of view was already covered in our discussion when I brought up the analogous example of regulatory capture. You left that discussion when ran out of responses. This is corruption, it involves the biggest PC gaming journal (I believe) and one of the biggest publishers of video games (both console and PC). I would also like to mention that the Shadow of Mordor deal was first uncovered by TotalBiscuit, somebody pro-Gamergate and a YouTuber who declined that deal.Chrimony (talk) 08:57, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

I only blocked you for an hour. Get over yourself. Also, if you continue to be a prick about Wikipedia I will go through the unending red tape to actually ban you from here.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 10:09, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

The block listed no time duration. In any case, it's still an abuse of blocking privileges when you do so to shut down a debate. You've already admitted several days ago on Ghazi you wanted me banned, but they wouldn't let you. Chrimony (talk) 10:20, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

So now you're stalking him on other websites? That's some incredible butthurt you suffer from. Typhoon (talk) 10:32, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

Actually, it's the other way around. A Ghazi thread was created around one of my comments, somebody here mentioned it, and Ryulong posted in it. Plus another "Rational" (take a drink) user decided to create an entire page around the Ghazi strawman. Chrimony (talk) 13:48, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

That Ghazi thread was started long after multiple threads were started on 8chan's /gamergate/ board, some of them including direct links to Ryulong's edits, and where people admitted to posting on this talkpage. Unlike those threads, which were made in order to coordinate sealioning on RW, the Ghazi thread was created to make fun of the ongoing sealioning. How about instead of obsessing about Ryulong you go play some video games? Typhoon (talk) 15:03, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

I am not 8chan, did not come here as part of a coordinated effort, and have made every attempt to argue honestly. Also, instead of handing out blocks to me like special treats, how about you guys follow your own blocking policy, as admonished to by your fellow users? Chrimony (talk) 15:18, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

Now I wasn't inclined to block you before, but now I am. This "Follow your policies to any extreme (because I'm legalistically exploiting them)" shit throws all sorts of alarm bells for me. I'm not going to block you over it, because that would be A. Petty and B. denying you fair warning about that kind of behavior. But it does take an impression of "Boring sealioning user" and turn it into "malignant abusive sociopath." Ikanreed (talk) 15:23, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

The passive-aggressive slights in edit summaries kind of add to that picture. Queex_{chthonic murmurings} 15:26, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

(laugh) So complaining about abusive blocks, which your fellow, veteran users have warned you about, is now a reason for blocking. The "slights" in edit summaries: I've been called all sorts of names in the talk page and took them in stride. Also, the main page is full of snark against Gamergate. Deal with my "slights" or be a hypocrite. And as for "sealioning", I agree with this: http://knowyourmeme.com/photos/873279-sea-lioning Chrimony (talk) 16:10, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ You're called names because you're being kinda obnoxious. This is disconnected from the arguments you're making which have occasionally gotten as credible as to be called "merely disingenuous." Look. You're annoying and wasting editors' time and energy. The people commenting on Typhoon's talk page point out that this isn't a good reason to block a user. They're right. But you're wrong when you go "Oh little ol' me? What did I do to deserve it?" because you know better. Ikanreed (talk) 16:33, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

Salt mines

Apparently, our articles on Gamergate, Thunderf00t and Poland(?) are proof that we're SJW wiki.

There's also some anger in here Typhoon (talk) 15:53, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

There is an article at SJwiki - David Gerard (talk) 15:59, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

Is there literally any article whose subject we cover that doesn't immediately conclude that we're part of the hidden conspiracy to destroy them? Like seriously. Is this in any way different from any of the host of other articles on rationalwiki? I mean, that's one of those best tools for IDing the crazies in the first place, the way they view those that disagree with them as a singular monolith that's centered around their destruction. Ikanreed (talk) 16:25, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

Umberto Eco would add that to them we're an evil singular monolith that is both diabolically strong AND pathetically weak and disorganized. Typhoon (talk) 16:32, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

SJW origins / Wiki in Action / Archive link

Sorry, all of these got cut off from their parents. 32℉uzzy; 0℃atPotato (talk/stalk) 21:23, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

The rise and fall of the term "SJW" will never cease to amuse me. Originally, it was meant to describe a certain brand of tumblr users with a very vulgar understanding of social justice. Since then, it's been abused so much that right now anyone with views to the left of Mussolini is a SJW. First time I got called a SJW was when I pointed out that racial realism and racism is the same thing. Today it's a badge of honor to be called a SJW by the internet pitchfork mob. Typhoon (talk) 16:28, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

Wiki in action is going to be upset I'm only getting banned from articles I don't edit anymore.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 18:07, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

With an archive link, do try to inform me what I'm getting into so I don't open up *chan at work please. Thanks. Zero ^{(talk - contributions)} 18:33, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

Sorry for that, I assumed it was OK since I didn't saw anything NSFW in that one thread.Typhoon (talk) 20:15, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘*chan has a specific style. I don't want anybody going by and thinking "hey wait..." and thinking I'm somehow on 4c/b/ or something. Zero ^{(talk - contributions)} 07:00, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

u salty br0?

Another new salt mine opened at 8chan. Give it a rest, gators. Typhoon (talk) 20:57, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

Oh lovely. "Do to rationalwiki what we did to conservapedia." Can't wait, because protecting a page and clicking revert is soo hard. 32℉uzzy; 0℃atPotato (talk/stalk) 21:25, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

They think they killed conservapedia? That's just... sad. Unless one of them is Ken. I'm now imagining a Norse-style mead-hall bragging, where one stands up and says "I once smothered a coma patient on life support with a pillow, and while I couldn't actually finish them it was a mighty struggle". Ikanreed (talk) 21:28, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

and another. Typhoon (talk) 14:21, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

both 404's. Can you give the Reader's Digest version? AgingHippie (talk) 02:47, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

First and second Typhoon (talk) 15:12, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia arbitration decision

Probably worth adding to our Wikipedia section since it got notice in The Guardian. The article is not entirely accurate, since the bans haven't passed yet, all of the pro-GG lot save Masem got topic-banned as well, and two of the five page protectors are safe, but this is a clear case of GG abusing the system to remove its opposition to slanting its own article. Also, I'm inclined to agree with the Ghazi users who got upset that TaraInDC was the only one of the five judged solely for being "uncivil" and just so happens to be the sole female username among the lot, but I would appreciate any input from anyone more versed in Wikipedia law.Colossal Squid (talk) 20:30, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

I'm a little miffed at them for giving anything to an intentional campaign to create a misleading article, as it's a bit like negotiating with terrorists, but they're doing their best. Ikanreed (talk) 21:53, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

Mark Bernstein, who Alex Hern cribbed from, was exaggerating a bit. I just hope they'll let me keep writing about Japanese pop culture and my favorite TV shows.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 02:32, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

IIRC Mark when writing that was referring to an earlier version of the voting that lacked the most notorious GG-POV pushers such as Loganmac. Typhoon (talk) 13:29, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

It might be worth it to discuss it in some fashion, particularly how the news and a good portion of the Wikipedia community responding to the news have seen how fucking myopic the arbitration decision was considering there are zombie accounts going "Wow, you fucked up by letting Gamergate even remotely win", but it would be wrong for me to write that information.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 10:14, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, the "negotiating with terrorism" principle is going to be a serious specter here. I've editted wikipedia all of 3 times in the past year(adding neat facts from random journal articles, just like here, only with less POV), so for all intents and purposes I'm dead there, but I can't help but see it as a betrayal of the community. Telling long-term, extremely helpful, contributors to permanently stay away from their areas of expertise to suit some intentionally manipulative assholes abusing the rules is no way to run a wiki. Ikanreed (talk) 15:57, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

I like how when ArbCom does the barest possible minimum to enforce the rules it's "negotiating with terrorism". Chrimony (talk) 17:10, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

The principle in question being that if people abuse a process, and it works, it creates incentive to do it again. I'm not really interested in a direct comparison to terrorism, and you're a douchebag to pretend it's such. And you're free to a delusional world where an organized campaign to abuse wikipedia's rules didn't exist, but spare me your explanation, I'm already aware of your lack of concern for honesty. Ikanreed (talk) 17:25, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

(laugh) You guys made the direct comparison to terrorism, not me. I just called you out on it. Either ArbCom got fooled, or you're trying to give a pass to the anti-GamerGaters because the other side were "terrorists". As for lack of concern for honesty, that's projection on your part. Chrimony (talk) 19:44, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

What's with gamergate people and not getting metaphor, from the "gamers are dead" nonsense reaction, to this, it's just so much obtuse misrepresentation. Well congratulations on defeating my words as though they were literal even when explicitly surrounded by quotes. You sure "called me on it". Ikanreed (talk) 19:49, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

What's with anti-Gamergate people feeling the need to compare Gamergate people as "terrorists"? And then feigning innocence when I throw the same quoted phrase back in their face? And how do you think a phrase like "feminists are dead" would have been received by feminists (whatever their stripe) and the mainstream media? Chrimony (talk) 21:37, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

Oh shut up. I didn't even miscommunicate here. You just willfully misunderstood me. I'm not sure what you intend to accomplish on this page. Ikanreed (talk) 21:51, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

Section is up for polishing. Colossal Squid (talk) 07:37, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

Gamersgate

From the article:

It should not be confused with GamersGate,[wp] a Swedish online video game store who are less than delighted that misogynist trolls have trashed their brand, which unintentionally made people angry at them.[291]

Two things. One, that's a pretty big understatement. People weren't "angry at them", they insulted and threatened them. Second, these people didn't do it "unintentionally". They targeted GamersGate, they hit GamersGate, they just didn't bother to check twice whether their target was actually a GamerGate supporter. --Norman (talk) 11:48, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

Now, it's completely ambiguous who these "uninformed" people that attacked GamersGate are. My bet is that no one who doesn't already know the backstory will get it. Good job changing one problem for another. --Norman (talk) 22:55, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

Nowhere in the article you linked were they described as feminists, as you claimed in your edit. The current versions is accurate. Typhoon (talk) 23:40, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

The current version is accurate, but the version I commented on was utter crap. Yes, the link doesn't say that feminists did it, but it was not a far stretch and this article set the bar for making accurate claims really, really low. --Norman (talk) 07:05, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

It was a huge stretch which is common to hear when dealing with paranoid gators who only see the world in a black and white way and assume that everyone who is against them is automatically a feminist. Typhoon (talk) 09:15, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

Academic coverage

[6] - paywalled, requested - David Gerard (talk) 21:24, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

Got it. Email me through the wiki and I'll send you the PDF. AgingHippie (talk) 21:29, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

Got it from /r/scholar :-) [7][8] Now to see if it's actually useful ... - David Gerard (talk) 21:45, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

Detailed timeline of Gamergate, with sources

Link We should add to our article anything that we missed. Typhoon (talk) 00:10, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

More Link I agree. --Norman (talk) 07:07, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

Sorry, we need things based in reality and not the Goofy Gopher narrative. Particularly not a timeline that uses the phrase "The In-n-Out Edition" and doesn't mysteriously end the day that Anita Sarkeesian had her interview with Colbert.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 07:54, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

I agree. We should stick to facts and not whatever that thing Norman linked is, as it intentionnaly skips over many horrible events that Gamergators don't want to admit happened. Typhoon (talk) 09:11, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

First, nice style over substance-fallacy there. Second, just because the timeline has shortcomings - like every source, really - does not mean it's entirely factually wrong. The fact that you dismiss it out of hand instead of taking a critical look at it shows your complete lack of dedication to rationalism. --Norman (talk) 12:01, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

A source that selectively omits incidents that reflect poorly on one side, however, can certainly be disregarded. Do you just not get that we're not 'biased', we're not 'irrational', we've just seen enough to recognise horse-shit when someone's shovelling it at us. And why the strange focus on rationalism? It is, at best, only a third of the answer to intelligent living. Rationalism, empiricism, introspection. It doesn't matter how much of the first you do if you ignore the others. _{If your brother's like you, better to marry a pig.} Queex_{chthonic murmurings} 13:23, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

And you think the timeline that you copypasted is that much more trustworthy? It isn't. Look at the entry for Dec. 10, for example. The timeline says that Shanley pointed out sexism and was attacked for this. However, if you read Yiannopoulos article, it quickly becomes apparent that Shanley didn't "point out sexism", but rather repeatedly insulted other Twitter users in the most childish ways imaginable and even implied that white males (specifically white males) are all rapists or potential rapists, which qualifies as offensive in my book.

The entry for Jan. 16 is even better. Never heard the term "partial dox" before, for one. What's worse, however, is that the stated source doesn't support the statement that Shanley or her family were doxxed. All she said was that she was preparing for an attack. That's all. What the timeline is doing is akin to confusing someone buying a home-defense shotgun with someone being robbed. Two different things. It's also worth noting out that even journalists sympathetic to Shanley regard her behavior as a bit... problematic?

Those were just two shortcomings of the timeline that caught my eye. I'm sure I'd find a dozen more if I was actively searching for them. How many did you find? I bet not a single one. Still, you expect me to trust your judgement of the credibility of a source? We can talk about that as soon as you start critically examining your own sources.

Speaking of omission of incidents that reflect badly on you, Lizzyf620 has recently been doxxed. The timeline likely just hasn't been updated since then, to be fair. In any case, however, this incident along with her response deserve mentioning. --Norman (talk) 18:25, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

You know, there's writing four paragraphs of whining that someone else should do your work for you, and then there's hitting "edit". But do feel free to keep doing the former - David Gerard (talk) 19:45, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

"Edit it yourself, gator!" - Great idea. --Norman (talk) 15:50, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

Reaxxion is run by Roosh V.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 04:03, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

For the love of God, read the article on what constitutes an argumentum ad hominem already! You seem to have absolutely no idea what constitutes one, despite it being the most basic fallacy out there. --Norman (talk) 15:50, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

The most basic fallacy is the non sequitur, being that all fallacies derive something that does not follow from the established premises(just in different ways). And, I'd remind you, that when it comes to discussing a movement, looking to what it has done as a means to judge the group is perfectly reasonable. You don't go accusing our Nazi page as being full of ad homenimems, e.g.. Fallacies only matter in the context of constructing arguments to demonstrate a point. If the point itself is ad hominem, it's a valid construct.

More to the point, you've narrowed yourself into the fallacy fallacy, wherein you see something that resembles a logical fallacy in form, and immediately conclude that an entire set of ideas can be disregarded, when that's not how fallacies work. Ikanreed (talk) 16:20, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

Where did I dismiss an entire set of ideas™? I merely dismissed Ryulongs argument that Reaxxion, as a source, can be disregarded solely because it's run by Roosh V. I see no fallacy-fallacy there.

Point taken about the non sequitur being the most basic fallacy. --Norman (talk) 16:52, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

Where did I say anything except the fact he owns the site?—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 19:10, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

Believe it or not, but there's this thing called "context". When you say that you're against abortion, and then I call you a fucking idiot, then everyone in his right mind would assume that I'm pro-choice, because my statement doesn't stand in isolation, whether I want it or not. So please, forgive me for assuming that what my discussion partners say is somehow related to the discussion. --Norman (talk) 20:16, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

Oh fine. The site is poorly cited and does little to establish fact while clearly coming from a biased, misinformation place, and has no qualified authority by which to stand on it's own. Ikanreed (talk) 20:20, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

Thanks! The article in question did cite her tweets, however, and at least the part about people who sympathize with Kane criticizing her did link to another website to support this claim. Still, point taken. I'll consider it when I decide to edit the article again. --Norman (talk) 21:24, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

I've contacted the author of the timeline and recieved permission from him to copy it here. It can be now found here. Typhoon (talk) 15:37, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

Excellent :-) I would go through and reference-check the lot, but that's a valuable addition - David Gerard (talk) 15:52, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

r/KotakuInAction is, as expected, stalking Ryulong on RationalWiki.

Link here. The guy who submitted it also seems to have problems with mixing up dates. Typhoon (talk) 15:24, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Lost his sysops? To go full 2002 on them: nooo they be stealin' my bucket! But seriously. Ryulong's still a sysop. How do these guys have such difficulty with easily verified facts? Ikanreed (talk) 15:32, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

They were probably browsing Ryulong's user talk page, saw a reference to removing rights, and either didn't bother to check or didn't know how. They may also think that sysopship here works as on Wikipedia.--ZooGuard (talk) 15:38, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

I wonder how many of them watch this page. It's not hard to imagine Chrimony and Norman, being single purpose editors, probably tie back to KotakuInAction, but do you think they collectively give a shit about rationalwiki? Ikanreed (talk) 15:43, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

The troof must be heard. Like their complaints that GreenNinja on RangerBoard is a filthy SJW for locking down a thread started by a Gargle Grumpus who wanted to praise Wikipedia for banning me.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 20:56, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

I know they're stalking you. I'm wondering if they care about rationalwiki. Ikanreed (talk) 21:01, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

I think most people don't give a shit. If they did, you would see edits discussed more often. The general consensus seems to be that RationalWiki is just an agenda site infected by social justice warriors, and hence written off. Chrimony (talk) 22:34, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Now why can't you go away too? Ikanreed (talk) 22:38, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Why do you bother working on the article if it convinces no one? --Someon (talk) 08:55, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

It's useful and convincing to lots of people, just ones whose joined-up thinking skills outstrip those of a gator - David Gerard (talk) 11:58, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

Further, RW is here to document and expose. Convincing people isn't exactly a mission statement. --Castaigne (talk) 02:07, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

What I love is when someone starts griping about a GG article, trying to play the whole 'I'm just trying to be reasonable in the face of bias, if you really cared about being rational etc. etc. etc.', and inevitably the mask slips and they shit the bed with a reply like Chrimony's. It's delicious. Queex_{chthonic murmurings} 20:16, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

Of course, you almost never need that. On any wiki, but particularly this one, you can spot the people who have made hundreds of edits, but edited exactly one page. I don't deny the theoretical possibility of someone doing that legitimately(some wikipedia editors have some... obsessions) or that many people cover their tracks by making the occasional edit to something else loosely related. But it tends to stand out when people express no interest in the wiki's purpose, but are instead concerned with some kinda PR... thing for a specific idea. It's a very distinct character from the more respectable nobses and nuttys who care about the wiki as a whole, but will still be very contentious in alleging that things need to change. Ikanreed (talk) 20:28, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

It's more the erosion of plausible deniability. Sure, it's easy to tell when they're single-purpose and swimming against the tide, but their modus operandum is to at least present an earnest front. Hence the dicking about with the edit summary - it winds people up but in a place that won't be seen by anyone driving by the conversation. It's low-tier needling, so that they can continue to claim that they were completely reasonable in the face of hostility. It doesn't really fly, of course, but it's satisfying to see them finally balls up their front in the talk page itself. Queex_{chthonic murmurings} 20:36, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, but it's not like we're going to ban people who are honest about their motives any more than those that aren't. Ikanreed (talk) 20:37, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

Weird. I'm not sure how my comment "unmasks" me as... I dunno, could you tell me? It's been obvious all along that I came here because of GamerGate, and I've been making it clear all along what I thought of the site ("rational", take a drink). Chrimony (talk) 22:20, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

They hate this article lots and lots, and complain about RW a lot on Twitter. Apparently RationalWiki used to be good until it was taken over by Atheism Plus, now it's a cultural marxist joke like Wikipedia and you should stick to reliable sources like ED - David Gerard (talk) 11:57, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

Thanks to Trollshield in Action, I am now aware of Ryulong's ED page and his bullshit abuse-of-power antics on Wikipedia unrelated to this shit. At this point, I've resolved to leave him mostly alone as with Rob.--Madman (talk) 00:22, 30 January 2015 (UTC)The Madman

(◡ ‿ ◡ ✿)—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 08:03, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

Fascinating, did not know that. брэндэн (talk) 05:33, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

Shameful

Ryulong updated the Gamergate article to make TotalBiscuit look like a villain for trying to help a charity, which he is a partner of, by retweeting a Tweet for a charity stream that asked to be retweeted/"signal boosted". TotalBiscuit ended up getting a bunch of nasty tweets sent his way, including some hoping that his cancer would kill him. But Gamergate is the hate mob, right? Chrimony (talk) 13:24, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

Yes. See https://twitter.com/Spacekatgal/status/561544045001179137 for example. You seem to gloss over the part where the the organiser of the charity event was upset that TB might drag his fanbase over and ruin it, and upset at TB's behaviour. That is not a hate mob, dumbass. If TB doesn't want to look like a villain, perhaps he should should act a little less like one. My name is feared in every dirty corner of this island. Queex_{chthonic murmurings} 13:52, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

You think the organizer's response somehow makes TotalBiscuit looks bad instead of the other way around? He asked for a retweet/boost, he got it. His response was to insult TotalBiscuit in a racist way: "oh jesus fuck I got retweeted by Almost Cracker". Any rational (take a drink) charity would have been thrilled when somebody with 400k followers tweeted their event. And are you really saying a bunch of people wishing TotalBiscuit dies from cancer or other hateful remarks is not a hate mob? And your link to an elaborate troll or nutcase (who knows which?) as a counter-argument to call Gamergate a hate mob... um, no. Chrimony (talk) 15:08, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

He didn't ask TotalBiscuit for a retweet. He put out a general call for retweets. He was then worried when a known apologist for GG retweeted on the basis of what turned out to be well-founded fears that the shitlords would descend. Of course, documenting the actual conversions that took place on twitter is clearly a troll or nutcase, because only trolls or nutcases argue using facts, clearly. Words have meanings, you know. And no comment on the GG supporter who flipped his car while trying to drive to someone's house to challenge them to a drag race, and wanted to bring along armed back-up? I imagine even you would have difficulty trying to turn that one around. Man, you're pitiful. There are no clever moves that can save you now. Queex_{chthonic murmurings} 15:13, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

Queex, you made an error. Clever moves don't save Chrimony. He hasn't used them at all. Firm denial and changing the subject will work as well now as they have in the past 10 conversations. Ikanreed (talk) 15:25, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

Relevant. Vulpius (talk) 15:37, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

I didn't say he asked TB to retweet, but as you note, is was a general call to retweet. So TotalBiscuit generously did so, giving him publicity to 400k followers, something any rational (take a drink) charity would be thankful for. In response, he was insulted in a racist manner, publicly, on Twitter. There is no excuse for that. If he had a problem, he could have directly contacted TB and asked him to take down his tweet, and that likely would have been the end of it. TotalBiscuit responded pretty tamely considering how rude they were about him, and without asking his followers to do anything. This was framed as, 'Totalbiscuit comes in to terrorize my friends.'. If you want to see some real shitlords descending, here they are: http://i1.kym-cdn.com/photos/images/original/000/889/685/c3d.jpg That hate mob was anti-Gamergate.

And I did respond to your "drag race" example, but apparently your reading skills aren't up to par. Try reading again, it was the last sentence. Chrimony (talk) 19:36, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

What? Labelling it as 'an elaborate troll or nutcase' somehow exculpates the movement he claimed to be a part of? By that logic, GG is nothing but nutcases - he fits right in with everything its supporters have been doing from day 1. Now I know what filth and stupidity really are. Queex_{chthonic murmurings} 19:49, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

You're trying to paint a movement of thousands of people by the actions of a deranged individual who was notorious even before Gamergate, and by extension calling the entirety a 'hate mob'. When in reality, you've been presented with documented evidence of an actual hate mob against a man whose 'crime' was to try to help a charity in a way that any rational (take a drink) charity would have been grateful for. You've ignored the racist and public insult that this help was met with. You've ignored that if there was any concern, it could have been dealt with privately instead of rudely and publicly. You've presented no evidence of anything comparable to the hate TotalBiscuit received beyond an unrelated threat against Brianna Wu. Yet I'm the one in 'firm denial' and 'changing the subject'. Chrimony (talk) 21:14, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

No, you see the fact that he has associated himself with Gamergate and the only thing Gamergate has done is simultaneously praise him and make fun of him is the problem. TotalBiscuit's problem is that he gets offended easily and sends his 400 thousand flying monkeys to do his bidding. He is either completely ignorant of what he is doing or he is a massive liar and takes pleasure in the fact that he knows his followers are a bunch of asshole sheep who have mostly associated themselves with Gamergate. And what the hell is this "racist comment" you keep bringing up? "Almost Cracker" is supposed to be a take on "Total Biscuit" by picking words with similar meanings. "Cracker" is not a slur in this context, you dumbfuck.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 23:29, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

Again a recurring theme of GamerGate people is having inexplicable difficulty with metaphorical language. I have a theory but it's conjecture at best. I don't understand not understanding metaphorical language. It's really baffling, unless it's purposeful to be obtuse. Ikanreed (talk) 03:35, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

I understand the play on words. However, there is also the racial slur associated with cracker. Normally I'd give the benefit of the doubt with regards to these kinds of things, but this is coming from the same crowd that thinks racism and sexism can't exist towards white men and who also have a fixation on "white patriarchy" and "checking your privilege". As such, I have little doubt this was an intentional double entendre.

Even if I ignore the racial angle, the fact remains he publicly insulted TotalBiscuit for doing as asked and what any rational charity would have been glad about. All because he's part of a hypersensitive crowd that have bought into the delusional narrative that thousand of gamergaters are a hate mob and would have intentionally ruined his charity stream. Even with this fear, instead of acting like an adult, assuming a little good faith on TotalBiscuit's part, and privately asking him to take down the tweet, he publicly insulted him for it. And the documented evidence is that anti-Gamergate (yes, they exist, and you're part of it) turned out to be the hate mob. Chrimony (talk) 05:35, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

You are just a fucking idiot. "Cracker" is a play on words. And even then it is the weakest fucking racial slur there is out there. No white person has intense feelings of dread for being called a "cracker". And it doesn't matter what he did. He didn't want TB involved. TB sicced his 400k followers on them for having revealed that they don't want TB's involvement because of his association with Gamergate. And you are a complete fucking moron if you think "anti-Gamergate" is an organized thing that collectively decided to call out TB. Everyone in that fucking screencap collage is obviously responding to what TB did to Durp's stream, calling him out for his shit behavior and his association with Gamergate that he constantly staunchly refuses to acknowledge is a thing. Chrimony, if you have anything to contribute to the article, present it. Otherwise stop repeating Gamergate's talking points every single fucking time you see this page is changed.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 08:04, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

Chrimony, Chrimony, Chrimony. When the fuck will you get it through your thick fucking skull that there is no such thing as "Anti-Gamergate". No one is for corruption in video game journalism. People are against harassment of women, LGBT people, and non-white people. No amount of screencaps of fucking morons attacking TB will prove that "anti-Gamergate" exists. It is an invention by Gamergate to come up with some word to call the people they have spent the past half a year harassing and browbeating into silence. TotalBiscuit, no matter how many times he can say he has an IQ of 155, is a fucking moron if he doesn't realize that he is part of Gamergate because he certainly isn't a moron when it comes to using his following on Twitter to skew Reddit in his favor. He knows he has 350 thousand idiots following him who will do whatever he wants even if he doesn't explicitly ask them for it. So he knows that his involvement with in the stream of a couple of friends would go horribly and even if the person who ran the stream wasn't level headed when he found out TB signal boosted him but how would you react when you were just planning on having at most maybe 100 people show up and then you have TotalBiscuit's dough headed army descending upon you?—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 20:00, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

You say that he should be thrilled when somebody with 400k followers tweeted their event. I disagree entirely. I don't care if the American Family Association has a million followers, I don't want those Christofascist cockmongers retweeting my charity event. I'm not interested in being associated with them. Sorry, broheim, but you can't dissociate the assfucks that infest your 'movement' from everyone else. --Castaigne (talk) 02:15, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

By that logic, the charity stream organizers are themselves irrevocably tainted by the "assfucks" wishing TotalBiscuit's cancer would kill him: http://i1.kym-cdn.com/photos/images/original/000/889/685/c3d.jpg Chrimony (talk) 02:56, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

Chrimony, out of the 31 tweets in that image only 2 of them refer to John Bain's battle with cancer.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 05:19, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for illustrating my point. The behavior of a handful of trolls are being used to smear a movement of thousands of people. Yet when I apply the same logic to a group you favor, you suddenly figure out the logical fallacy. TotalBiscuit's ~400k followers are not a hate group. The vast majority of them were there before Gamergate. There hasn't even been a single, documented Tweet comparable to the kind of hate TotalBiscuit received in this dustup, yet TotalBiscuit is being made to look like a villain for trying to help out a charity. Chrimony (talk) 15:17, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

It's not illustrating your point. TB is a Gamergate figurehead and the fact that he tweeted something already destroyed by Gamergate to his half a million followers who are already his flying monkeys ready to attack on his whims but they also include gators is what Durp was afraid of. Your shitty screen cap from Gamergate haven Know Your Meme of a bunch of people reacting to TB's actions following having sent his army after Durp and his friends for not wanting to be associated with TB's mindless bro army which also happens to include gators that has only 2 carefully selected screen caps where two people that Gamergate would consider "anti-gamer" or whatever the term is saying horrible things about his battle with cancer do not an angry hate mob make when there were at the time threads on GamerGhazi officially condemning the handful of people making such awful statements rather than there being absolutely no threads on KotakuInAction condemning absolutely any of the horrible garbage that passes for standard operating procedures on Twitter when it comes to gators saying trans women should kill themselves or repeatedly referring to transgender persons by their former names that had been dug up through extensive doxing or condemning the actions of anything that goes on on 8chan because it's not on the Gamergate boards even though anyone with half a brain can see that the only people getting attacked there just happen to be what Gamergate considers to be their enemies of the moment. So really, drop it with this ancient by Internet standards fallacy that anti-Gamergate is a thing and it's just as bad as Gamergate when Gamergate regularly does things so egregiously worse and doesn't own up to it when "anti-Gamergate" has to officially condemn things that they know are bad because Gamergate will leap on it to show that there are two sides doing awful things when it's one group being incredibly awful and everyone else trying to get them to realize how awful they are. But I know that this is a fruitless endeavor because here you are doing the exact same shit as I've seen since September and you will stick to your ideals like scientoligists, racists, 9/11 jet fuel can't melt steel beams-ers, Obama wasn't born in America-ers, anti-vaxxers, creationists, the anti-GMO crowd, and every other pseudoscience or anti-progressive garbage that is covered on this website because that is exactly what Gamergate falls into since the start. It was all predicated on the mob's interpretation of an abusive ex's ramblings that he never bothered to correct until it got out of hand for him and he got taken into court.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 20:09, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

Holy shit can you come up with anything fun for once?—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 19:14, 2 February 2015 (UTC

An observation, an honest question, and a request

Observation

1. Both sides of this "debate" are shrill shits who exult in fighting with each other.
2. The SJWs holding court here are newish users who came to RW bringing this shit disreputable RC clogging shit with them.
3. They 're acting like this is their own house. It's not. This shit sandwich of an extremist fight is their own.

Question

What do you people get out of this? What allure is there in conducting a scorched earth war against people who listen to you as little as you listen to them.

Request

Please take it to Twitter if you like it public. You could take it to email. Or set up your own wiki for zero dollars. Shit, I'll host it for you. Whatever it is, fuck off. And unfortunately, the only way for all of you to fuck off, is if the very small number of dicknuts drawing the "gators" here to poke them with sticks fuck off first. Thanks. Nutty Roux (talk) 03:26, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

Not to mention the actual page is an unreadable mess, the talk-page is locked (ostensibly due to spam, but perhaps really for other reasons...) and the behaviour of the editors that frequent this page makes me feel that the contents may not be %100 accurate. Tielec01 (talk) 04:55, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

Given that the RW community has generally had a reputation as a place with a fairly progressive viewpoint that tries to see things in terms of the little guy/girl/whatever-pronoun-you-use I find it really hard to think of a reason why Gamergate and what it's done to women isn't well within our purview, especially given the tech and tech culture dimensions of the story. That doesn't mean I like it, or the people it's brought here, but I can't say it doesn't belong here.

Maybe I'd be more enthused if I could knowledgeably contribute, but given that the last video game I played was DOOM, and that was 20 years ago (!) there's so much I don't know about gaming going in, and I'm really not interested in that particular learning curve at this point in my life. And it. 's not like there aren't a bunch of other equally important important debates and activist opportunities pulling at my time.

That said, how could in NOT have ended up here? Gamergate has metastasised across the internet, hitting all platforms: Twitter, Tumblr, Facebook, even Wikipedia, fer chrissakes, like anyone reads that any more. Given our community, our demographic proximity to our collective mothers' basement, did anyone think RW could keep it at bay? Peace. AgingHippie (talk) 05:14, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

I avoided mentioning that. But the reality is that I am a horrible person open to attack for being a dick and a hypocrite and awful and this page is a testament of a vicious fight between vicious factions who get up each morning to check their phones to see if the vicious fight ensues. Why are we hosting this? And to be clear, this isn't about the article, lest I be called an MRA. It's about the shitbirds bringing this disreputable nonsense here. Nutty Roux (talk) 05:20, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

The talk page is locked because BoNs posted links to child porn. The legibility of this page is something you can fix. And much of the rest of the complaints of Nutty Roux and Tielec01 I guess concern me and let me just say I signed up on RW in December and this page was here since October. Arguably, my presence has drawn in a small number of people here solely to get my goat because they managed to get me banned from Wikipedia for not playing nice with them but that's neither here nor there.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 05:23, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

And what has happened since you signed up? That's an extraordinarily weak response. Nutty Roux (talk) 05:25, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

I've worked on this page and got someone you were enabling banned from the site for being a horrible person. Really, all I've done is expand this article using the research that comes my way on my Twitter feed and yelled at people who are here for the sole purpose of trolling me and pushing long debunked garbage. It would be no different if you were talking about some Ron Paul e-fellater or an anti-GMO pusher who still believes that whatshisface totally didn't purposefully seed his field with illegally obtained GMO crops and got sued for it. I can't remember his name but it's somewhere on the site.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 05:26, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

Oh? I Enabled someone? Do you mean to say that in the sense that you think I agree with what this person was saying and wanted to promote it? Nutty Roux (talk) 05:31, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

How else do you explain what happened with our "Exiled" friend?—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 07:46, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

Weren't you agreeing with Exiled Encyclopedia and his stance? --Castaigne (talk) 15:41, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

No, he (among others) believed that EE shouldn't have been blocked just for making poor quality edits and doing weird things with categorization. When the doxxing came out, you'll note Nutty changed his vote to a block (as did many others). - Grant (talk) 16:04, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

I would have categorized his edits as far more egregious than poor quality. I would characterize them as downright untruthful. --Castaigne (talk) 16:27, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

Maybe so, but RW's policy as it stands has not been to block editors on those grounds. Whether that policy is right or not is another question entirely, but characterizing Nutty as enabling EE for that is inaccurate. - Grant (talk) 16:34, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

and never mind the bit where Ryulong and I were both 100% correct about him, it's the journey not the destination - David Gerard (talk) 17:24, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

Forgive me if I'm misunderstanding where you're coming from here, but Ryulong brought up the accusation that Nutty was enabling EE. This (and EE's behaviour at the time this discussion happened) is what I was referring to, and what's ultimately relevant here. I'm not sure why you and Ryulong ultimately being right would justify calling Nutty an enabler. Note that until the doxxing issue came up, the majority of editors who voted on that discussion did not vote for a block, rather just a removal of sysop powers. - Grant (talk) 17:47, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

Your points 1 and 2 there are hogwash, mate. It kind of undermines the rest of your tone trolling. Queex_{chthonic murmurings} 10:12, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

Indeed. Those claims are factually inaccurate and look very like balance fallacy. Halfway to crazytown isn't balance. FORTUNATELY WE HAVE AN EXCEEDINGLY WELL-REFERENCED ARTICLE ON THE SUBJECT AT HAND ... - David Gerard (talk) 11:52, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

I'm not talking about the article. I'm talking about your buddy Ryulong you're enabling to hold court here and use this talk page as his own battleground. And the few others who routinely jump in to fight with people who don't care what they say. Queex, learn what tone trolling is. I'm talking about the state of a talk page. And frankly, there's nothing wrong with commenting on a person's tone if you're not trying to change their message, which I'm not. I agree with the underlying basis of much of what Ryulong argues. Nutty Roux (talk) 16:58, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

"your buddy Ryulong" is about like "your buddy EE" - David Gerard (talk) 17:24, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

The problem being imagined alliances between editors don't help anyone figure out anything, right? Ikanreed (talk) 17:34, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

"your buddy Ryulong you're enabling to hold court" So you say that Ryulong is one of those you accuse of being a SJW? What the hell is your definition of a SJW? Typhoon (talk) 18:48, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

How does telling people to "fuck off" not constitute trying to change their message on this site? But I'll even concede the point if it induces you to argue on the facts instead of picking nits. Your observation #1 is pure garbage, the sort I'd expect from a die-hard #GGer, and balance fallacy unworthy of RW. Your observation #2 implies that any new editor with an interest in the topic is editing purely to attract the shitlords, which is garbage that claims to read people's minds. Your observation #3 tries to claim that discussion of #GG in general is some sort of fight between extremist positions, which I guess is news to all the media sources who have covered it, those in the industry, and indeed anybody who been paying even the briefest attention to the whole mess. I genuinely don't understand why you're so invested in that untenable point of view. I can understand #GGers themselves trying to play that angle, I can understand people who've not read up on it being fooled into thinking that's the position, but I've never seen anyone try to take that position who wasn't one or the other. As for why people might edit on the sujbect? I would have thought the fact that it was a well-documented example of a conspiracy theory, with added broscience, misogyny, harassment and general internet arse-gravy, was entirely relevant to RW, particularly given how it dovetails with recent revelations about sexual harassment and sexism within the broader sceptical community. Queex_{chthonic murmurings} 21:41, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

this is kind of a separate topic now

I've personally never heard of this whole 'Gamergate' thing before, but on reading (a few parts) of this (horribly clogged) article, it seems to me that the whole moniker is just kind of incorrect. There is no such thing as "gamergate" doing or saying anything, it's just a bunch of wackos who say offensive things while claiming some kind of vague ideological connection to Gamergate. There isn't really a 'organized Gamergate', is there? Just like a terrorist claiming to be aligned to Al-Qaida doesn't make him an 'Al Qaida member" or Al Qaida responsible for his deeds. Now, as a new member of the site and an European, maybe this whole gamergate is VERY IMPORTANT over in the US or for Rationalwiki, but wouldn't a more condensed version of this article be a lot more readable and understandable, especially for people who are not yet/barely informed about Gamergate? It seems unneccessary to report every hateful tweet here, just like it would be odd to report évery oddball statement Geert Wilders makes, right? Just thought I'd share my thoughts on the topic, excuse me for mangled English (InsertOpinion) (talk) 12:11, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

At its inception, it definitely was an orchestrated campaign. It's since attracted a great many flies and become much more diffuse. For the purposes of RW, the article could certainly do with thinning out at some point, but for the time being it's one of the most exhaustive (and exhaustively referenced) summaries available anywhere so I'd be reluctant to distil it. Queex_{chthonic murmurings} 12:56, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

Insertopinion your comments are apt. There is definitely a rationalwiki article here, rampant misogyny, racism and unexamined prejudice. It's just that this article is quite frankly confusing and jumbled. Ryulong is right to challenge me to fix it but the problem is that it's so detailed I would not even know where to begin.

It needs a synopsis and section breaks that makes sense. It also needs some dispassionate eyes to determine what is acceptable snark and what is taking pot shots at 'the enemy'. Nutty is right that this isn't going to happen while all the players have a battle ground mentality. ( on a smartphone do forgive any errors) Tielec01 (talk) 13:25, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

1) Gamergate is what it is DUE to the people affiliated with it. The two cannot be separated.

2) There IS such a thing as Gamergate. Trying to say that there is no organized Gamergate construct doing or saying anything is deliberately disingenous, as Gamergate is a definitely a modern 4GW cell entity, composed of disparate parts that separated are meaningless, but taken as a whole are coherent.

3) I can comprehend the article perfectly. Please state exactly what you find to be incomprehensible. --Castaigne (talk) 15:55, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

Here's my observations: This isn't the first time Nutty whined about the SJW bogeyman on RationalWiki so I'd really like to know Nutty's definition of a SJW. From personal experience, people who complain about SJW's are either ultra-reactionary assholes, or "brogressive" hypocrites who are OK with liberal values as long as they only apply to white straight males. As for me, I'm not a newish user, nor am I a SJW, unless finding doxxing and vicious harassment to be disgusting is now something only dirty SJW's do. Typhoon (talk) 14:19, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

I was waiting for someone to get close to calling me an MRA or hypocrite. Nutty Roux (talk) 16:58, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

Then why use retarded buzzwords like "SJW"? Typhoon (talk) 18:44, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

When I first encountered the term "SJW," I took it to mean people who professed strong progressive values but who limited their activism to Tweeting and Tumblring. Peace. AgingHippie (talk) 14:38, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

That's not how it's being used anymore. Now it's more often used to mean "disagrees with our particular hate group." Not that I'm accusing Nutty of using that meaning. Just that is where the term went over about the past 4 years. Ikanreed (talk) 14:46, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

Oh, I know that particular meaning has been overtaken by events (...if it ever really had any traction beyond the limited circles in which I encountered it to mean such...). Peace. AgingHippie (talk) 14:49, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

RW's own definition of it currently stands at "A "social justice warrior" is anyone who supports feminism, attacks racism, is generally not an asshole, etc. The term is often abbreviated as SJW. The term is always used pejoratively and attempts to end discussion through humiliation and otherization." This is why I find Nutty's repeated use of it against unnamed editors particularly Typhoon (talk) 15:00, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

Using RW's definition to cast some light on Nutty's statements is silly, given that his concern is over the folks who wrote said article (among others). - Grant (talk) 16:07, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

All personal strife aside, I think (for whatever I'm worth) this article should be condensed or split; it could be split into 'Gamergate' and something like 'shit people affiliated to gamergate said' (working title). This is not about individual user's opinions, name-calling or dissing the guys you don't agree with, but about presenting a balanced look of the whole 'Gamergate' thing which will be understandable for people new to the subject as well as engaging for people who've been following it for a long time. As of now, this article is highly unappealing to people who don't know about the subject due to it's information density and derogatory tone. IMO, fírst you present the subject summarised and neutrally, then we start 'snarking'. Once again; I'm just sharing my thoughts, don't know anythying about Gamergate and please excuse my mangled English. (InsertOpinion) (talk) 14:52, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

The summary version of gamergate isn't neutral. One of its most defining characteristics is horribleness. Ikanreed (talk) 14:57, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

1) And how would you go about stating Gamergate neutrally? "Oh, but GGers do have a point about Zoe Quinn and how she needs to be doxxed and eventually rape-murdered at Gjoni's Chan-Army request." Yes, that is hyperbole, but I hope it makes my point. What part of GG do you find to be neutral?

2) Excuse me, you're complaining about the information density? You're saying we need to dumb it down? Fuck a lot of that.

3) You do understand that we don't have NPOV here like Wikipedia, right? --Castaigne (talk) 16:07, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

That is not my main point. All I'm saying is that the article is very dense and a excruciating read (InsertOpinion) (talk) 14:59, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

I've started Gamergate/Timeline as a place where to put all the individual events so that the main article could hopefully be less tl;dr. Typhoon (talk) 15:03, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

RationalWiki has a much bigger problem that this Gamergate article reflects. It's essentially a political site that was started in reaction to Conservapedia, but adopted the fig leaf of "rationalism" (take a drink) and debunking of pseudoscience. I've seen this issue has been talked about several times before on the site, but it's not going to be corrected by a "mobtocracy" that is more interested in a political agenda than evidence-based reasoning. Chrimony (talk) 15:05, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

Your reading of RWs history overemphasises the shared political values of most of the original editor base and underemphasises their desire to counter the pseudoscience embodied by CP. Look at the earliest articles. They were about creationism and abortion/breast cancer, not George Bush. Peace. AgingHippie (talk) 15:10, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

"Your opinion is political, my opinion is rational" sums up most of the worthless complaints levelled at RW, really. Coming from a gator, it's particularly funny. Queex_{chthonic murmurings} 15:14, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

(EC)Chrimony's reading is one underpinned by motivated reasoning, and an attempt to use us to validate his own beliefs. We've either got to be bad guys actively suppressing good and rational thought from a biased and evil place, or in agreement with him. It's not like accusations of bias are unfounded, but it's far more contained than Chrimony is giving us credit for. He's just deeply glued himself to one of the stupidest and least justified e-crusades in recent memory. Ikanreed (talk) 15:17, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

The first article on RationalWiki, as far as I can tell by looking at the earliest logs, is "Liberal talk radio": http://rationalwiki.org/w/index.php?title=Liberal_talk_radio&oldid=46 . Anyways, whatever the stated intent was or is, the outcome is about what you'd expect when you start with a political ideology and allow it to be ruled by a "mobtocracy" under the guise of "rationalism". Rationalism and skeptical thinking are great for debunking pseudoscience. It's not so great when looking at political issues that reasonable people can disagree on. Not that you can't be rational when approaching these subjects, but it's ridiculous for one side to claim the mantle of "rational". What I see are one-sided articles ruled by political ideology, and my experience interacting with established editors on the Gamergate article have been less than stellar. Chrimony (talk) 00:10, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

Question related to Typhoon's post above re: the RW definition of the term: have people ever (except for being sarcastic/reclaiming the term) ever self-identified as SJWs (it seems to over-the-top smug for that to be the case) or has it always been a perjorative term? Peace. AgingHippie (talk) 15:07, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

Not... really? I mean, you only gotta see actual Nazis saying something is evil and bad a few times to stop considering it pejorative to the extent that it doesn't bother you anymore. But people concerned with social justice tend to label themselves by the actual movements they support. Ikanreed (talk) 15:17, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

In my experience, Nutty is concerned with making RW over into some academic outreach of the Randi Foundation or similar, with the purpose of RW becoming the stentorian Wikipedia/Citizendium conglomerate that battles anti-woo. He doesn't like snark at all. He doesn't regard anything related to social justice as being relevant to the wiki - in fact, his actions lead one to believe that he regards all social justice as being pure woo, much like Smerdis. And he's 'even-handed' in his approach, so far as it concerns his own goals for RW. At least, that is my opinion. --Castaigne (talk) 16:18, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

Can you stop strawmanning? I'm concerned with RW not being unattractive to the broader skeptical community, which doesn't want hateful snark. And I'm not talking about the article, but the talk page, so my views on the mission are not relevant.

I fail to see why we should give a shit about being unattractive to the broader skeptical community, unless the broader skeptical community is paying us cold hard cash. Unless you have some reason why we should be attractive to that community, which I see as being beholden to them. Perhaps we should ask this nebulous broader skeptical community to take over as the Board and issue dictates and fiats as they see fit. --Castaigne (talk) 17:47, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

Personally I think it would be nice to see RW grow beyond what it currently is, and our biggest prospective audience is likely members of said broader skeptical community. - Grant (talk) 17:51, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

Right, but that is a very complex question to answer. Skepticism, as a community, tends to be pretty liberal because of all the reasons rationalwiki is liberal: there's a lot of pseudoscientific bullshit tied up in the traditionalist and right-wing belief systems(not to say there's none on the left either). Appealing to them isn't a straightforward question. It's just judgement call after judgement call. Ikanreed (talk) 18:06, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

Of course it's a complex question to answer, but I doubt the kind of vitriol that sometimes gets tossed around here really helps that case. If I'm looking at a skeptical resource that prides itself on rationality, I'm not going to find myself swayed by name-calling, misused snark, and falsely applied logical fallacies. Sometimes people come here to voice their opinions because they're legitimately ignorant, confused, or misinformed on a point of discussion, and attacking them for it isn't a great way to change their mind. - Grant (talk) 18:24, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

What do you want it grow into? What is the end goal? How do you plan to achieve it? What changes would need to be made? And why should we want it to grow beyond what it currently is? Convince me. --Castaigne (talk) 18:08, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

Personally I want it to grow into a resource that a wide body of people can use to investigate topics related to the mission (the wider the better, really). I also wouldn't mind RW being a place where people can come and learn about these sorts of things, because the greatest value in a skeptical resource comes in its ability to teach people how to think critically. I believe this could be accomplished through cleaning up RW to make sure SPOV is applied properly (without, as Zooguard put it on another page, having articles that look like they were written by a 15 year old). What would need to change is the hostility often shown to newcomers and the reflexive "revert first, ask questions later" attitude that seems to prevail on many of the more entrenched articles. I want it to grow beyond what it currently is because I believe that RW does a fantastic job of providing insight into some of these matters in a way that's more accessible than other sources out there. If that could be expanded to reach a wider audience, I honestly believe we could go a long way to expand and enrich the skeptical community in general by providing a forum that's a bit more friendly (and a bit less confusing) to the average reader than, say, Wikipedia is. - Grant (talk) 18:24, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

So, to sum up, you want it to be Wikipedia for the skeptic community. In which case, we should ditch the mobocracy and institute a hierarchy and eliminate all snark and fun pages. That would be the most expedient way of realizing your goal. --Castaigne (talk) 18:59, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

Based on your response, I wonder if you read what I actually wrote. If you did, you've built up quite the strawman of my goals, as you've managed to state something that is almost directly opposite to what I actually said. No, I appreciate snark and humour as a way to make our articles more interesting, engaging, and accessible. I also appreciate fun pages as a way to build and foster a vibrant community that is more than just a collection of disparate editors. - Grant (talk) 19:04, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

Yes, I did read what you wrote. I just summarized it, dumping all of the unnecessary verbiage. I would like to point out that snark and humor are not necessary functions for being a skeptical resource that teaches people how to think critically, and is in fact antithetical to that purpose. Powerpoint slides and university-style lectures would be more appropriate, really. And if this is a teaching resource, fun pages detract from that mission. I also don't know what you mean by "vibrant community"; we're just people on a wiki. We don't live with each other and most of us have little connection to each other outside of it. We are a collection of disparate editors. (At least, I don't recall anyone here moving in next door to me.) --Castaigne (talk) 19:15, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

I don't agree with you that snark and humor are antithetical to that purpose, and to extend your comment on university-style lectures, I've had plenty of professors who used snark and humour to great effect in their lectures. What you seem to be overlooking here is that there are various methods to teach and inform out there other than the apparently limited one you're assuming I'm thinking of here. It's possible to have a vibrant community without living next to someone, and there are plenty of editors here with whom I have offline conversations. Perhaps you don't, but you asked me what my goals and ideals were. Also, perhaps before you start "dumping all of [my] unnecessary verbiage" you should make sure you comprehend what I'm actually saying. - Grant (talk) 19:20, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, I've had professors who used humor too, and I've told them to stop wasting my damn time and give me the subject matter I'm supposed to be learning. I pay for my classes and I expect to get what I'm paid for. When I'm in class to learn something, I'm there to learn. I work for a living; work and learning are not supposed to be "fun". Fun is for your off-time. Fun is for your hobbies.

Look, if you want to get to your goals in life (or here on what RW needs to transform into), you need to dump all the frippery and frappery and just go line an arrow straight to the target, dumping all unnecessary and obsolete functions along the way.

Also, if you have some method of learning other than absorbing information provided by an expert, feel free to share. --Castaigne (talk) 19:30, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

I call bullshit on that thought - it's certainly not an either/or situation with regards to humour and learning. Also, taking pleasure in your work is kind of an important life goal. I'm really glad I don't work with anyone who has an attitude of 'fun is for your off-time'. What sets RW apart from other pseudo-cyclopedic sources is that it doesn't pull deserved punches, and it mocks what needs to be mocked. A tradition of snark and mockery is an integral part of scepticism, as seen in, well, every sceptical blog and resource I've seen. Making RW drier by design kind of seems like we would be taking it too seriously. Queex_{chthonic murmurings} 19:37, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

I'm an either/or sort of person. I don't like instability, uncertainty, or gray areas. I don't encourage them. As for taking pleasure in my work, if I did that, I'd be poor. I have no interest in forgoing my material comforts, as those are all that will exist in this life and I have no certainty of life after death. So, no starving artist route for me. It's too bad for me, certainly, but I'm just one of those people who doesn't take pleasure in standard corporate office/cubicle life - and that's where the money is. I used to have artistic interests, but oh well. Cost money, cost time, so forth. That's just life. You live it and you die. But, that's getting off-topic.

I disagree that snark and mockery are an integral part of skepticism. As far as I see it, skepticism can be accurately described as an evidence-based iteration of COMPUTER SAYS NO applied like a club to woo and pseudoscience. Granted, that's my POV. There is never such a thing as "too serious" in my book. I've also been call humorless, though, or accused of engaging only in schadenfreude and weltschmerz, so YMMV. But at least you know where I stand. --Castaigne (talk) 19:47, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, I'm with Queex on that one. I also manage to do just fine in accomplishing my life goals as it stands, and I don't feel the need to "dump all the frippery and frappery." How about you live your life the way you want to and I'll do the same with mine. It's possible to learn by absorbing information provided by an expert while still enjoying some humour in there. I say this as both someone who has been at the giving and receiving end of teaching. Your view of how professors should teach is vastly at odds with many, many people I've met. As for me, I have fun in everything I do; in running my business, doing my work, and learning. You don't do scientific research if you don't have fun doing it. - Grant (talk) 19:41, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

I disagree that snark and mockery are an integral part of skepticism. As far as I see it, skepticism can be accurately described as an evidence-based iteration of COMPUTER SAYS NO applied like a club to woo and pseudoscience. Granted, that's my POV. There is never such a thing as "too serious" in my book. I've also been call humorless, though, or accused of engaging only in schadenfreude and weltschmerz, so YMMV. But at least you know where I stand. --Castaigne (talk) 19:53, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

You appear to be demanding something that is happening fairly naturally. RW is a vastly superior skeptical resource compared to what it was, say, five years ago. The culture was puerile, but it's way less so now. You should read some old Saloon Bar archives to see what arseholes editors routinely were to each other before. It is utterly, utterly unclear to me why you appear to be in a panic in a situation that's actually progressing just fine. (Progressing with a great many imperfections and not fast enough for some, but that's quite different to being something worthy of your apparent claims of urgency.) If your problem is "argumentative skeptics are shouting at each other", then I urge you to consider that skeptics might be stroppy argumentative arseholes by nature - David Gerard (talk) 20:19, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

I'm not sure why you think I'm implying any urgency or why you think I'm in some kind of panic here. I was asked what I thought would be the ideal growth for RW (and how I would go about accomplishing it), and I responded. My problem isn't that argumentative skeptics are yelling at each other; my problem is that sometimes the yelling and insulting ends up being the first (or sometimes only) response to any kind of criticism of the prevailing opinion. - Grant (talk) 20:38, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

Sometimes. Ikanreed (talk) 20:45, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

1) David Gerard is a shrill shit? That's not what I see. Neither do I see Ryulong as being one. I don't really see anyone being a shrill shit on this talk page except for the usual GG shills. And I don't see a reason to be polite to them, anymore than I would see fit to be polite to a YECer.

2) Very well. Which people are you referring to as SJWs holding court? Let's name names. Full honesty is best. --Castaigne (talk) 15:39, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

And of course, that's fair. But it's not going to win out in a world where "scientific racism" and other scientifically unfounded derivations of biological essentialism come into play. There's a relationship between authoritarianism, xenophobia, and pseudoscience that classic skepticism doesn't bother with. I'd like to think James Randi, in particular, could appreciate the work that goes into making homosexuality not widely condemned on specious grounds. But that's neither here nor there. Ikanreed (talk) 15:58, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

I'm quite happy to wear a virtual hat labeled "SJW" and delight in the bitter tears of those who use the term to whine. And to be fair, we all know a Kankri Vantas - David Gerard (talk) 16:15, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

(EC) I don't believe that's accurate anyways. I believe that what Nutty actually values is RW's mission, and there's likely a point to what he's saying. I'm not going to say this is restricted to the folks who contributed to this article, but RW has a problem with groupthink and with jumping to conclusions. Also, some people throw around logical fallacies as a way to end arguments while evidently having no idea what they're talking about. Last time we had any discussion about this kind of material on RW, I was roundly berated and called a tone troll for daring to contribute my thoughts, despite not meeting one of the two required conditions for tone trolling. Perhaps it's more noticeable here because this is the issue du jour, but either way, it's noticeable. - Grant (talk) 16:17, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

Fankly, disputing the tremendous missionality of this article is just inane. We have a coordinated campaign of media lies and ridiculously terrible and incoherent thinking to push a reactionary line with right-wing trolls joining in and actual neo-Nazi propaganda cartoons. Holy shit, all it needs is creationism - David Gerard (talk) 16:18, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

I actually do believe that this is missional myself. I believe the problems involving groupthink and jumping to conclusions still exist, however. - Grant (talk) 16:20, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

What do you consider to be groupthink here? What conclusions do you believe to have been jumped to here? --Castaigne (talk) 16:22, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

+1. Please provide actionable specifics - David Gerard (talk) 16:23, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

(EC)And those problems will literally always exist as long as there are homo sapiens. All we can do is be as honest and rational as we can manage. (Also, yeah, addressing what the particulars are is helpful, per Castaigne) Ikanreed (talk) 16:24, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

Yes, it's just a question of whether we are actually being as honest and rational as we can manage. I recall a particular discussion in which I was getting a bit unhappy with a BoN who seemed to not understand some point of physics that I was trying to explain, and I got a bit nasty. Sterile popped in to remind me that perhaps that wasn't a good thing, and sure enough, when the discussion got back to civility, I managed to explain it to the BoN's satisfaction. Everyone is subject to that kind of behaviour, and the more people agreeing with us, the more entrenched that becomes. I'll take another read through the article/talk page and compile some things. - Grant (talk) 16:29, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

Thanks Castaigne, for being so kind to selectivly review my points and strawman my opinion. Now, as said, I don't know a lot about the subject, but this is precisely why I think my opinion on this matters. I will restate my opinion here, but I'm not getting into this discussion any further because it is (as I've seen here above) a polarized shout-out and namecalling not even barely concerned with the actual contents of the article or how they could be presented or improved. Now, obviously 'Gamergate', whatever it is, is bad. OBVIOUSLY I didn't mean "Oh, but GGers do have a point about Zoe Quinn and how she needs to be doxxed and eventually rape-murdered at Gjoni's Chan-Army request.", you just wrote that down to demonize my argument, just like the NPOV/Wikipedia part. If you want to keep the tone the article has, that's fine, but maybe it would be nice for readers who do not know this subject yet to make a small summary of 'gamergate' at the beginning of the article without strong terms, so they know what is going on before the snarking starts. This however, is only a minor suggestion, and not my main point.

My primary concern with this article is indeed information density, in lack of a better term. With that I (once again, obviously) do not mean that we dumb down the article, and I think I made that clear in my last statement. I mean that we should more carefully select what should and should not be presented in the article, because honestly, it's an atrocious read for people who are not engaged with or following the Gamergate. Once again; Rationalwiki doesn't report évery nutty statement Rush Limbaugh makes, or every incident of rape apologism on the rape apologism page, does it? Why should we do it here. My concerns are not with the articles subject or my opinion of gamergate, but with the readability of this article for non-initiates. (Or in flatter terms: people who don't really care about gamergate (yet?))

Please excuse my English mistakes, as I am not a native speaker. And please, give me some goodwill as well. I'm not campaigning to get my version of events in anything. I am nót your enemy or opponent, I'm just giving some tips from my perspective.(InsertOpinion) (talk) 11:17, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

You are correct that the article is confusing. Mostly this is because the events are confusing. Whoever writes up the morass of detail clearly will be some sort of Asimov-level genius of clarity. The intro attempts to be a clearer summary of why all this is a problem, at least - David Gerard (talk) 19:30, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

Agree with DG and InsertOpinion, unfortunately for a person such as myself who hasn't followed GG this article doesn't give a concise summary of what happened when; perhaps because the whole event has been very complicated or perhaps because we are assuming the reader knows more than they do. For example take this paragraph from the background section:

In December 2013, Dina Abou Karam, the community manager for the crowd-funded game Mighty No. 9, released a piece of fan art depicting the game's male protagonist as female.[9] This provoked an angry backlash, with people combing though her tweets to find ones in which she expressed feminist viewpoints, and then accusing her of trying to inject such an "agenda" into the game.[9] This despite the fact that she was not one of the game's developers, and thus had no creative control over it.[9]

I'm left thinking 'so what?', how is this connected to GG, why is this important enough to warrant a paragraph in background? The article is filled with such moments and this leads to another problem.

As I read it there isn't a compelling narrative for GG being one entity (a few screenshots from what I can tell). So many of the stories seems disembodied from GG that it's hard not to be left with the impression that any criticism of women in gaming is interpreted as being 'because of GG' by the authors. I'm sure the links are there but they need to be made explicit for dummies like me; otherwise it seems a bit paranoid conspiracy theory-ish.

Finally, and this might be a preference, I would like a coherent explanation for why GGers act as they do. The article reads like it is saying that GGers are just horrible people, but that explanation is unsatisfying. A movement such as this must have some people that genuinely believe they are doing the right thing, and I am curious why they believe it. The exploration of this doesn't have to be sympathetic, and I know from the article that ethics in journalism ties into it in some way, but how does harassing women help solve ethics issues in gaming?

Anyway, these are some opinions I have after trying to read the article - can't wait for Castaigne to call me an MRA or GGer, that's my favourite part of trying to improve this article. Tielec01 (talk) 02:16, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

That part of the article you're criticizing is merely one of the precursors to this MRA cluster fuck because women made video games they didn't like and they think got positive press for whatever conspiracy theory they've come up with this week. There isn't really a narrative. It's just an ongoing set of events in which 4chan MRAs and neo Nazis who all claim to be libertarians force women into silence because of the ongoing anti feminist slant these communities have fostered for years. It only got a name because some b actor tweeted about it and thought he was smart by referencing watergate. So now you have a group of complete fucking psychopaths flooding twitter, reddit, and whatever website dares to vaguely mention Gamergate with their conspiracies and hate all because of one abusive ex boyfriend decided to try to destroy his ex girlfriend's life via the scum of the Internet. The article really just tries to touch on the various events as they have happened and tries to coordinate coverage based on whatever similarities exist in time and theme. It perhaps needs a rewrite for clarity but the message you should get is the same you would get from the page on climate change denial or anti vaccinations.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 03:46, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

The main issue here seems to be the article's density, not specific content. This article is like 17.000 words long, that's just HUGE. I will keep on stating this: this article is a word jungle inaccesible for non-initiates. If you want to actually reach or inform people not already in the know and on your side, it would just be better to cut a lot of examples out of the article and speak in more general terms. After the 50th hateful tweet cited in the article, we kinda get that these 'Gamergate' guys are mysognist assholes. We don't need more tweets to prove that. We should rework the article so the presented information is more coherent, less trivial and simply more enjoyable to read. And by the way, (but the coming is NOT my main point so don't go critisize this while ignoring the rest of my comment) I still doubt there being something as a unified 'Gamergate' worth that nomer. If you ask me, it's just a bunch of frustrated twats jumping on any anti-feminist bandwagon they can find. Sentences like "Gamergate defends 8chan's tolerance of child porn" just seem silly to me, as there is no Gamergate 'programme' or even a Gamergate leader of the movement to say what gamergate is about, if i am correct. Now once again I'm just giving you guys who care a lot about the subject some tips to make it more presentable to non-initiates. I am not you enemy (InsertOpinion) (talk) 06:54, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

The issue that there is more and more reprehensible behavior each day that expands upon points. Such as the SVU episode. Or the "we're totally not affiliated with Gamergate" group suddenly deciding "hell yeah we're affiliated with Gamergate".—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 07:04, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

I think we should reorganize the sections of the article. Right now, it's organized from "beginning" to "end" and reads like an excessively-detailed timeline of Gamergate. Instead, we should organize the subsections into sections about specific activities of Gamergate - when Gamergate attacks people, when it claims success, etc. 32℉uzzy; 0℃atPotato (talk/stalk) 16:22, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

It might even be best to transplant all of the specific incidents into the timeline article, leaving just the editorialising and snark, and then reconstruct the page more or less from scratch, using the timeline as a resource to pull good examples from. Queex_{chthonic murmurings} 16:27, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

I understand that, but we, once again, don't need to report EVERY hateful tweet here, do we? I think a summary and a few examples would be a alot more effective to get the point of the article across. Well, alas, this is not my article or my battle so I'll just leave it to you guys. I don't think that me trying to make my point will do anything in this polarized discussion, which I presume has been burning for a long time. Good luck fighting the mysognists, but please, take my advice into heed. Greetings (InsertOpinion) (talk) 07:16, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

That's not the case here tbh. Tweets are only used to show what people's opinions are. The bulk of the page uses the media that Gamergate so intensely hates rather than tweets to describe anything. Other than a few Storify.com links which are tweet compilations that have been put together into a more coherent narrative.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 08:55, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

Stacy wants off

[9] Seems to be getting targeted. Doesn't look an important part of the story - David Gerard (talk) 22:23, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

She's already taken down the cited blog post, breaking the link (though it's currently still accessible by cache if needed). As its relevance is as an example of a woman being harassed & stalked by GG supporters - of which there are already many other examples - we don't lose much by taking it out. Wẽãšẽĩõĩď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 22:36, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

Gone - David Gerard (talk) 22:48, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

A Neutral Take

I just saw Angry Joe post his Top Ten Controversies video about Gamergate. His views on it are probably the most objective of the bunch. He neither supports nor opposes Gamergate, because at its core, Gamergate is a hashtag movement. Those who were sexist within Gamergate are sexist without it (ala Anita Sarkeesian), and those who genuinely do want gaming ethics within Gamergate (say, Total Biscuit) would've called on gaming ethics without Gamergate. It starts at 31:52 if you wanna see it in full. Thoughts? Serocco (talk) 04:52, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

It's a youtube video, and about gamergate, and thus worth immediately dismissing. What might have played out in an alternate universe without shitty organized harassment, a directed movement with spoken intentions to expel women from game development, and no petty identity squables, is a bit like conjecturing about how slavery would have ended without the civil war. It didn't happen that way. Ikanreed (talk) 05:03, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

It's not a video solely about Gamergate; it's a video about ten of the top controversies in the gaming industry in 2014, like Lizard Squad's hacking or the Swatting raids. Gamergate just happened to be in it because it was a controversy that happened in 2014, but it's not the whole point of the video. One of the major controversies included in the video is Shadow of Mordor bribing YouTubers not to criticize their game, which is, you know, an actual gaming ethics issue that many Gamergaters failed to notice. Gamergate, at its core, was a hashtag movement that was formed by trolls (hello Alec Baldwin) who latched onto the catchphrase as a way to pour their hatred of women. However, there are those who identify within Gamergate who donated for suicide prevention charities. As a hashtag movement, you cannot control the movement - there will always be good and bad people on any side, and even those in the anti-Gamergate collection take it too far in their own way by harassing some who even slightly sympathize with Gamergate on the grounds of gaming ethics (like Total Biscuit). Hell, And Angry Joe spent most of the time calling out the harassment, the misogyny, the unethical publication of personal information, the lies and the inaccuracies (at best) paraded by the trolls and harassers who used the Gamergate movement as a vehicle for their bullshit. The point is that there's blame to go around on both sides, and the hashtag movement itself had shitty origins, shitty practices, and shitty people, and I thank RW (and others) for detailing at length the excesses of the hashtag, but it needs to end, and we - as a gaming community - should contain the shitty people culture within Gamergate so we can focus our energy on bettering our community and the products we use to talk about our community. I hope those who identify with Gamergate actually focus on real issues instead of creeping on a girl's personal life. Like, basically, I'm burned out from all the bullshit, and Angry Joe was great at providing a neutral take that was closest to my own view. Serocco (talk) 05:17, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

"I hope those who identify with Gamergate actually focus on real issues instead of creeping on a girl's personal life." is a real choice quote, because why would you ever choose to identify with a group that has that as their primary identifying characteristic? It's a bit like saying "I hope neonazis focus on real issues instead of being racist". What do you expect? Ikanreed (talk) 05:28, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

And I'm not defending them, dude. When I first heard of the controversy, I thought it was true on the basis of conflict of interest.... aaand then I read Zoe Quinn's own article on Cracked about how negatively it affected her and how the trolls took it to the extent that they did. That's when I knew, and RationalWiki's article on it here did a fantastic job at detailing how bad it was, which helped clear a lot of it up for me. Maybe I'm just a naive man, but I want this entire controversy to die out so the gaming community can move on from it. Gamergate is toxic, but the cries of the total destruction of the movement is something I've always found odd. I sympathize with the people who identify with Gamergate that aren't sexist (like Total Biscuit, the whistleblower for Shadow of Mordor), but got caught up in the controversy because trolls hopped on the bandwagon and made it something it should never have been. I hope, at some time in the future, it either gets forgotten completely, or actually focuses on real gaming ethics (hello Google's copyright policy on YouTube), and Rational Wiki is a huge part of that, because there are still many people who don't know the full story of its origins. I've been linking this article to many people so they understand that as well. I hope this gets better for all of us. Serocco (talk) 05:37, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

I understand the tendency to be sympathetic to the less obviously terrible GGers, but it's undeserved. Gamergate started with harassment. The trolls didn't hop on the bandwagon; it was their bandwagon. If you don't believe me, read the logs.

If the less terrible members want to start a separate movement for journalistic ethics and against harassment, we can judge that movement separately. (In September there was a call to start the hashtag #gameethics for precisely that purpose; it didn't take off.) But the fact is that the harassers started the movement, have set its course and have guided its actions. Anyone in GG who isn't actively harassing is enabling harassment by perpetuating a culture of relentless hostility. Abed Nadir (talk) 06:38, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

And I fully understand that. In fact, it's easy to spot out the less awful members from the awful ones - some of those who identified as Gamergaters helped donate to suicide prevention centers. That's when it can actually be used for something helpful, for something important, for something that deviates from the trolls. I don't feel... right, dismissing the entire movement because of what some of them have done for the needy. I neither condemn nor condone the hashtag movement - I condemn and condone the members of that movement. The entire thing shouldn't have been created to begin with, so we wouldn't be in this shape. I just feel bad for those who hopped onto it because they believed the meatheads who concocted the entire thing. Serocco (talk) 06:48, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

Video is subject to a copyright claim and has been taken down. Also why is this page protected? Tielec01 (talk) 06:57, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

Oh, goddammit. I knew it. I checked Angry Joe's videos, and saw it was gone. I still have the tab up so I can rewatch it until I go to sleep, but fuck. I sent a tweet out to Angry Joe about it; YouTube is notorious for taking down videos with the slightest and pettiest things. This is something Gamergaters should pounce on, thank you very much. Serocco (talk) 07:02, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

Might be a false DMCA because supporters of one side of this tired old issue didn't like what he said. Anyone object if I unprotect this page? Tielec01 (talk) 07:06, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

Ahah, I found it. It was a guy named Bro Team Pill, on Twitter, who set out the DMCA because he claims Angry Joe "used graph image" belonging to BTP saying they were part of Gamergate... even though said graph image was never made by BTP, and was accessible through Google. BTP claims Angry Joe character assassinated him by presenting him as a Gamergater, anyway. =_= Serocco (talk) 07:18, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

This comment is a bit late, and I hope I'm formatting the colon-tab-whatevers correctly (is there a page on that?), but in response to Ikanreed: The thing about why people would choose to be in the GamerGate movement despite its "primary characteristic" is mentioned in the AngryJoe video. It's pretty important to consider, in earnest, what motivates people if we want to change how those people think. If you look at pro-GG essays that aren't written by the worst of the bunch, they talk about how "welcoming" the movement was to them, and how they were harassed by anti-GG groups. Even though being harassed doesn't make somebody's views more valid, the human mind will make pack-mentality decisions. Narky Sawtooth (Nyar~) 01:34, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

"Anti-GG" isn't a thing though.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 02:13, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

But there are people that identify as "anti-GG," and they do cause issues, which is what the person I was referring to was referring to. But, on that subject, can you elaborate on what you're saying a bit more? I've been having trouble putting a statement that may be somewhat similar to what you said into words. I also hope I'm making sense in this post and not appearing hostile. Narky Sawtooth (Nyar~) 03:14, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

I've not seen anyone that identifies as "anti-GG". "Anti-Gamergate" is something people who support Gamergate made up to falsely polarize the situation by claiming that there are people against their alleged fight against corruption in video game journalism. People who do not support Gamergate are acting against the hate mob that it has been from the beginning. From when it was #FiveGuys. From when it was #Quinnspiracy. From when it was people angry that Zoe Quinn's free video game on depression existed (long before "TheZoePost"). From when it was the hate mob that descended upon Anita Sarkeesian for suggesting that she wanted to start a video series critiquing video games 3 years ago. "Anti-Gamergate" is anti-harassment, anti-sexism, anti-homophobia, anti-racism, anti-transphobia, etc. Most of all, it is not an organized group of people working together to any ends like Gamergate is. Gamergate actively coordinates their raids, harassment campaigns, email campaigns, boycotts, etc. There is no such thing for "anti-Gamergate". It's just people reacting to Gamergate's atrocities and attempting to form a support group around each other.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 04:25, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

There's a group of people dedicated to speaking out and working against Gamergate. You personally have been obsessively editing wiki articles against Gamergate. There was an organized effort to get 8chan kicked off Patreon. There have been organized efforts to keep people kicked off Twitter. There's a sub-Reddit dedicated against Gamergate. Gawker and it's media outlets have been against Gamergate, and they have a personal stake because they own Kotaku. Other journalists that have nothing to do with Gawker have put out several articles against Gamergate. The list goes on and on, from game devs like Tim Schafer, movie makers like Joss Whedon, feminist organizations like Feminist Frequence, etc. They're all dedicated against Gamergate. The label fits, wear it. Chrimony (talk) 03:43, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

I suppose it's possible to consider the above-mentioned people to be part of a group, but GGers act like anyone who criticizes GG is then instantly part of that group. Like when Geordie Tait used violent rhetoric against GG, and everybody condemned him, but after that GGers said "Anti-GG is the REAL hate group!" and the rest of us said "who the hell is this guy?" You use it as a way of lumping together random harassers with people like Zoe Quinn, who are working their asses off to end harassment. Wehpudicabok [話] [変] [留] 04:20, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

A lot of the people that he lists are not really against Gamergate but rather Gamergate is against them. And I've not been "obsessively editing wiki articles against Gamergate". I've been writing about them on wikis that have rules that say most of the pro-Gamergate content cannot be used for various reasons. Is 8chan Gamergate? Aren't the people getting kicked off Twitter violating Twitter's rules? The "sub-Reddit dedicated against Gamergate" is obviously referring to r/GamerGhazi but they're existence is to point out how laughably and horribly wrong posts coming out of 8chan and r/KotakuInAction are rather than it being an organized mob to go "Let's shut down KotakuInAction and 8chan", unlike KotakuInAction and 8chan which are used to organize mobs to pull advertising revenue from places. Gamergate is against Gawker and Kotaku and all of the journalists who have published stuff that doesn't put Gamergate in the best light have probably been heavily attacked for having said "Hey guys, stop harassing Zoe Quinn". Tim Schafer and Joss Whedon I don't know what to say about but are you really fucking saying Feminist Frequency is against Gamergate as an organization when you idiots have been threatening Anita Sarkeesian's life since 2012? Wehpudicabok is very accurate here in that anyone who criticizes Gamergate in any fashion, even the people that Gamergate and its predecessor mobs have been harassing for years now, is automatically considered "anti-Gamergate" and the real threat.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 04:41, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

You can't be honest about even yourself. You have hundreds of edits on this wiki alone on Gamergate. And trying to come off as some kind of neutral by referring to wiki rules disallowing most of the pro-Gamergate content is pathetically dishonest, as there is no such rule here and you actively deleted a reference to a source but kept the content because the source was an "asshole". You're a prime example of an anti-GGer. Chrimony (talk) 05:14, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

I never said I was neutral. I've only said there is no organized "anti-Gamergate". Like Wehpudicabok said everyone who isn't with Gamergate is automatically categorized as "anti-Gamergate" by Gamergate. At least I don't publically profess I'm part of an Internet hate mob.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 05:39, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

Why mention the smokescreen of not being able to use pro-Gamergate sources, then? Because you're dishonest. Chrimony (talk) 06:56, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

I made a major expansion today that includes a lot of (redirected) links to Breitbart. I just believe that linking to Ralph's website is a terrible idea.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 07:41, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ Let me pose this question to you Chrimony: Has anything I contributed to this page been factually incorrect? Or do you just not like it because it doesn't say what Gamergate wants to be said about it?—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 05:54, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

You can be 100% factually correct while presenting a completely misleading and biased summary of events, and much of what you write would be rejected as "synthesis" on Wikipedia. I've made that clear in my arguments here on this talk page, most recently on your TotalBiscuit smear. Chrimony (talk) 06:56, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

It's only "misleading" because you, as a Gator, aren't happy that I've written extensively against it, as the rest of the world understands the subject. Biased is another thing but that wasn't a factor on Wikipedia where the "bias" you and everyone else claims exists because the article must only contain content from mainstream media and none of the tweets and YouTube videos and imgur posts with red lines drawn in MSPaint on them don't ever count as sources. They do here but RationalWiki is already obviously biased against conservatism and libertarianism so that's not really a problem here either. The "smear" on TotalBiscuit is based on everything I have found on him and about him on websites that matter and it's been heavily rewritten and reincorporated so it's not a problem anymore. Your concern trolling is getting boring now. I have a page to rewrite.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 07:41, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

I only brought up Wikipedia's "synthesis" to show that hiding behind "facts" doesn't mean the article is accurate. I'm not discussing the Wikipedia article here. So despite all your hemming and hawing, moving the goalposts, and other attempts at obfuscating the issue, it's clear exactly what you are and what you're doing as part of the anti-Gamergate crowd: painting a completely one-sided and inaccurate picture because you're a dopey White Knight. Chrimony (talk) 13:09, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

Except you have no proof I made anything up or came to my own personal conclusion on matters. Everyone can see how biscuit is treated by Gamergate. And I'm not looking to fuck any women for showing how much I care about their plight. And the issue is one sided because Gamergate has always been and still is an attack on women for being women and never has done anything to root out corruption because all major journalistic organizations looks at this shit objectively have seen that the demands of Gamergate are childish and not based in any actual rules or regulations. That's why when Jenn Frank's piece for the guardian went to the editors they cut out her statement saying she had donated to Zoe Quinn's Patreon because a real major newspaper saw that wasn't something that really mattered. The only reason they ever put it back in was because her fears were realized when gators descended upon her for not having made that disclosure because in their eyes it was important. So take that shit into account before you continue to mouth off at me about every debunked gator talking point again. A major newspaper decided that the disclosure that your asshat movement wanted was considered not worthy of bringing up.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 20:49, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

The Guardian is a joke. And even if you're not looking to fuck women, you're still following your White Knight instincts by carrying water for them. Why do you think it is that Jack Thompson was vilified by the gaming press, given critical treatment by mainstream news, and not made into a martyr when he also received threats and harassment? Because he wasn't a damsel in distress. Chrimony (talk) 11:18, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

The Guardian is not a joke; it is a well-respected newspaper. You might want to cease making yourself sound like an ignoramus. And what exactly is your problem with women? What, feminists reject you for a date or something? I ask because all this White Knight bullshit makes you sound very incel. Really, why are you chiding people for being INSUFFICIENTLY MANBRO? --Castaigne (talk) 15:32, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

If something is 100% factually correct, how can it be completely misleading and biased?

If I have 100% of the facts, then I have all the information I need to make my own conclusions. I don't see the basis for your complaints. If Ryulong were writing Gamergate up as "misleading and biased", the only way this can be done is by committing sins of omission and disincluding information prejudicial to Ryulong's viewpoint. If it's 100% factually correct, that cannot be happpening, as nothing has been omitted and nothing has been disincluded. --Castaigne (talk) 20:56, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

I didn't say Ryulong had 100% of the facts. He asked me if anything he contributed was factually incorrect. Furthermore, I also mentioned Wikipedia's "synthesis". Much of what Ryulong writes isn't a fact, but rather his own, debatable conclusions of facts. Chrimony (talk) 11:10, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

1) I don't care about Wikipedia or anything Wikipedia has as a policy. I really give no shits. This is RW, not Wikipedia.

2) If you don't think all the facts are in the article, why don't you put them there instead of whining and bitching?

"If something is 100% factually correct, how can it be completely misleading and biased?"

Because being 100% factually correct is not equivalent with:

"I have 100% of the facts"

"If Ryulong were writing Gamergate up as "misleading and biased", the only way this can be done is by committing sins of omission and disincluding information prejudicial to Ryulong's viewpoint. If it's 100% factually correct, that cannot be happpening, as nothing has been omitted and nothing has been disincluded. --Castaigne"

I'd say this section that he inserted, " their conspiracy theories on how they think game developer and frequent Gamergate target Brianna Wu is transgender" is not only misleading and biased, but false as well since it implies Brianna is not transgender.

To your point of view, has he included sources saying that Brianna is transgender? No. That covers your "discluding information prejudicial to Ryulong's viewpoint." Sins of omission are the most common way on lying in all media forms. 67.42.179.115 (talk) 22:08, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

1) If 100% of the facts are not there, then feel free to edit the page and don't bitch about it.

2) I see no sources or statements from Brianna Wu herself about being transgender. What sources do you have that she has identified herself as transgender? Or are you outing her, which I think is fairly reprehensible to do, but hey, if you have sources outing her, please give them to me.

I ask for these because Brianna Wu hasn't identified herself as such, and so therefore I do not know for a fact that she is transgender. Although I don't really see what fucking difference it makes, since she identifies as a woman.

3) Don't respond to my talk page again. You don't have an account? I don't need some random BoN fucking about on my page. MAN THE FUCK UP and get an account. I have taken your "reply" and posted it where I should. Further replies without an account will be deleted. --Castaigne (talk) 15:22, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

Let me clarify one thing Castaigne missed. If you do not have super reliable sources for the claim that she is transgender, and you put that claim in the article, I will block you. Considering the ways being transgender can influence reputation(it's legal reason to fire people in a lot of regions) in the United States, where she lives, that's slander, and creates substantial risk for the RWF. Ikanreed (talk) 15:27, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

I tend to have neutral take as well, I have little interest in this controversy, but only a fool would deny that it has gotten out of control. I regard Ms. Sarkeesian as being pedantic and pontificating who takes the appearance of mildly stereotypical tropes in video games far too seriously, but her opponents appear to have taken her criticism of gaming far too seriously, could have made their points without having to go off the deep end in blatantly sexist rhetoric. They rant about evil "feminists" ad nauseum not realizing that as long as they pretend that feminism and feminist is an insult, the entire left and good part of the center political speaking will attack them as liberals have no desire whatsoever to see reddit redefine feminism ala Frank Luntz. I recall seeing rape threats, I recall one idiot reporter tell a Syrian supporter of Gamergate that he would enjoy seeing her country get blown to smithereens. This has all gotten way out of hand, and despite me giving an example of an anti-Gamergate jerk most of the jerks in question have been Gamergate supporters and that is the primary reason why I blame them for the escalation of this controversy to absurd levels, and that is despite the fact that I unlike many people on this website (or so I reckon) I could give detailed reasons why I find Ms. Sarkeesian irritating. But simply speaking, rape and death threats distract from Gamergate supporters arguments, and that's putting it mildly. Surprisingly (sarcasm), the public at large (myself included) takes a rather negative view of such activities (like threats of violence and rape), who knew? Alsto003 (talk) 22:03, 15 February 2015 (UTC) Alex

The whole point is that Gamergate refuses to acknowledge the fact that they don't need to give these people that they hate the time of day. No one is forcing every white cis male to watch Anita Sarkeesian's videos or play Depression Quest/Revolution 60/Gone Home/whichever game it is this week. But really, all they've proven is that they're afraid of women invading their clubhouse and getting cooties all over everything so the only response is juvenile death threats that just ruins their reputation and gets more people to see the shit that they hate and look into it and go "hey, I agree with some of these points these women are making/I like this video game" or "I disagree with these points/I don't like this video game but it's not right to say this woman needs an AK-47 fired up her pussy".—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 22:39, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

I'm not disagreeing with you (on this point), this whole controversy really does remind me of playground or backyard shenanigans like I would see in commercials with a big treehouse and a sign on it that says "no girls allowed", taken to absurd new heights. (The last sentence of my paragraph above yours was meant to be sarcastic, btw) Alsto003 (talk) 23:16, 15 February 2015 (UTC) Alex

I'm aware. I'm just adding on to it.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 01:58, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

SVU

I wrote most of the latest expansion from memory, but it would be appreciated if people could find the references across twitter and reddit as it's hard to do this while on a mobile browser.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 11:27, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

That SVU episode was sort of shit. |₹Λ¥$€₦₦ ^{RationalWiki, did you kill Rita?} 14:19, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

I think you mean "it was a police/legal/crime drama." Narky Sawtooth (Nyar~) 22:06, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

And it was SVU. CI was always better. I can just see D'Onfrio broken-necking at Gators. --Castaigne (talk) 22:44, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

Seriously, I wish CI hadn't been cancelled. It was seriously awesome. |₹Λ¥$€₦₦ ^{Put de lime in de coconut, call me in de mornin'} 23:52, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

Maybe if it was CI the game dev wouldn't have been raped thus ruining everyone's time.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 04:37, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

I know i am very very late but "I read on kotaku that it was better then Civ V with the brave new world expansion pack" -Ice T 'Legion^{what do you want from me} 07:59, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

Nice feedback from Brianna Wu

I read through the RationalWiki article on Gamergate, and I have to give them props for an entirely accurate article! http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Gamergate

Seriously, everyone at @RationalWiki. This is an amazing work of journalism. Top marks to everyone involved!

- David Gerard (talk) 20:32, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

First thought of mine is that this is excellent news. We might even get an influx of people from this.

Second thought is, man, the gators are totally going to dogpile the article. Again. --Castaigne (talk) 20:38, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

Talk page is still locked for non-autoconfirmed users, though. Mainspace page: similar. I'm sure they can find their way to the forums or debate pages if they really want to raise a stink. Ikanreed (talk) 20:46, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

I just want to see if I can get that one to actually spend hours recording a video about it - David Gerard (talk) 21:05, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

It might be worth it to up the protection from autoconfirmed to autopatrolled, if possible, since autoconfirmed is given if you just make 10 edits and wait 24 hours, which some trolls might be willing to do. 32℉uzzy; 0℃atPotato (talk/stalk) 00:33, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Then they've paid the tax and can be dealt with as they come. Ikanreed (talk) 01:21, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

I'm inclined not to go preemptive on the blocking. The current autoconfirmed expires in a couple of days anyway, we'll see if the kiddies post shit again - David Gerard (talk) 09:02, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Wu is not hip with the Deagle Nation and is of Islamlizard stock. You might say she's the pilot of the Islamic Trannycopter that blew up Stryker's Jesus Prius. SEMPER FIDELIS TO OUR KEYBOARD WARRIOR FORCES! In all seriousness, I don't like Revolution 60 and I don't like her. That's the only thing I'm sure of with Wu.--Madman (talk) 00:26, 17 February 2015 (UTC)The Madman

"In all seriousness, I don't like Revolution 60 and I don't like her." Dear Gamergate: THIS IS REASONABLE CRITICISM. This is the sort of criticism that won't get you painted misogynists. Can you please all learn to voice your complaints in a REASONABLE manner like this?

Also hi Brianna if you're reading this. Love your work! Wehpudicabok [話] [変] [留] 01:11, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

I only understood a tiny bit of what he was saying. Where is the misogynist criticism? Nutty Roux (talk) 13:19, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

I'm just waiting until I get noticed enough by b8ters so that I can have shoop material for years to come. But Jace Connors is the hero that Gamergates rejected deserves.--Madman (talk) 14:23, 17 February 2015 (UTC)The Madman

What the fuck are you doing?—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 20:25, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Trying to see how odious he can get away with being, because that's totally the sort of thing that most needs defending to make RW somewhere anyone would want to edit - David Gerard (talk) 21:22, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

He's doing thinking he's funny, again. Bicycle^wheel 21:28, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Possible interesting article

This article may be of some interest to the editors here. Sounds like this Baldwin fellow is a bit of a cad. Tielec01 (talk) 04:12, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

Indeed.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 08:45, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

So?

Will this article just keep growing until it explodes due to information overload? Will criticism of the article's readability be muddled in a endless stream of words? Will every discussion on the talk page devolve into polarised name calling without room for actual thought exchange? Will I keep posting these questions? (InsertOpinion) (talk) 23:37, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

Well, I dunno there, hoss. You going to edit it, or complain? Myself, I've read through it and I'm just fine with it. --Castaigne (talk) 23:41, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

Probably; Likely so; No doubt; That's up to you, chief. Peace. AgingHippie (talk) 23:50, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

About Hatred

Figures opposed to GamerGate, like Jim Sterling, did push for it to be reinstated on Greenlight. Granted, it had nothing to do with the game itself and more to do with the game actually having reasonable production values and the gigantic amounts of no-budget crap that makes it to Steam. |₹Λ¥$€₦₦ ^{Some men just want to watch RW burn} 01:45, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

Images for "Vivian James"

The section tries to explain "her", but some images would help. This and this seemed relevant. Should they be added? 32℉uzzy; 0℃atPotato (talk/stalk) 02:25, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

I'm partial to this, even if it lacks color.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 02:26, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

Or this.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 02:28, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

There's also this which has not been edited in any way.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 02:32, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

It might be worthwhile to make a gallery of images. Or not. Ask someone else, too. 32℉uzzy; 0℃atPotato (talk/stalk) 02:34, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

Doesn't <gallery> work here?—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 02:38, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

Yep. 32℉uzzy; 0℃atPotato (talk/stalk) 02:41, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

Then it's done.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 02:46, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

May need better captions.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 02:48, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

Subpages & namespaces

FYI, subpages don't work in article namespace. E.g. Gamergate/Timeline appears as an article in its own right whereas its talk page (Talk:Gamergate/Timeline) appears as a subpage of this talk page. This might be confusing.

Is it time for a Gamergate namespace? Ŵêâŝêîôîď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 20:14, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

If it needed one, i guess. Wouldn't it make more sense (and fill it out more) if it was a more Social Justice/SJW-topic namespace instead of just gamergate, as once gamergate dies down having an entire namespace dedicated to it seems silly.--Miekal 20:23, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

Is it tenable to say "Gamergate is important enough to be the longest article on Rationalwiki" AND "Gamergate is not important enough to have its own namespace?" Conservapedia has its own namespace, and there hasn't been a damn thing of interest happen there since (TK died/they stopped working on the Bible/Rob got booted/choose your own CP adventure). Peace. AgingHippie (talk) 20:24, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

I never said it shouldn't have its own namespace, merely that naming it "Gamergate" seems short sighted, as opposed to giving it a more expansive name to cover future, post-once gamergate dies SJ topics, otherwise it runs into the exact same problem of CP Space--Miekal 20:29, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

Not sure if relevant or if acceptable, but it's possible to enable subpages for mainspace. 32℉uzzy; 0℃atPotato (talk/stalk) 23:03, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

Conservapedia has its own name space for historical reasons. Unless this is a phenomenon that is going to go on indefinitely, I can't fathom why we would need a separate name space for this. If anything, how about one for denialism, creationism, or global warming! Sterile (talk) 02:47, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

Namespace really should describe an article type. Back to the actual topic, I would suggest Gamergate/Timeline be moved somewhere more descriptive like Timeline of Gatergate and possibly move the current sections 2,3 and 4 to an article such as A long-ass history of Gamergate. Gamergate has its own category, that should be enough. - π 05:44, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

The Fine Young Capitalists

"In particular, it was claimed that Quinn had doxed and performed a denial-of-service attack[wp] on The Fine Young Capitalists, a small (the only definite member is founder Matthew Rappard), self-described "radical feminist" group[26] (although there is no known record of radical feminist views or behavior) based in Canada, which was working on a game jam to get women involved in game development, arguably in contention with Quinn's Rebel Jam project." As mentioned above, this is an abortion. Also, what is a "game jam"? Peace. AgingHippie (talk) 02:53, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

Game jam is used somewhere on the page prior to this. And it's an attempt to point out that the only known member of a "radical feminist group" is a man.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 06:05, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

if you search the word for the word "jam," it is first used in this section, at least in the current version of the page. Sterile (talk) 09:42, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

Um, no it isn't. It's in the "TheZoePost" section.

...but that just led them to switch to accusing her of taking in money for her planned "Rebel Jam" game jam project.

—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 22:40, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

"At some point, Zoe Quinn dated Eron Gjoni"

This is the first mention of Eron Gjoni. The writer is assuming the reader I know who that is. Is he/she relevant to "the gaming community" (I'm also not really sure what that encompasses, but that's a different story....), or simply relevant because of stuff that will be discussed later? Peace. AgingHippie (talk) 02:49, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

The section that follows is about Eron Gjoni and describes why he is important in excruciating detail. You just seem to be picking out things that don't make sense to you in a sight reading because literally the next section after introducing Gjoni explains that he wrote an 8000 slut-shaming rant about Quinn to ruin her life.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 06:04, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

Hippie is right. That sentence & its placement in the "pre-Gamergate" section were both incredibly awkward. I've fixed it. Wėąṣėḷőįď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 08:34, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

Slut shaming? Ryulong should go editorialize in the slut shaming article so the discordant uses of the locution jibe. Chop chop. Nutty Roux (talk) 12:50, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

An 8000 word screed saying "This is my ex girlfriend and I think she slept with five men during our relationship" is "slut shaming".—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 22:41, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

Yes, I've seen you repeat that assertion. Did you read his blog post? Nutty Roux (talk) 13:06, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

I don't think I have in full or recently. When The New York Times calls it a "rambling essay", "a big rant", "a screed", etc. It is all an attempt by Gjoni to ruin Quinn's life, which he apparently spent weeks rewriting after having been banned from PA and SA and as previously linked his mother told him it was a horrible idea to go through with, and he intentionally made it so it would cause a shitstorm on 4chan.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 13:19, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

37 dicks. Robledo (talk) 01:56, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

Isn't the most important aspect the reaction to the post and not the post itself? Sterile (talk) 13:38, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

"on the forums of Penny Arcade and Something Awful"

What's a penny arcade? I assume a video game arcade, if those still exist. Peace. AgingHippie (talk) 02:50, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

Had to log in just to say that even I know what these things are - penny-arcade is a webcomic worth reading, it can be pretty funny. At somethingawful your mileage will vary. Tielec01 (talk) 02:55, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

Wēāŝēīōīď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 08:48, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

Quick, wrap him in clingfilm! Narky Sawtooth (Nyar~) 11:36, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

Alex Jones

https://twitter.com/realalexjones/status/568902613682532352 (Yes, that Alex Jones.)--ZooGuard (talk) 09:28, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

Oh, finally, somebody reasonable hops onto that hashtag. But the question is: False flag, or Milo mode? Only time will tell! Narky Sawtooth (Nyar~) 10:51, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

On second thought, maybe these aren't the nerds he was talking about. Narky Sawtooth (Nyar~) 00:59, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

Just dropping something off

Uh, so one of my friends said that there was a bit of a panic about a possible Sarin gas attack at PAX for a while. I looked it up and found this picture here. Just wanted you guys to know that it seems to be a non-aligned troll making the threats in case you wanted to put something in the article about it. I don't know about you guys, but I'm kind of worried about Wu - she's seemed a bit... unstable (not sure of a better word to use) recently, I guess, going by some of her Tweets. And this isn't helping anything. I'm glad I'm not attending PAX, I can't help but feel that something is going to go horribly wrong somehow. ^{— Unsigned, by: Flykt / talk / contribs 19:50, 21 February 2015‎}

Even better, they're from October.--Madman (talk) 20:38, 21 February 2015 (UTC)The Madman

I took a hatchet to a couple of sections

...and pared them down for punch/clarity/readability, etc. If people want who actually know something about the topic want carefully weave back in select details that help the narrative make more sense, great. If ....someone... merely mass-reverts everything with edit comments that read "THIS IS ALL CRITICAL TO THE STORY AND HAS TO STAY!!!11!!, well, I have no idea if there's any point in addressing any of the concerns numerous editors have brought up. Peace. AgingHippie (talk) 19:15, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

You cut out shit that cited several fact tags you added and removed shit calling out the fine young capitalists for the shit peddlers they have been shown to be but whatever.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 21:25, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

If you thing the Fine Young Capitalists need an article debunking them, that's not impossible. Peace. AgingHippie (talk) 21:33, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

You also cut out like every reference being used to support the claims in TFYC's section (again, they don't deserve an article because they're only known for literally exploiting Gamergate for cash) yet added a {{fact}} tag in there.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 21:38, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

Sorry. Also, I added no fact tags. A couple other people were messing around in there. Peace. AgingHippie (talk) 21:59, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

You keep removing useful citations every time I add them back in.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 22:21, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

Where? Peace. AgingHippie (talk) 22:22, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

Zoe Post section. We Hunted the Mammoth and Verge and Buzzfeed on Gjoni's subsequent girlfriend playing "midwife" to the post and the mention that his mom said it was a bad idea. Also of import is that he had intentionally crafted the post for 4chan to read, as investigated by the "Hateful Boyfriend" piece on Idle Dilletant. It just looks like you blanket reverted the edits I had made as well.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 22:25, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

I took that out not because of the references, but his new girlfriend, and his mom, and what he had for lunch that day and the colour of socks he was wearing is the kind of detail that mskes this article a boring mess to read. Peace. AgingHippie (talk) 22:27, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

Then just remove that instead of blanket reverting the additions.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 22:31, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

You also left a few bits not being actually grammatical sentences. Please at least pretend to be paying attention to what you're doing - David Gerard (talk) 21:34, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

Sorry. I'll try not to ruin your wiki anymore, Gerard. Peace. AgingHippie (talk) 21:34, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

You don't have to be so demeaning David Gerard, AgingHippie is just helping make to make the article digestable for every RW-reader/user, not just for the 10 people who already know everything about Gamergate. Of course it will not be perfect after one try. (Tell Me What To Think) _{and (I'll tell you what to feel)} 12:55, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

No, he literally left broken sentences all over the place. But thanks for your concern! - David Gerard (talk) 16:29, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

I'm sure your civility to your constituency will get you a good share of the vote, David.--Madman (talk) 16:32, 22 February 2015 (UTC)The Madman

That's just David being David. Not a big deal. Peace. AgingHippie (talk) 22:19, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

The edits Aginghippige made are a step in the right direction, even if they were not perfect an sich. Now, I know I sound like some expat kindergarten teacher when saying this, but if we all work and think together on this subject, instead of being hostile to alternative opinions, I think we can improve the article to make it acceptable for the anti-GG people working on this article as wel as the critics of this article's density. It is in everybody's best interest to make this article readable for everybody. No hard feelings about anything ok? (Tell Me What To Think) _{and (I'll tell you what to feel)} 16:42, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

I've always hated how huge and tl;dr this article is and I'm fine with it being shortened to the most important stuff. But please, do not use the term 'anti-GG'. It was made up by gators to imply that there are two sides to this controversy and that there is an anti-GG mob that is pro-corruption. The people editing this article are anti-harassment. That's all. They're not part of a group like GG are. Typhoon (talk) 17:35, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

I'm working my way gradually through a rewrite that should make better sense, but it's a painful process as the chronology has got really muddled as it stands and Ryulong is going to edit war over every little change. But anyhoo, I think I've got the event of Gamergate's first two or three weeks set straight within the first few sections. There are still a lot of narrative problems with the next few sections - e.g. Brianna Wu is mentioned three times as a Gamergate target before the text says who she is & why she's targeted - so I'll try to get on top of them soon, but probably not today. Wěǎšěǐǒǐď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 16:55, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

Perhaps people shouldn't cut out whole paragraphs just because they can't understand it past the first sentence.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 22:15, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

Perhaps people shouldn't be angry , condescending little twats whose typing apparently fails whenever somebody harms their precious pet article. Just a thought.--Madman (talk) 00:45, 23 February 2015 (UTC)The Madman

donotlink.com

This discussion was moved here from User talk:Weaseloid.

Why aren't you allowing this?—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 23:56, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

Because it's pointless and looks deceitful. What are you trying to achieve with it? Wëäŝëïöïď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 23:57, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

Not providing anything extra to him and it's not like y'all don't use it already.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 23:59, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

FuzzyCatPotato did most of those without discussing it first. It's going to be a pain in the arse undoing them so there they are for the time being. Don't add any more. Wèàšèìòìď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 00:01, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

I did it for certain articles from Breitbart.com that are necessary for the narrative of Gamergate and I'd rather we left it that way, particularly for the one that unceremonially attacks a woman by alleging she's trans.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 00:15, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

You're still not explaining yourself. What do you think it will achieve? Wěǎšěǐǒǐď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 00:18, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

Hey, I only did it cuz the links provided at the To Do list for Liberty Beacon used it and it seemed harmless. I'm not sure how it looks deceitful, but I get that, with nofollow, it's pointless. Time to purge it? 32℉uzzy; 0℃atPotato (talk/stalk) 01:01, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

We already have the Nofollow extension enabled by default, so unless a website is blocking our redirects (as in the case of NaturalNews, for example), it is pointless to link it through donotlink.com. John Jacob Jingleheimer Schmidt (talk) 01:22, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

For NN we don't even use DNL. 32℉uzzy; 0℃atPotato (talk/stalk) 01:40, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

Your summarization got facts wrong. You removed usage of wpl. Why did you revert all of my edits?—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 02:26, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

That's the third time you've told me I got facts wrong without saying what so I still have no clue. Fix whatever aspect of the summary was incorrect, but please we don't need to go into a whole "she posted it on Stream then took it off then posted it again" narrative. That's why we have a separate timeline page. Stick to the point. & I removed totally fucking pointless usage of wpl. Get used to the fact that you're not at Wikipedia any more. We don't need to link every other word. I think the average reader has probably heard of Robin Williams and clinical depression. If they haven't, the context these things are mentioned in makes it clear what they are. If the reader wants to stop & read about them in the middle of reading this article, they can use Google. We don't need to link them to anything. Wěǎšěǐǒǐď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 02:33, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

I don't know. YOu would think that the shit I added back would be enough of a hint as to what you got wrong.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 02:42, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

Nope. I see you took out the statement that Quinn was accused of capitalizing on Williams' death. Isn't that the whole point of mentioning him at all? If not, we might as well delete that paragraph as it's just trivia about when & why she did something. Wēāŝēīōīď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 02:49, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

Done. ₩€₳$€£ΘĪÐ^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 17:35, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

"Mostly because they very quickly saw his previous tweets and blog posts that were obvious attacks on the gamer demographic."

Ruylong: 1. That is not a sentence. 2. It is unclear as to what connection you are trying to make there. Peace. AgingHippie (talk) 01:12, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

THEN FIX IT—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 01:42, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

I can't fix it if I don't know what you're trying to say, dummy. Peace. AgingHippie (talk) 01:52, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

Well maybe it'd be easier to fix if people didn't delete references from the page.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 01:55, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

The connection would still be unclear with a footnote after it, bozo. Peace. AgingHippie (talk) 02:20, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

"People" are trying to mould this into a readable, accessible and relevant article. You're hindering that process much more than you're helping it. ΨΣΔξΣΓΩΙÐ^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 02:09, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

Well I had a bad sentence and it's fixed so what is the big deal now?—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 05:13, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

The antagonism? It's not just coming from you, but if both sides keep it up it's not gonna die down anytime soon. 141.134.75.236 (talk) 06:22, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

You make your own coop case, Ryulong. --Madman (talk) 01:57, 23 February 2015 (UTC)The Madman

You're a coop case Madman.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 05:13, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

Sometimes, I wonder if you're actually a performance artist, Ryulong. --Madman (talk) 15:04, 23 February 2015 (UTC)The Madman

Jesus Christ, guys...

Could we leave all this whiny, bickering bullshit to the Gators, please? Thank you. 96.51.141.237 (talk) 13:31, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

A bit of bickering is natural wiki behavior. The most we can control is our level of pettiness about it. Ikanreed (talk) 15:05, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

Yeah; comparing in-house petty bickering bullshit to an organized campaign of misogyny isn't really helpful. Peace. AgingHippie (talk) 15:09, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

All the bickering seems to be happening only between the bickerers and the bickerees, so I assume it's a case of "sarcasm is not easy to tell on the internet" at best and "this is just how they talk" at worst. At least, I hope that no bickering would ever come my way. But, maybe the bonbon is more concerned with how it looks to outside people and less concerned with whether or not anybody's feelings are actually hurt - not that I'm calling that a bad concern. Narky Sawtooth (Floof!~) 16:28, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

I'm calling that a bad concern Ikanreed (talk) 16:35, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

Considering that it seems that we can't edit wording and grammar without bickering, I think there's a valid point somewhere. |₹Λ¥$€₦₦ ^{Some men just want to watch RW burn} 17:03, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, okay. Truncating unnecessarily large piles of words is necessary and certain someones are opposed to that. At a certain point it's just that that certain someone doesn't own the article. Ikanreed (talk) 17:05, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

I'm enjoying the very accusatory use of "someone" and "people" on this talk page. Seems like a running theme. Keep it up. Wēāŝēīōīď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 18:17, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

It's me. I'm the problematic someone. Ikanreed (talk) 18:19, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

No, John. You are the people. |₹Λ¥$€₦₦ ^{I've got canned heat in my heels tonight, baby} 19:48, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

All y'all need to drink more. --Castaigne (talk) 21:55, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

Also, you are getting things wrong in your summarization and taking things out of order.

You know why? Because this thing is written with the assumption that people already know all of this stuff already, and so clouded with detail that the narrative is completely unclear. If a summary MESSES UP the order, blame the poor source material. I a trying to do the best I can with what I have to work with. And I don't want to point out anything that's unclear, because the last time I did that you all-cappsed me to FIX IT MYSELF. Peace. AgingHippie (talk) 00:14, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

There's not much point in asking what you got wrong. You'll only be told you should have figured it out for yourself. Wèàšèìòìď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 00:40, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

Why are people cutting out years?

To shorten sentences and paragraphs. The context, and the fact that this article is largely a minute-by-minute account of events make it clear that if something happened on September 12, 2014, an mention in the next section/sentence/paragraph of September 13 also happened in 2014. Peace. AgingHippie (talk) 00:59, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

Then fucking say why in the first place.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 01:50, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

Ryulong, chill pls. αδελφός ΓυζζγςατΡοτατο (talk/stalk) 02:05, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

I see them removed. I've remarked in edit summaries asking why. Then I see they're removed again. Someone needs to clarify why.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 02:16, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

See the first post in the section in which you posted this question, where I answered clearly. Peace. AgingHippie (talk) 02:31, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

So snark or no snark?

I've atempted to take the piss out of people but every variation is removed for something bland and not a joke. I can't say someone waffles more than someone who's named himself after a pastry. I can't say that an opinion changes more than the tide. And I can't say that it's changed more than what Gamergate thinks its strawman enemies do to their hair. For people complaining that this article is long and inpenetrable, wouldn't these stupid fucking jokes make it any better?—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 01:50, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

They aren't funny, snark needs to be amusing. Tielec01 (talk) 01:52, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

Guess what, Ryulong? It's not all about you. If you want a page where you can write whatever you like about Gamergate without other people interfering with your text, which is what it seems like you're looking for, may I suggest creating a personal essay page? Wẽãšẽĩõĩď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 02:02, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

Well then someone needs to come up with jokes that work to break this shit up.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 02:14, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

Someone has a lot to answer for. ₩€₳$€£ΘĪÐ^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 02:17, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

I don't fucking care anymore. You all hate my writing and want me gone because my presence here is apparently toxic. Fill this shit with jokes that make sense or ban me. Why the fuck should I bother. This is the one thing here that I have any experience in writing about or dealing with. I don't know anything about GMOs or antivaxxers or climate change deniers to be useful on those other parts of this website.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 02:23, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

I can't speak for anyone else, but I don't want you gone. However, if you can't let go of owning this article then I think the writing is on the wall. I appreciate that you haven't abused your blocking powers since that little shit-storm so respect where it is due. Tielec01 (talk) 02:32, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

Your writing is problematic, largely, I imagine, because you are way too fucking close to this story to write about it without being an OCD completist. Which, I know you will not believe me when I say this, I respect. I get that you are an activist in this situation, and I'm sure your involvement therein has caused you a degree of pain. I get that. But RW does not need, right now, a book-length, blow-by-blow account. It needs something judisciously put together that tells the story to people who weren't there. Right now, you're not doing that. And it's not that your presence is toxic. It's that you are doing a very, very bad job of taking criticism and collaborating on an inherently collaborative poject. If you do not want your writing, as the disclaimer at the bottom of the edit window says, to be edited mercilessly and redistributed at will, then do not submit it here--start a blog. They're free, and you can do whatever the hell you want.

I have actually learned a lot about the topic editing the article. I now know what Gamergate is--I didn't, last week. I now have a way better understanding of, and empathy for, the place of women (a subject I care deeply about) in the gaming world (a subject I am largely ignorant of and indifferent to). I'm grateful for that. But if you can't play nice and work with experienced editors, your experience here will be a negative one. And that's too bad. Peace. AgingHippie (talk) 02:42, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

Ryulong, I do not want you gone. You effectively wrote a very useful article on a very useful subject. Everything here has been trying to improve said article; better is different for different people, and so editwars happen.

The problem is not whether you write badly or are "toxic". The problem is too much detail on an article for newbs. I suggest that you edit Gamergate/Timeline and add ridiculously detailed, blow-by-blow stuff there; whenever a really big story breaks, bring the simplified version back here. oʇɐʇoԀʇɐϽʎzznℲ (talk/stalk) 02:48, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

I just want this article to be decent for anyone reading it. I know I'm close to the topic. And I'm only really an "activist" in that I'm spending my free time working on this stuff here. I just want this page to be good for you guys and good when its read by the people like myself who've been subject to this group's garbage. A lot of it at first just seemed like cutting things out for the sake of cutting it out, when I thought there was some relevance to the subject as a whole from having experienced it firsthand. The first thing I had ever suggested be added here (showing an ethical breach by GG favorite TFYC) is now cut out of the page. The jokes I tried to incorporate as per some of the other pages I read are gone. I just don't know what's good anymore from the outsider's perspective and I'm not particularly sure how useful the timeline page is in covering the recent developments (Mark Kern's shitty change.org petition and the staff changes at The Escapist). It's there to say that these things happened, but then I find all of the criticism and commentary about it such that it works better on this page rather than the other.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 02:55, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

So stand back and let other editors get on with revising the article without edit warring over every damn word. Some of us do have a good sense of what is relevant and important and and what will make sense to readers and what is just mindless detail or petty mudslinging. Wēāŝēīōīď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 08:18, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

Some of this "petty mudslinging" you claim is in here has citations and shit to back it up.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 10:07, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

That doesn't make it relevant to the the article per-se. (Tell Me What To Think) _{and (I'll tell you what to feel)} 10:25, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

Such a thing would be relevant if it shows rampant hypocrisy that goes ignored by Gamergate because it's done by an ally.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 11:48, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

I think you guys could possibly benefit from paying more attention to Ryulong, who has the important advantage of knowing what the fuck he's talking about when you admit yourselves that you literally don't. If he says something's important and relevant, you know what, that just might be the fucking case. You seem to be presuming that he's "too close" and therefore doesn't know what he's talking about - you have this precisely backwards, so you end up doing dumb shit - David Gerard (talk) 12:58, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

At the same time though, being close to the situation makes you lose objectivity on what actually matters in the long run. Small details serve to clog things up, and as has been mentioned before, you lose the big picture out of it. I've lurked enough to see Ryulong has plenty of passion for the subject, and that's definitely a double edged sword, especially for an issue like this.

Ryulong, I think it would benefit you greatly if you had a sandbox space to keep track of everything, and for everyone to better reference to make this article more clear. That way there would be a solid base of information to work with, and the long term relevance can be judged by those with more objectivity to the situation, with a double benefit of removing a bit of the target off of your head as far as vandalism goes. Just my 2 cents on this whole bit. Trick (talk) 14:01, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

(EC) He's also said, including in this thread, that he doesn't know or understand what is important about Gamergate to "outsiders" or why. This is what I, AgingHippie and others have been working to address in the article: gradually shaping it into an article that makes sense to readers not already familiar with the details and makes points worth that are relevant to general readers & not only the gamersphere. An epic moment-by-moment account of every little detail written by & for the people who are fighting this war doesn't seem like a great use for this article. I'm sure there's a place for that here, e.g. in the timeline or essay space, but it shouldn't be the main GG article. Wẽãšẽĩõĩď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 14:08, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

Yes, but that doesn't mean he knows less than you about which bits are actually important points, nor should you be setting yourself up as a gatekeeper. You're literally treating your personal ignorance as a qualification rather than a hindrance. Stop doing that - David Gerard (talk) 16:26, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

Where have I ever suggested that? Wẽãšẽĩõĩď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 18:11, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

More shitty comic edits

http://agoodcartoon.tumblr.com/post/111860236570/agoodcartoon-heres-the-original-fucking —Ryūlóng (琉竜) 05:16, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

Too meta for a casual glance. Do you endorse "sexists and racists would rather pay hush money than actually change their ways, two good cartoons."? Holy ghost (talk) 12:40, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

The joke is that GG blackmail people with "revealing" (scare quotes) that these people are sexist. 181.46.67.131 (talk) 12:54, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

That makes no sense to me. The comic reads as if it was written from the GG side to ridicule SJWs for manipulating people with the threat of calling someone a sexist. It's a subset of the broader trope of lording over someone the threat of making any toxic accusation. It doesn't matter if the accusation is true or not; the fact that it has been made is enough. Sexism is a powerfully toxic accusation. Holy ghost (talk) 13:12, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

Then get your reading comprehension up. That was a pro-GG comic. The thing about hush money was a snarky "alternate interpretation." Of course, Intel wasn't paying "hush-money," as far as I can tell. It's more like slowbeef and his "I shouldn't be a dick to people" revelation, except this is a case of "we got the wool pulled over our eyes." Narky Sawtooth (Floof!~) 13:30, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

I want to congratulate RationalWiki for supporting GamerGate's views

You took the time to collect evidence of GG's complains, including media manipulation, unwillingness to discuss in a civil manner, rampant use of bad arguments such as ad hominem ("all of GG is composed of misogynists, therefore everything they say is fake"), No True Scotsman ("no woman/lgbt individual/non-white person would agree with GG, they must join Anti-GG, otherwise they are braindwashed sheeple". Please, there must be at least one who agrees with GG. Or two who agree. Or two thousand.), shooting the message ("famous right-wingers agree [dr_evil_airquotes.jpg] with GG, therefore GG is wrong". Nevermind that GG agrees almost in nothing with said famous right-wingers. Nevermind that using that logic, we can consider Anti-GG as evil because they are given support from Anita "I'll deliver my series on a timely manner" Sarkeesian.) argumentum ad cellarium, among others.

The evidence in question being the main page, the talk page, the history (aka "fossil record") page, the mere presence of Ryulong (who could at least bothered to change his username to make it look a bit more "legit"). You are making GG's work too easy, you literally need basic knowledge of the MediaWiki software.

Remember the horseshoe theory? Remember how RW was born as a satire of Conservapedia? How SJW started to take over RW? RW became what they hate in the most ironic metafictional postmodernist self-parodying manner. I apologize for that last sentence, i could probably blame it on TVTropes. Not that i'm complaining of TVTropes.

More exactly, while Conservapedia still has its share of crazy, RW can't decide if they are serious or satire. They cherry pick what they want to show. Poe's Law in a new level. Take for example your article of Charity. All about secular and religous donations. No info about the psychological/sociological/economical (as in hard numbers and statistics) facets of charity. Trivial: that was taken from a LessWrong article + commentaries, from 2012, way before this mess.

If you consider this as trolling, well then i'll consider myself a troll of trolls. Keep up the good work and maybe we can renew the cycle and reach a new level of meta-trolling. Sorry, my troper side showed up again. 181.46.67.131 (talk) 12:52, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

First of all, you're straw-manning. The most clear example of the straw-manning that I can point out is that at no point has the consensus of RationalWiki editors been that no women or minorities would side with GG. You didn't provide evidence for that statement or any others you made, so I'm not about to waste my time trying to prove a negative. And, what the heck is up with the body of your little speech? The ad hominems are distracting me from any point you might have. The other editors are trying to help Ryulong with his behavior, so I would assume that you're just making that statement for the sake of poisoning the well. He is not the entirety of this website. And, the charity article: Are you trying to use that as some sort of evidence of wrongdoing here (which is an ad hominem) or just an expression of your contempt? And why do you keep on mentioning being a Troper? Narky Sawtooth (Floof!~) 13:18, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

I'm strawmanning RW saying they strawman GG after reading the very first words of the page (skipping the opening quote which is a little introduction). Bold emphatized by me. "Gamergate" is a series of alleged scandals in the video game industry, the internet activism movement associated with these claims, and the associated harassment campaigns run by bitter misogynists, agitators, and trolls intended to drive outspoken women, feminists, and "social justice warriors" out of the industry. [...] To counter claims of its [harassing] origins, those who support the Gamergate movement claim they are a grassroots movement centered on such high-minded ideals as "ethics in video game journalism" and protecting game developers' freedom of expression. However, even at a quick glance, Gamergate is the latest manifestation of the climate of hostility toward women and feminism within loud sections of the video games community. [...] Alongside these attacks have been various ploys to spread disinformation about the movement and promote a positive image of Gamergate as an inclusive movement with legitimate concerns about corruption. This favorable spin was relayed in some early media coverage, allowing Gamergate to enlist the support of useful idiots genuinely concerned about gaming journalism and dissatisfied with the gaming industry status quo. Gamergate has also attracted support from opportunistic right-wingers, reactionaries, and neo-Nazis.

Literally none of Gamergate's advocates' claims of "what really happened" hold up under scrutiny — including claims that may initially seem plausible. Attempts at debunking their claims are met with moving the goalpost and the threat of being targeted in turn.

About Ryulong: i know he isn't all of RW, however he is responsible for a lot of the content here and in the Wikipedia page (before his ban), as shown in the history page. Obviously there are others, but i found him as "the most notorious".

About ad hominems: RW does adverstise itself as non-neutral, "humor" based, original research ("I am my own source and that is enought"). See RationalWiki:What_is_a_RationalWiki_article?

About troper: well, i do admit that it was irrelevant, i just wanted to spice up. By bad. 181.46.67.131 (talk) 13:49, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

Quite a bit of that seems to be responses to things I wasn't saying. Odd, because that was one of the few times I thought I was communicating my thoughts clearly. I do understand that I'm hard to understand, though. Either way, let's start small. Other than the snark, what's one thing (and just one thing for now) that you find non-factual? Not non-biased, just non-factual. Narky Sawtooth (Floof!~) 14:00, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

You took the time to review your side of the argument, and observe what you wanted to see while simultaneously ignoring all discussion, general opinions on this site, and the fact that there are still quite a few (actually logical) pro-gg arguments given voice here. Then, in a glorious display of multitasking, you reference an article that follows the specific goals of the site and under a specific POV could care less about information that can be found elsewhere or is just commonly assumed.

So by your logic you must be a Poe right? Trick (talk) 13:43, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

You are precisely correct. This article is mainly a collection of Ryulong's lies and delusions. The other editors only seem to give a shit that this rambling diarrhea of his mental illness is too long and therefore inaccessible. If this wiki had any brains they would've banned that nutcase as soon as he showed up. 67.42.179.7 (talk) 15:47, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

Hello, I'm the drivel's devil's advocate here. My question to you, in order to start this off small and collected, is the same one I asked in this topic already: Other than the snark, what's one thing (and just one thing for now) that you find non-factual? Not non-biased, just non-factual. Narky Sawtooth (Floof!~) 16:34, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

I already played that game and got banned several days for "doxxing" someone by stating the facts in a source already used in this Gamergate article. The "doxxing" was about their sexuality, even though doxxing is defined by this wiki as, "the practice of obtaining and revealing personally identifying information (such as names, addresses, places of employment, relatives)." So why should I play this game again? The players involved will redefine whatever terms they want in order to ban people who show they are fucking liars. "Doxxing" is not saying stuff about a person that they don't want to hear.67.42.179.7 (talk) 17:01, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

Maybe we can compromise? If you point to a specific sentence on the page, I can look up the facts myself. Narky Sawtooth (Floof!~) 17:09, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

Fine. "Gators for whatever reason like to allege she is transgender as if that somehow completely negates any of her opinions or points. In 2015, she addressed the concerns about the baseless accusations in a post on Reddit, saying that she had come to the conclusion that whatever she said, it would continue to perpetuate transphobia.[111] Two weeks later, Milo Yiannopoulos compiled all of Gamergate's "evidence" in a massive hit piece on her, that simultaneously claimed that Gamergate isn't transphobic for having come up with this conspiracy theory in the first place.[112"

You can look at Milo's article,which is one of the sources. He posted voice samples of Brianna Wu doing both a male and female voice that he pulled off Susan's transgender forum. There is a lot more evidence, but that's extremely compelling and yet the article pretends like there is no evidence and that is a conspiracy theory from stupid "gators." I expanded on this evidence in user talk, Ryulong showed up and would make a bunch of stupid statements about the evidence, I'd counter his idiocy, and then I'd get banned. That's how this game gets played. 67.42.179.7 (talk) 17:17, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘

That's not what the article says. Please don't waste a fucking ton of time here, about contesting "facts" that aren't stated. You're just going to get the talk page back to autoconfirmed=edit protection. Ikanreed (talk) 17:36, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

Case in point. I copy and paste part of the article and a butthurt moron comes along claiming that's not what the article says and that he'll just get the talk page protected again. 67.42.179.7 (talk) 17:44, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

Your problem here, is that you think "conspiracy theory" means "not containing any supporting arguments", when that's kinda starkly irrelevant to the notion of connecting a series of tenuous points in a way that is fundamentally centered on establishing an unspecified malevolence. You're not doing yourself any favors. Ikanreed (talk) 17:54, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

In addition, Wu's a woman. I don't see how you could be confused on that. Narky Sawtooth (Floof!~) 17:58, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

Depends on your definition of "woman." Milo provided strong evidence that she is transgender. If anyone is confused that would mean she is or was confused about her gender. 67.42.179.7 (talk) 18:38, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

She's a woman, though. That's what she says; That's all there is to it. Narky Sawtooth (Floof!~) 18:44, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

Please do not debate an individual's gender identity. Please do not use RW to provide "evidence" on an individual's gender identity. That is a form of outing and/or doxxing that crosses the line of decent human conduct. Peace. AgingHippie (talk) 18:51, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

"Baseless accusations" means "no evidence." Putting evidence in quotes implies there is no evidence. This does not meet the definition of a conspiracy theory. That makes the entire statements about it incredibly deceitful. 67.42.179.7 (talk) 18:38, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

Jet fuel can't melt steel beams.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 21:58, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

Chemtrail liquid can. Trick (talk) 15:34, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

The only thing that can stop a bad guy with a conspiracy theory is another bad guy with a conspiracy theory. Narky Sawtooth (Floof!~) 18:14, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

"This article is mainly a collection of Ryulong's lies and delusions."

Then register an account and edit it, which I've told you to do before and which you don't have sufficient balls to do.

"The "doxxing" was about their sexuality, even though doxxing is defined by this wiki"

Outing people is doxxing. As I told you before.

"Depends on your definition of "woman." Milo provided strong evidence that she is transgender."

Wu says she's a woman and identifies as such. That is all that matters. I don't know why you think its important that Milo (a transphobic cockmongler who gleefully refuses to pay his employees) says otherwise. --Castaigne (talk) 18:53, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

"Remember how RW was born as a satire of Conservapedia?"

And it has left its origins behind, as all constantly evolving communities do.

"How SJW started to take over RW?"

No, they really haven't. And if you think this, you're smoking crack - and not the good kind.

"RW can't decide if they are serious or satire. They cherry pick what they want to show."

1) See that whole bit about not having NPOV. 2) We're not interested in being either serious or satire; it's up to the individual editor and what they are editing.

" No info about the psychological/sociological/economical (as in hard numbers and statistics) facets of charity."

No missional relevance. This is not Wikipedia. --Castaigne (talk) 18:53, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

One of the People who "threatened" Wu with his mom's Prius turns out to be a Million Dollar Extreme hoax, Ghazi flips out.

See here and here in case they BALEET it for being too embarrassing on their part. Needless to say, they're all either in denial or insulting him anyway.--Madman (talk) 13:07, 24 February 2015 (UTC)The Madman

This has what to do with what? Narky Sawtooth (Floof!~) 13:25, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

It shows both sides and their communities are incredibly insular, to the point of Groupthink.--Madman (talk) 14:02, 24 February 2015 (UTC)The Madman

GamerGhazi is of no consequence to GamerGate's validity. Also, it looks like they're doing the right thing there by calling out stupid satire. Narky Sawtooth (Floof!~) 14:09, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

Pretty much what Narky Sawthooth said. I'll just add that Ghazi isn't "flipping out", instead they're calling him out for, to quote: "It's like he doesn't realize that there was a real person he was attacking with his 'art,' who wasn't in on the 'joke.' It didn't get 'too real' when he made a real woman think a real weirdo really stole his mom's car to come confront her. It got 'too real' when people started saying mean things to him because of it." I agree with that. Does that make me part of the "other side"? Because, I find it hilarious that The Madman is trying to imply that there are now "two sides" to this horrible mess called GamerGate, when it would be much more accurate to describe it as a horrible mob vs everyone else. Typhoon (talk) 15:55, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

Unrelated, but you gave me an idea: Infiltrate GG and put into place a drinking game similar to RW's where every time someone says a cliche remark about GG's goals they drink. Problem fixes itself. Trick (talk) 15:58, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

Maybe we need a page on GamerGhazi? I have a few ideas for how to go about that. Narky Sawtooth (Floof!~) 18:13, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

What the fuck is a "GamerGhazi," now? Peace. AgingHippie (talk) 18:39, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

A GamerGhazi is when a Sega flip-toggles the bit on Nintendo's analog-axis to recalibrate the field's killscreen. Jokes aside, it's a subreddit (a community on Reddit) based around fighting GamerGate. When people say "both sides are bad," they mean GamerGate and GamerGhazi. It has less antics than GamerGate, though, and would be a much shorter article. Narky Sawtooth (Floof!~) 18:50, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

Note, that they don't consider themselves to be the "other side" or "anti-gg". From their sidebar: We reject the label "Anti-GG," as we are not a movement in the same sense GG is. We are simply Gamergate's critics along with those directly threatened by the mob. While Ghazi is a group, "anti-GG" at large is not. Pointing and laughing is not a "movement." Typhoon (talk) 19:31, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

Ah, yes. But "both sides are bad" is a terrible argument anyways. Narky Sawtooth (Floof!~) 19:52, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

(EC) They're kind of a clearing-house for GG news and idiocy in the same way as AgainstMensRights or TheBluePill are for MRAs in general.Queex_{chthonic murmurings} 19:54, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

Also they're named after Benghazi.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 04:19, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

We don't need a page on GamerGhazi. One line in the external links here (with KiA to match the set) would be sufficient - David Gerard (talk) 13:16, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

Is it time to break this down a bit?

This is the second-longest page on the wiki, and most other pages of a similar length are side-by-sides debunking a series of claims in a book or film. Is there any advantage to making this page a concise summary of the crisis, and taking individual topics within that and expanding them within their own articles? Given the importance of the crisis to the geek community, the feminist community, and the tech community, all important parts of our audience/our own community, there's nothing here that I think should be excised from our coverage, but part of me thinks a simple, easy-to-read in a few moments version with links to articles on specific sub-topics for people who want to go further in depth, all linked together with one of those category template sidebars might be more manageable. As it stands now, a guy like me who sees Gamergate swirling around in his Twitter feed but is basically unfamiliar with gamer culture may come here for some background, see this wall o' text and look elsewhere for something a little more concise. Peace. AgingHippie (talk) 01:13, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, it's ballooned a bit. There isn't this need for covering all the various actors in detail, especially considering that we're trying to be better about BLPish stuff. Ikanreed (talk) 01:26, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

Much of the page should be moved to Gamergate/Timeline, some could go to 8chan, and some of the actors could get their own pages.--TiaC (talk) 01:38, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

It can be trimmed but it is of course better to have more to look at before trimming. Also the "various actors" bit isn't an issue when you can point out sourced criticism about them.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 02:16, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

EC I said nothing about "trimming," if by that you mean "throwing away." It's about making this article something other than a giant, sprawling, blow-by-blow and moving more in-depth coverage to its own home. Peace. AgingHippie (talk) 02:22, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

These sections seemed most promising for moving content to other articles:

2.2 Gamergate#The Fine Young Capitalists - Could be another article, "The Fine Young Capitalists

2.2.1 Gamergate#"Vivian James" - Could be another article, "Vivian James"

3.2.1 Gamergate#@Nero and his fiddle - Could be another article, "Milo Yiannopoulos"

3.6 Gamergate#4chan shows Gamergate the door - Could be merged into 4chan

4.3 Gamergate#Gamergate and Wikipedia - Could be merged into Wikipedia, maybe

4.6 Gamergate#Gamergate attempts to "weaponize" porn - Could merged into porn under a "revenge porn" section

4.8 Gamergate#Gamergate defends 8chan's tolerance of child porn - Could be merged into 8chan

4.12 Gamergate#Tyler Wilde and Anne Lewis - Could be another article, "PC Gamer" or "Tyler Wilde"

6 Gamergate#Obligatory Gamergate wiki - Could be another article, "Gamergate Wiki"

Thoughts? 32℉uzzy; 0℃atPotato (talk/stalk) 02:21, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

Given that I know Jack about the topic, I won't have too much to say about what should stay here in the core article and what's best hived off elsewhere, but that looks like a plan. Don't go off half-cocked and do it right away, though. Wait a day or so and let Gerard and other interested parties chime in. Peace. AgingHippie (talk) 02:25, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

Getting feedback is the plan. 32℉uzzy; 0℃atPotato (talk/stalk) 02:29, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

This all looks like a terrible plan. Content can be cut down but shunting things off to new articles makes no sense whatsoever. The Fine Young Capitalists and Vivian James have jackshit all to do with anything on their own and are part of Gamergate as a whole. The single paragraph on Gamergate's self-curated Wiki doesn't deserve its own page either. All of the topics have to do with Gamergate. Gamergate's protection of 8chan's child porn doesn't belong on 8chan's page. The fact that Gamergate convinced a pornographic actress to work for them has nothing to do with "revenge porn". I don't know of any precedent set by other pages on this site that all of this is even feasible. All of this has to do with Gamergate. Maybe it needs to be organized better and stuff should be incorporated into the timeline page but this "cut this page apart and make new pages out of it" tactic makes no sense.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 02:42, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

I disagree. I think the overall direction of the page is wrong. It is a blow-by-blow documentation of the events, when really what a RationalWiki article should ideally be is an analysis and refutation of an idea. There is no end of things to criticise the Gamergate "movement" for, but that should probably should be done on point-by-point basis. Why Gamergate is about misogyny/harrasement and not "ethic is games journalism" should be the focus of the article, not the chronicling of net drama. If we have a timeline article it should go there. - π 09:01, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

I can agree to cutting things back (and moving things to the timeline) but cutting it apart and making brand new pages is a terrible plan.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 10:08, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

As Ryulong pointed out, this is all here because it's part of this thing, and sectioning it out to other things for the sake of page length won't actually help the reader much. If it broke down into subarticles naturally, it would have done so.

Suggestion: add a longer summary overview, as the intro is getting swollen - David Gerard (talk) 13:39, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

I still don't think Vivian James is of any importance to the scope of this article. At best, she deserves one or two paragraphs. |₹Λ¥$€₦₦ ^{My life I trade in for your pain} 03:08, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

Vivian James is literally used as an excuse that Gamergate is not a bunch of misogynists because they created a female mascot to be their puppet. It's relevant.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 04:32, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

That much is relevant. I don't think the whole "piccolo dick" nor the Rule 34 bits are very relevant. The former because you-don't-say-4channer-reference-lame-memes and the latter because even an insurance mascot gets truckloads of porn. |₹Λ¥$€₦₦ ^{My wishes over their airspace} 17:50, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

I disagree. Why remove those bits in particular? - David Gerard (talk) 20:03, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

Some of the articles suggested above don't look very promising, but I think Brianna Wu & Milo Yiannopoulos could stand as separate articles. Pi is right about the focus of this article; it's got too caught up in live-blogging every related incident - something we don't really do for other movements such as the Tea Party. ΨΣΔξΣΓΩΙÐ^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 15:21, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

Maybe instead of writing totally new articles, we could break some sections of the article and make them subpages with an accompanying summary on the main page? For example, we could make a "harassment" subpage with a detailed log of Gamergate harassment, with a summary of Gamergate harassment on the main page. 32℉uzzy; 0℃atPotato (talk/stalk) 19:55, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

There is already Gamergate/Timeline.--ZooGuard (talk) 19:59, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

But it doesn't go into detail or break stuff up into similar topics -- like harassment or an individual incident. 32℉uzzy; 0℃atPotato (talk/stalk) 20:03, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

It could do. At the moment it's bullet points, but some of them are already slightly longer than bullet points generally are, so putting in some yet larger ones wouldn't be too out of place. That would leave this article as a space for a more thematic breakdown: briefer and more brutal. As far as putting content in other articles goes, that's a sound idea but not at the expense of removing it from GG and GG/timeline. Keep it in the timeline, write it up again for the separate articles, and then leave the choicest in the main GG article. Before any of that though, I think we should do some work on compacting the existing article - reducing words, not content. Queex_{chthonic murmurings} 15:39, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

Dissenting opinion from a reader (emailed to me, posted with permission):

Hi, I'm reddit.com/u/cykosys and I've also done a couple storify's that are cited in the GG article.

The talk page is understandably locked to keep out the sea lions, so I've come to register my complaint about splitting the GG article here. I understand you have your own standards of wiki editing that's I'm not up to speed on, but the article as it is has become a great source for "remember when GG defended kiddie porn" or things like that. While some of the stuff makes sense to split off, Vivian James or PCgamer, for example, make no sense as articles on rationalwiki outside the context of Gamergate.

- David Gerard (talk) 17:35, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

Exactly. A link from a sentence saying that happened to the relevant in-depth article would allow people who were interested in reading/researching about that to give the space a serious topic like that is due without cluttering up an already-sprawling page. Wikis are good at that sort of thing. Peace. AgingHippie (talk) 17:41, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

Subpages. If we had Gamergate/Child porn, and "Gamergate has defended child porn" on Gamergate, we still document all the times Gamergaters have defended child porn but have an easier-to-read main article. Plus, if something (such as Gamergate/Harassment or Gamergate/Sexism) currently spans multiple sections, the subpage condenses that point into one page. That way, when people wanna say "Gamergate has harassed people" they can link to the subpage, which in-depth covers all the harassment, rather than the main page, where people have to wade through the everything else. 32℉uzzy; 0℃atPotato (talk/stalk) 18:03, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

THIS. Peace. AgingHippie (talk) 18:03, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

Summarized subarticles ... might work - David Gerard (talk) 20:32, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

I will say, as someone who has little interest in gaming, I find this article entirely inaccessible. There's just too much detail. I can't get past the lede, let alone looking at subpages ever. I don't know who you're intended audience is, but you've lost me at least. Sterile (talk) 20:52, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

Wot 'e(↑) sed. Scream!! (talk) 21:03, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

Breaking it down still seems like an awful idea. It needs a rewrite but not sending things off to other pages when it's all in the context of Gamergate and it being a hate campaign rather than a consumer movement.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 21:18, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

You know you can just say that, right? Supporting details are supporting details, wherever they reside. Ikanreed (talk) 21:29, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

I'm trying to get people to look it over who haven't been here to help me restructure it but it's a pain in the ass. THere's no need to separate TFYC and Vivian James from this page because they are only ever known within the context of Gamergate and it is their presence within Gamergate that proves how much bullshit Gamergate really is. Nor is there a reason to send everything about the time they tried to get a porn actor to fuck on livestream for them so they could raise money to spite their opponents. The proposed ideas are still bad even if everything is shunted off to separate pages. A rewrite will make all of this better rather than cutting it apart. I just can't find anyone who will help me with it.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 21:33, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

Looking at the FYC section, I think it could stand as a separate article (or subpage; I don't care which). It's long enough for a mid-length RW article, and its current placement in the page makes rather a mess of the article progression: we've got the entire FYC saga up to Jan 2015 before "journalists and pundits weigh in" on Gamergate. Wėąṣėḷőįď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 00:05, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

It should perhaps be split up more chronologically but this is what I am trying to get done.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 00:25, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

TFYC's only relevance to the world is Gamergate-related. There is no other reason they would be mentioned on RW. - David Gerard (talk) 14:37, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

Sterile - at what point did it stop making sense? Going section by section, which bit turns into gibberish for you? Please be as specific as possible. (I'm trying to slowly go through and polish without losing detail.) - David Gerard (talk) 14:37, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

It's just poorly written at many spots, and the detail is just stifling. Take, for example, thefollowing sentence:

“”In particular, it was claimed that Quinn had doxed and performed a denial-of-service attack[wp] on The Fine Young Capitalists, a small (the only definite member is founder Matthew Rappard), self-described "radical feminist" group[26] (although there is no known record of radical feminist views or behavior) based in Canada, which was working on a game jam to get women involved in game development, arguably in contention with Quinn's Rebel Jam project.

Is this awfully long run on sentence about TFYC, Matthew Rappard, or what? There are about eight dependent or independent clauses strung together there with commas or parentheses. That is not readable, and it quickly gets tiring after strings of this poor writing. Who wants to read that? It's the whole article, and I'm not citing specific cases since it is pervasive. Sterile (talk) 13:25, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

So who's going to start drafting summaries of the sections?

Probably presenting "here, here's a clear rewrite of this bit" would be good evidence of the workability of the idea - David Gerard (talk) 21:31, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

Rough summary of "Eron Gjoni post about Zoe Quinn":

See our Zoe Post subpage for more detail.

On August 15, 2014, Eron Gjoni posted a 8000-word slut-shaming tirade describing how his partner Zoe Quinn had allegedly had sex with other men during their relationship. The post was quickly shared across the gaming blogosphere. Many users focused on Nathan Grayson, named as one of Quinn's alleged partners and a writer for video game news site Kotaku. Said users concluded that Quinn slept with Grayson to get positive reviews for her free game Depression Quest. Proponents argued this was an example of the "lack of integrity" of video game journalism, despite the fact that the only article Grayson had written about Quinn or her work had been written prior to the start of Quinn and Grayson's relationship.

Would this style be good for the article or nah? 32℉uzzy; 0℃atPotato (talk/stalk) 00:29, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

"allegedly had sex," "Quinn's alleged partners," "alleged relationship." Unless those are documented facts.Peace. AgingHippie (talk) 00:36, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

The relationship is documented, methinks. I've added allegedly's to the other two. 32℉uzzy; 0℃atPotato (talk/stalk) 00:38, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Good to see this is going somewhere. Appreciate the tentative use of the word alleged but I would prefer the experts to just make a decision on this (unless it really is a point of contention). Let's drop the weasel words, in the editors opinion (of which I think most are reasonable here) did it happen or did it not? Unless it really is up in the air of course. If we are using allegedly as a proxy for it doesn't matter but... then let's just say that instead.

The article is largely structured as strong definitive statements ATM and I would like to see this approach maintained. It currently reflects mostly Ryulong's perspective - which seems fine to me, but obviously consensus would be better. Tielec01 (talk) 01:46, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

What do you mean my perspective? And I think it's a really terrible idea to send all of the coverage on the one thing that started all this shit onto its own separate page.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 02:01, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

It is largely written by you, so it largely reflects your perspective. Tielec01 (talk) 02:06, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

It was largely already here and written this way before I signed up. I've written more new sections than heavily edit old ones.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 02:16, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

EC. Ryu, I don't think anyone is saying waht you seem to think they are saying. A few smart people, like Sterile and Scream, and at least one not-all-that-smart person, me, have pointed out that the page has become so unwieldy as to border on unreadable to anyone who isn't really wrapped up in the topic. To remedy that, the idea is to move in-depth coverage to sub pages, linked from here where greater detail can be fleshed out. there are varying degrees of depth to which, for example, someone can go into on the question of the allegations made about Ms. Wu. The pgph above is enough for the casual reader, let's say. The more involved reader can then click on a link above that pgph that will bring them to a page with more information and greater depth of analysis. Do you want people who are unfamiliar with this topic to learn about it here? good. So do I. That's why I don't give the graduate-seminar-level depth of analysis to freshmen. Because that will scare them away from a topic I care about. The keeners can go to the recommended reading when they want to/are ready for it. It's not a question of putting ALL THE COVERAGE on a separate page. Peace. AgingHippie (talk) 02:12, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Agree with the above. Tielec01 (talk) 02:14, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

I'm aware that the page has gotten long and that I think some things can be cut down but I think that sending every topic that's gotten too large off to a separate page isn't the way to go about dealing with this thing's length. The proposal so far to take the event that began Gamergate off to its own page because it's covered in 4 paragraphs that has been this way before I registered is ridiculous. This page can be fixed without making subpages out of the longer sections or every section because someone thought that the 4 sentences dedicated to wiki.gamergate.me deserve their own page.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 02:16, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Let me say this again in my indoor voice. Nobody is going to be "sending every topic that's gotten too large off to a separate page." What people seem to want is to give the concise version of some topics on this page, and the bigger analysis on a dedicated sub-page, for those who are more interested in the topic. There are many ways to tell a story. Some of them are meant for a lay audience. Some of them for a more involved audience. This has become the latter, making it less useful for the former. 02:20, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

And I don't think that the idea of summarizing things and moving what has already been written to these subpages is needed. Some level of making this page more concise I agree with but what has been proposed so far seems to be taking all of the major topics and events or players and giving them their own page. Although it might be useful for Yiannopoulos considering he's a gay man who is against gay marriage and somehow for gay bullying while consistently being a misogynist and transphobe outside of Gamergate, much of the coverage here solely concerns the actions he's taken to make Gamergate his primary audience. I do realize that the page has gotten long and needs cutting back but I don't think what has been proposed works.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 02:24, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

"but what has been proposed so far seems to be taking all of the major topics and events or players and giving them their own page." No. What has been proposed is taking the highly-detailed, in-depth analyses of those topics and giving them their own subpages, and having this page feature the basic outline of each of those topics for the lay reader. I honestly cannot think of another way to explain that to you. Peace. AgingHippie (talk) 02:28, 17 February 2015 (UTC) Peace. AgingHippie (talk) 02:28, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Then I don't think having a subpage dedicated to picking apart "TheZoePost" is in our best interests. It would be better in my opinion to figure out what is no longer relevant and just cut it out and find a way to make what is here more concise without making multiple subpages to feature the original text on.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 02:31, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Sub-pages wouldn't appropriate for every section and we can work out which sections it would be appropriate for here. Would creating a 'gamergate' category that we can use to give some context to any sub-articles help overcome your worries (my wiki-fu is weak)? I don't see any problem to summarising a period or part of GG and including a link at the bottom of the section saying 'for more detail click here'. Tielec01 (talk) 02:36, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

My original statement included a suggestion of a category sidebar template thingy for exactly reason. Peace. AgingHippie (talk) 02:40, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

I just think that making more (sub)pages on Gamergate isn't the way to go here simply because a couple of people said that the page wasn't an easy read when several of the people discussed on the page whose lives have been made a living hell by Gamergate clearly find it good. Perhaps it is geared more towards the view point of the victimized (as I am) but I've tried to make things clearer at the expense of snark. I even sacrificed a joke I had put in calling out Gamergate's use of a Terminator reference because they are clearly lacking self-awareness because it didn't fit in with the rest of the topic. I'm all for making this page easier to read and understand but I'm just not convinced that the proposed way will work.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 02:50, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

"when several of the people discussed on the page whose lives have been made a living hell by Gamergate clearly find it good." That is what we call "preaching to the choir." They don't need an article on what Gamergate is about. They live it. I do need an article on what Gamergate is about. As it stands now, this ain't that article. Peace. AgingHippie (talk) 03:12, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Isn't the intro supposed to serve the purpose of telling you what the page is about and the rest of the page goes into the excruciating detail of it all like an abstract on a scientific paper?—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 03:25, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

A scientific paper is not the only way to explain something. For a total noob to a topic, a textbook is probably a better choice. If you were completely unfamiliar with my research, like, had never heard of the topic, and were completely lacking in even the most basic background, I would not assign you a specialist journal article to read, because it would do you little good. I would assign some relevant chapters from textbooks to get you up to speed. Peace. AgingHippie (talk) 03:34, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Still, the introduction, which I've just rewritten, should give people what they need to know about this topic at first glance, with the rest of the page providing more detail.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 05:02, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

I don't like the rewritten intro very much, particularly that really long first sentence ... I prefer the old version. FWIW - David Gerard (talk) 09:05, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

The old intro was a bit outdated though.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 10:52, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

A sidebar thingy like

There are 41 pages in Category:Gamergate:

---

• Davis Aurini
• Timeline of Gamergate
• Roosh V
• List of Gamergate claims
• Mike Cernovich
• Gamergate/Archive8
• Alt-lite
• Gamergate
• Milo Yiannopoulos
• Thunderf00t
• Breitbart.com
• Christina Hoff Sommers
• TheAmazingAtheist
• Theodore Beale
• Dave Rubin
• Men's rights movement
• Chris Ray Gun
• Gamergate argument bingo
• Shoe0nHead
• Sargon of Akkad
• JonTron
• One Angry Gamer
• Adam Baldwin
• Anita Sarkeesian
• Kiwi Farms
• Candace Owens
• 8chan
• Steve Bannon
• Gavin McInnes
• SyrianGirl
• Alt-right
• 4chan
• Gamergate (български)
• No Bullshit
• Notch
• The Fandom Menace
• Ruben Sim
• Janet Bloomfield
• Reddit
• Jesse Singal
• StoneToss

this? 32℉uzzy; 0℃atPotato (talk/stalk) 02:51, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Going forward

*cough* So are we going forward with this or not? 32℉uzzy; 0℃atPotato (talk/stalk) 00:36, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

Not yet.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 01:53, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

Alternative answer: if you think you have a plan, be bold. Nothing can;t be undone if it gets fucked up... ^{— Unsigned, by: AgingHippie / talk / contribs}

All right. I've changed the Zoe Post section to the summary version, created its subpage and added Category:Gamergate to relevant articles. 32℉uzzy; 0℃atPotato (talk/stalk) 01:24, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

And I undid it because it is a terrible idea to send the one event that caused all of this off to its own page because this page is too long.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 02:12, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

Particularly not with FCP's execution of this proposal. Sending shit off to subpages because this is still a live deal is not the solution to a handful of people saying they don't like how the page is set up.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 02:16, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

Multiple people have disagreed; but I'll wait to see what people think. And I'm not sure what's wrong with my "execution" given that it's the same page text, with (unnecessary) section titles. 32℉uzzy; 0℃atPotato (talk/stalk) 02:21, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

This particular section is integral to the entirety of this subject so it does not make sense to send it off. There is as much dissention to this plan as there is support for it.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 02:23, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

Ryulong, only you and David Gerard have voiced opposition to subarticles. Pretty much everyone else who's posted here falls into the this is unreadable camp and/or the break it up camp. 32℉uzzy; 0℃atPotato (talk/stalk) 02:28, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

Here's the thing, it's Ruylong's article and Gerard's wiki, so nothing's going to change until they agree. Peace. AgingHippie (talk) 02:41, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

Or everyone could just edit war, like usual. 32℉uzzy; 0℃atPotato (talk/stalk) 02:43, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

Summed it up in one sentence AH, I'm a fan of parsimony. Tielec01 (talk) 02:46, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

A rewrite for clarity is still a better fucking plan than slicing it up into smaller to digest parts.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 02:48, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

Okay. You win. Can you recommend a decent article on Gamergate for people who have no background on gamer culture who want to get up to speed? Peace. AgingHippie (talk) 02:51, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

I tried that with the rewrite I made to the intro that David mergeverted. Make the intro clear as to what the page is about, let people read the rest of the page to get a more indepth feel on things.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 02:52, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

FCP, spinning of the ZoePost is really not a good idea considering it's the whole damn spark that set off the conflagration. The harassment previous to the ZoePost was just tinder waiting for it. --Castaigne (talk) 03:12, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

The article is 182,000 characters long. It is a gigantic list of events, with little or no useful organization. Numerous people have stated that it's hard to read, that it's too long, and that it's difficult for an introductory article. It needs to be cut down and easy-ified. We can either do that by removing content or by summarizing content and moving it to another page or subpage. I'd prefer the second. I don't care overmuch what gets moved, but it needs doing. 32℉uzzy; 0℃atPotato (talk/stalk) 03:19, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

I'm with FCP, Tielec, AH, etc. on this one. I don't think a rewrite would do it without substantial cuts; the article is just too big. Subpages still allow people to document ongoing events without being accompanied by a giant wall of text. - Grant (talk) 03:53, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

Things can be cut out when they are deemed to have been irrelevant to the actual ongoing event. Is the only problem people have with this is because it is too long? Because I thought the problem was no one could understand it.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 04:29, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

I find it near-impossible to fathom how hiving off the incident that kicked it off and that has no relevance outside Gamergate makes any fucking sense.

The 182,000 number includes the extensive referencing; the text is currently 16,500 words (100,000 characters), which is long but not mind0-boggling - David Gerard (talk) 09:03, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

100,000 characters is still a wee bit long, especially for something we want to be accessible to people new to the controversy.

I'd prefer to make subpages like "Gamergate/Harassment" or similar, rather than making subpages for specific events, since that makes them more useful for linking-to. (I did the specific event as an example.) Does that sound better, DG? 32℉uzzy; 0℃atPotato (talk/stalk) 16:13, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

It's long by RW standards. Sterile (talk) 19:43, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

Just because it's long by "traditional standards" does not indicate that it is too long. While I agree with tightening up the prose and probably some reorganization, by the end of the whole enchilada this is going to be the largest article on the damn wiki regardless.

With this amount of argument simply about length - which I think is ridiculous - I guess people should be happy I haven't started my Racefail 2009 post yet. --Castaigne (talk) 22:48, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

Why does it need to be long? We've had many a current event. They weren't long. For some reason, those apparent invested in the article like to assert that it needs to be long. Yet its length is part of the inaccessibility, and part of the burdened prose. It needs to be long because.... Sterile (talk) 13:27, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

Is the only complaint its length? Why should length make it inaccessible?—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 13:28, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

in the meanwhile

The page has grown by a few thousand bytes since this conversation began. At what point does this stop being an "article" and start being a "liveblog"? Peace. AgingHippie (talk) 13:55, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

Welcome to the world of ongoing events. Get it down with refs, digest later - David Gerard (talk) 13:59, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

Suggestion

Maybe I've missed this in the morass of suggestions that have been made up above, but instead of subpages, how about short summaries with the much more detailed items being collapsed underneath the summaries? --Castaigne (talk) 03:09, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

That might work. Why prefer collapses to subpages? 32℉uzzy; 0℃atPotato (talk/stalk) 03:21, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

I'm not sure if this is something that fits with how pages are organised for the rest of the wiki. I have no strong objection to it, although it seems minimally different to sub-pages. Tielec01 (talk) 03:22, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

Very few other pages use collapses. The only example that comes to mind is 9-11 conspiracy theories and its TOC.

I prefer subpages, because they can be directly linked to. So say you want to show that Gamergate is misogynistic -- you link to Gamergate/Misogyny. Collapses can't be linked to.

32℉uzzy; 0℃atPotato (talk/stalk) 03:25, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

Yep, only 3 pages use it: USS Liberty incident, Fun:Real Gamers, and 9-11 conspiracy theories. 32℉uzzy; 0℃atPotato (talk/stalk) 03:27, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

It is my opinion that this clusterfuck of woo is the largest I've seen in 20 years of avidly devouring internet drama and woo/crankery as entertainment. It far outscales Racefail 2009, which involved the majority of F&SF authors living at the time. It makes Elevatorgate look bush league.

So, I think until the whole thing begins to die back - and it hasn't yet - this article will bloat. Time and historical perspective allow paring and summarizing. Collapsing seems to me to be a better option than subpages until that can be done - and screw how ugly they are. They're functional. My 2 cents. --Castaigne (talk) 03:32, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

Nobody disputes that collapsing works. But why is it better than subpaging? 32℉uzzy; 0℃atPotato (talk/stalk) 03:41, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

Because as Ryulong correctly points out, this issue is live. Things that get split off into subpages may have changed or increased relevance as future events unfold. Collapsing now, IMO, makes it easier to subpage later once it's all said and done. --Castaigne (talk) 03:45, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

What if we went with something like the AFD page? Each AFD discussion is a separate page. However, the full text of every active AFD is visible on the main page. If the collapses contained sections that were handled like that, they could still be linked to as individual pages.--TiaC (talk) 07:22, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

Why do these need to be done? No one's said anything other than demand that the change be made.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 08:58, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

This is stylistically terrible - David Gerard (talk) 19:26, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

Ah well. Never mind that idea then. --Castaigne (talk) 22:50, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

Alternate

Instead of subpages (which don't work for mainspace anyway) π had the good idea of moving Gamergate/Timeline to Timeline of Gamergate (event-oriented history of Gamergate), moving the history of Gamergate of the current page to History of Gamergate (context-oriented history of Gamergate), and using Category:Gamergate to keep the pages in a group. I also support the creation of Harassment in Gamergate, Sexism in Gamergate, etc., as separate and easily-linkable pages that defend a specific point about Gamergate without the unnecessary and unspecific detail of the current page or either of the histories. The plan would be to: (1) replace the current page with a page for newcomers, with links to the other pages, (2) move the histories of Gamergate to their own page for those interested, and (3) create topic-specific, detailed pages for those interested. 32℉uzzy; 0℃atPotato (talk/stalk) 21:15, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

In addition, I'd like to reorganize this page into sections that summarize the detailed page. So, for example, it would have sections on and summaries of: History of Gamergate, Harassment in Gamergate, Sexism in Gamergate, etc. oʇɐʇoԀʇɐϽʎzznℲ (talk/stalk) 20:46, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

This is still a god awful idea.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 20:50, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

Wanna give a reason why? Herr FuzzyKatzenPotato (talk/stalk) 20:53, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

My suggestion would be to move this page to a suitable title representing the fact that it's a detailed ongoing coverage of GG events, and create a much more concise article as the main GG article covering just the basics of what GG is, how it started (in brief), who is involved & what it all means. ωεαşεζøίɗ^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 21:12, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

There is already a page that's supposed to be a detailed ongoing coverage of GG events, the "Timeline" page. Trying to change this into anything other than the steadily-growing mess that it is is a lost cause. Ryulong has dug his heels in and Gerard supports him. End of story Peace. AgingHippie (talk) 21:16, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

That's why I'm suggesting moving it & starting over. That way Ryulong can keep on adding his stuff to this, the rest of us can largely ignore it & maybe come up with a new article that might actually be engaging & intelligible. Ŵêâŝêîôîď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 21:21, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

I admire the effort and support it. I will also tell you that won't happen, because Gerard says so. Peace. AgingHippie (talk) 21:37, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

"This page is too long." What is the big fucking deal? Half of the shit you guys have contributed to the page or cut out entirely are the details that call Gamergate out on its bullshit or the massive edits that have been made completely change the tone and meaning of the content within. If you guys have no clue what this is about then why constantly harp that you can't understand it enough?—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 23:00, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

The big fucking deal is that this is pretty much the longest page on the site, takes longer to load than other pages, and is offputting for anybody looking for a straightforward overview of the subject they can read in one sitting. Plus it's aggressively controlled by a single-issue-editor and all attempts to resolve the problems that have been raised again & again on this talk page are being instantly reversed. I don't know where you're getting that I "have no clue what this is about"; that doesn't correspond with anything I've said. Anyhoo, what do you think the purpose of this article is? What audience do you think you're writing for? Wëäŝëïöïď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 23:18, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

more from readers

More from readers.

I see that editors are now deleting stuff from the article in the name of concision. This is what a concise article on GG looks like: http://sjwiki.org/wiki/GamerGate. You would have to almost totally remove all of the useful information in this article to make it look like this.

Whatever you do, STOP outright deleting useful info from RationalWiki. I'm not against concision but may I suggest that you start afresh with a concise article and move all the information here over onto the timeline? Gators are the Amways salesmen of the internet and this page is useful for debunking their bullshit.

Again, I don't mind how it's organized, whether it's one separate article or several, as long as you keep all the information around somewhere.

I think this means you, all the people treating their personal ignorance as some sort of qualification rather than a hindrance. The intricate fine detail is literally useful for debunking, which is the thing RW is actually here for. Please try harder to preserve it - David Gerard (talk) 00:47, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

What's the source for these? --Madman (talk) 00:53, 26 February 2015 (UTC)The Madman

Email - as the page keeps getting locked against IPs due to gators shitting all over the place - David Gerard (talk) 15:55, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

Hence why I think subpages (or an alt) are useful -- they simultaneously allow a short introductory main article and ridiculously detailed debunking and documentation. FuzzyCatPotato™ (talk/stalk) 01:16, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

There's no reason to have subpages. Everything can be covered here in detail and be concise rather than cutting out things that Weaseloid or AgingHippie can't make heads or tails of.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 05:51, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

"Everything can be covered in detail" and "it can be concise" are mutually exclusive. Peace. AgingHippie (talk) 14:30, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

What AH said. FᴜᴢᴢʏCᴀᴛPᴏᴛᴀᴛᴏ﹐ Esϙᴜɪʀᴇ (talk/stalk) 14:54, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

I've given up on the idea of a main article that interested readers can actually digest buttressed with in-depth articles on specific figures and events, and am limiting my efforts to removing bestiality jokes, excess adverbs and adjectives, and breaking up run-on sentences. Peace. AgingHippie (talk) 14:58, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

@Ryulong: Why not have subpages? Gimme a reason or two they suck. FuzzyCatPotato™ (talk/stalk) 15:03, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

Well, your first attempt was to hive off the blog post that started the thing and leave not even a summary, so it's not clear what you're thinking of will be a good idea - David Gerard (talk) 15:55, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, except for the part where I did leave a summary. Regardless, that's not my plan now. This is. FuzzyCatPotato™ (talk/stalk) 20:41, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

I actually disagree on that. I am reminded of the Harn supplements, which were extremely detailed but used very concise writing. Precision is what should be focused on.

Unfortunately, my intention to work on precise rewriting of the article has been waylaid by whatever crud I acquired this last weekend. Fevers do not make for good writing. --Castaigne (talk) 15:24, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

I have no idea what a "Harn supplement" is beyond getting what looks like a bunch of Google hits related to fantasy/DD stuff, but the fact that they are "supplements" makes me think there was another Harn that told me the Harn story in a broad-overview way, and that people really interested in Harning Harn could go Harn the supplements. Peace. AgingHippie (talk) 15:31, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

Yes, they were products for a generic fantasy world for RPGs, designed to create as realistic a world as possible. Low incidence of magic, very much based on feudal Europe, and possibly a bit too serious. But very well written. See here. --Castaigne (talk) 15:41, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

The Escapist goes whole Gator.

“”The new level of pandering to Gators did not go unnoticed by them, and he feels that the new direction The Escapist will be taking will make them as fair and balanced as Fox News as their readership and revenues go down while Gamergate hate target Polygon has been doing much better.

This is a mess of a sentence. Who is the first "them"? Gators, or the tqo guys mentioned in the previous sentence? And who is the "he": Damion, or one of the other guys mentioned in the previous sentence? "Gamergate hate target" Is "hate" a verb in this part, or a aprt of an adjectival clause "hate-target" being used to describe Polygon? And what's "Polygone"? Peace. AgingHippie (talk) 04:27, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

Not to mention that the statement about the Escapist's readership and revenue going down is objectively false as acknowledged within the text of the article itself and the source. If the layoffs were for fiscal reasons, they sure did have enough to hire new b8ter writers. In addition, the quantcast shows regualar large peaks of readership then drops in readership, which would fit the theory of it being part of a pattern. Furthermore, Ryulong goes on to misrepresent the opinions of the source, stating that he "feels that the new directions make them as balanced as faux noise" when Zen states it's fine to have editorial slant.--Madman (talk) 05:03, 26 February 2015 (UTC)The Madman

Shut up Madman. He literally compares The Escapist's heavy gator hiring practices into making a slant like Fox News's slant. He may not be slamming the slant but that's not really the point of the comparison.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 05:46, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

Madman, you could only say that if you were either unable to read a source or are here to troll and be a fuckwit (so yeah) - David Gerard (talk) 15:57, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

I'm able to see a bit more good faith in his comments, it reads more like one of those "voice in the wilderness and going against the grain" things. It's a lot like trolling in that it usually produces nothing and tends to end up a bit hostile, but without the malice. Ikanreed (talk) 20:47, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

I literally said they got the photos in the hacking attack and you changed the meaning of this sentence completely

Cool your jets, son. I wrote that they posted the pics that they had discovered online. Admittedly that can be read as "they discovered the pics online and then posted them," but I meant they discovered the pics [as described in the hacking] and them posted them online. Stop your tantrum, this ain't worth it. Peace. AgingHippie (talk) 20:15, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

No, your edits completely changed the meaning of the sentence. Also, why the hell are you removing every mention of Quinn's first name and links to Anita's page in the article body?—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 20:32, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

Stop removing the first names already.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 20:33, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

Not every mention. Every mention besides the first, because that is how grown-ups write. We know her name is Zoe/Anita/Brianna, no need to repeat it dozens of times. And one link to the Sarkeesian article is sufficient. Peace. AgingHippie (talk) 20:34, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

You removed the first fucking mention of Zoe in all of these damn edits (excluding the lead section) and you removed a link that was being used to say Sarkeesian's prior attacks were relevant to Wu's current ones.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 20:37, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

Did you remove every instance of "literally"?—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 20:48, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

No, not every instance. Just the ones that add nothing to the sentence in question. Peace. AgingHippie (talk) 21:04, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

Read the Jezebel link before this FFS

Umm, the casual reader is not going to read 441 seperate references to follow the story you're trying to tell. Don't yell at me because you failed to summarize your source material adequately. Peace. AgingHippie (talk) 23:14, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

There is a link right before where you put in that hidden comment.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 03:35, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

I shouldn't have to read seperate article to understand this one. Summarize your sources properly. Peace. AgingHippie (talk) 03:56, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

What is the purpose of providing a source if no one is going to read them?—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 04:11, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

1. Giving credit to others for their work; 2. Providing evidence to counter anyone who contests a claim made in the article. 3. Providing resources for those readers who are interested in further pursuing a particular topic, but not requiring them to do so to read the present article. Like all good articles, this needs to stand on its own. Your job is to correctly and concisely summarize that part of what a source is saying that is relevant to the argument you are trying to make. Peace. AgingHippie (talk) 04:24, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

Connors and "This was already becoming the case for her detractors in Gamergate"

The way this reads now, it gives the impression that Wu's Gamergate detractors were not having threats made against them taken seriously by the cops. I'm pretty sure that's not what you want to say, but everytime I guess wrong at your unclear prose, you yell at me, so please clarify. Peace. AgingHippie (talk) 23:19, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

Gators think everything Wu has said has been a false flag despite spending months harassing her. Now that the Connors incident has been declared to be a ruse, they have proof that not everything Wu has been saying has been truthful, despite it not being her fault at all. Also there is indeed a trend in the police departments across the country that they don't take threats made online as serious.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 03:37, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

Silver Brain

Can we get rid of it? This article is nigh on unreadable. Also, if you expand 'Editorial Notes' (under the brain) it reads Brief editorial notes regarding this page's content, importance and quality. This should read Gamergate has potential to be a great RW article. Only RW could turn such prime material into a painstaking chronicle of every time a 'Gator' picked their nose. Enjoy trying to understand what the fuck this page is about. Unfortunately I don't know how to change it, so can someone sort that out for me? Tielec01 (talk) 01:56, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

We voted for the silver a while back; it was a bit better then. I'll vote for a demotion to bronze; that makes 2. 32℉uzzy; 0℃atPotato (talk/stalk) 01:58, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

That makes three of us. |₹Λ¥$€₦₦ ^{RationalWiki, did you kill Rita?} 02:06, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

I disagree. What is with all this "unreadable" garbage? No one is explaining their point or saying at what point this article becomes completely impossible to follow. It's just complaint after complaint that it's gotten longer and longer because of every new event. Someone has to explicitly point out at what point the article goes to shit because no one has done it.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 02:24, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

The article is unreadable. In the course of the it doesn't even define the term "gamergaters" clearly. No one on Earth is going to bother reading this 10 volume history. The lead section should clearly summarize and be enough for the reader to take away a basic understanding of the issue at hand. They should also take away a clear understanding of how this topic relates to the RW mission, which I can't see at all. ħuman 19:02, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

Most of the people who've said it's unreadable have said they didn't understand it, due to not being heavily involved in gaming, or that it's really really unnecessarily long and detailed. I'm going with the latter. 32℉uzzy; 0℃atPotato (talk/stalk) 02:33, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

We've explained it to you many, many times. I'm at the stage where I really don't know if you are a brilliant troll or just dumb. Basically everyone, except you, DG and Castaigne (I think, forgive me if I'm wrong Castaigne) thinks this page has gone to hell in a hand-basket. I've explained to you the issues multiple times myself, I've even tried to advance solutions - all of which you reject out of hand. Tielec01 (talk) 02:35, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

And that can be fixed with rewriting it and polishing it rather than going "This page isn't good anymore" without any clear reason as to why.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 02:37, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

Yes, Tielac01, I do think the page is fine. I find it comprehensive. I honestly do not understand what you do not understand about it. That puzzles me as I am an average guy with average reading comprehension; this is not The Worm Ouroboros level of complexity.

So, is what you find incomprehensible more of a "TL;DR" or is it a lack of context of the gaming scene? --Castaigne (talk) 03:05, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

Unlike AH I have been gaming since the days of Leisure Suit Larry, Rampage, Prince of Persia etc... so I can't use that as an excuse. I may not be up with the latest developers though. Regarding issues, I'm loathe to repeat myself ad nauseum, as I have talked at length about problems (including examples) previously. I also feel that I am wasting my time. Suffice to say the article is dense, has no narrative and assumes the reader knows much that they may not. Many, many other editors have said exactly the same thing. Tielec01 (talk) 03:17, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

We've explained it to you many, many times. No, you didn't - you just repeated the claim. At what point does it stop being comprehensible? Where does your brain fall off it? Be specific, give actionable complaints - David Gerard (talk) 08:55, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

I have, above I pointed out that the very first paragraph after the intro stopped making sense to me. I have made many actionable complaints as even a cursory glance over this page would show. Do you think that the editors who have chimed in to say that this article is a mess are all just being dicks or something? Tielec01 (talk) 09:06, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

So the paragraph that gives detail on the shit that happened to Anita Sarkeesian makes no sense to you?—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 09:26, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

Your suggestions (hive off random chunks, etc) don't address this objection. What would address it is doing some of the rewriting you're demanding everyone else do. You just literally claimed this paragraph is literally incomprehensible:

Large scale harassment of those who express views on video games with even a whiff of feminism to them is nothing new. The current round dates back to at least May 2012, when Anita Sarkeesian, a feminist media critic covering films, launched a Kickstarter campaign to fund a videos analyzing the portrayal of women in video games. This triggered a wave of misogynistic harassment against Sarkeesian,[2] including rape threats, death threats, and even an online game called Beat Up Anita Sarkeesian, which was a simulation of a violent physical assault against her person.[3][4][5][4] The harassment of Sarkeesian prompted an influx of support for her project, and she ultimately raised over $150,000, far exceeding her goal.[5] This caused her to push back the release of the first video, as the extra funding had allowed her to "greatly expand the scope, scale and production values of the project."[6] Unsubstantiated accusations then arose that Sarkeesian was engaging in fiscal mismanagement and fraud with the Kickstarter funds. These same accusations also made her out to be a "professional victim" falsely claiming harassment to drum up support, using forged tweets as evidence.[7] Sarkeesian released the first video in her Tropes vs Women in Video Games series on March 7, 2013.[8]

So what in that paragraph literally breaks your understanding of English? Is it the grammar? Is it the choice of words? Do any of them appear to have meaning at odds with what you were expecting? BE SPECIFIC. - David Gerard (talk) 19:53, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

Sorry not that paragraph which is actually reasonably well written (I was hastily editing on my phone as I am in a remote location, so apologies for the misdirection) - the bit that throws me off starts at the Fine Young Capitalists section. For example:

In particular, it was claimed that Quinn had doxed and performed a denial-of-service attack[wp] on The Fine Young Capitalists, a small (the only definite member is founder Matthew Rappard), self-described "radical feminist" group[26] (although there is no known record of radical feminist views or behavior) based in Canada, which was working on a game jam to get women involved in game development, arguably in contention with Quinn's Rebel Jam project.

Tell me that sentence (it is one sentence) isn't near on incomprehensible; who claimed this, what does the insinuation about no radical behaviour mean (is this good or bad), did she dox them, and why/why not? Next sentence:

Quinn had criticized TFYC over Twitter, accusing them of exploiting free work with the game jam, and expressing concerns with the project's policy on transwomen;[27][26] which initially said "publically identify as a woman" rather than the current reading of "personally identify".[28]

What is the issue with the policy? This might make sense to the person that wrote it, but to me the difference between those two phrases is meaningless without context. What's a game jam?

The winning entry in TFYC's indie game jam for women was to be developed by the Bogotá-based group Autobótika,[30] with an all-woman staff listed on TFYC's website.[31] Autobótika's website, however, shows many men in the group, including TFYC's vocal spokesperson Matthew Rappard.[32][33] Rappard also stated on Twitter that Autobótika's team worked on the winning entrant's proposal,[34] as well as all of the other entries in the competition.

What's the significance of the difference in the listed women staff between TFYC and Autobotika? What is the significance of 'the winning entry' (was there a competition)? Is it bad or good that Rappard was working with both groups? Again, this might be highly meaningful for the experts but to me I don't underrstand why I am reading this and what it has to do with GG.

I can't go on as I only have limited connection but here are some thoughts. Tielec01 (talk) 02:17, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

Fucking thank you at long last. Not that hard being specific, is it. Don't be hyperbolic in your complaints if you want them taken seriously - David Gerard (talk) 11:24, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

Apology accepted DG. Tielec01 (talk) 11:41, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

As I wrote above the writing is terrible, with the example having something like eight clauses strung together. I suppose if you are on the inside you might want to read this, but I'm utterly bored a few paragraphs in. People are introduced with no context. And it's really hard to give examples, when you have no desire to wade through 100+k of a drawn out snorefest. It would be good to hear why y'all think this is so wonderful, other than the people who wrote it seem to have a love of the topic. Sterile (talk) 02:36, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

Hence why I want subpages of topics like "Harassment", "Pornography", etc., because they can give the snorefest examples to those who're truly interested, and an overview to everyone else. 32℉uzzy; 0℃atPotato (talk/stalk) 02:46, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

If the problem is diction then fucking rewrite it. The whole TFYC section is rewritten now to hopefully clarify that it's odd that the a self-defined "radical feminist" group's only known member is a man, that he also works for the contractors that will be working on the video game project that the alleged contest was to create, and that one website excludes half of the staff of the contractors in question simply because they're men.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 06:23, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

I suspect if I did a massive trimming of "he said, she said, they said," the people who profess to want help would then cry foul. I don't mind reading about the topic, but to be honest, I learned about the larger context a heck of lot more from some media accounts than from this article. The big picture is lost in the details. Sterile (talk) 09:38, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

Can a man be a radical feminist? Certain men can be feminists.... There are also other known members of TFYC on their website, although I don't know when they came to be on the website. Sterile (talk) 14:11, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

The issue is that radical feminism is a particular kind of feminism and there's nothing that TFYC has done to show they follow those tenets, nor why a man is at the helm of all of TFYC's business dealings.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 00:56, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

Why is that the issue? It seems pretty far away from what Gamergate is about or portends to be about. Wèàšèìòìď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 01:04, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

Sterile said: "The big picture is lost in the details."

Exactly that. I read this last night until I felt lost in a morass of tweeters, tumblrs,and bloggers who I've never heard of doing horribly nasty things because there was very very little to connect what was going on to either larger trends outside of the narrow confines of that particular group of actors or to any sort of scholarship or input from the commentariat. I'm not talking about what scholars and social critics have to say about Gamergate specifically, but what they may have to say about gender and related issues in gamer culture/geek culture, and how Gamergate illustrates/complicates what we know about that. This article simply recounts a bunch of stuff that happens (...in a very long winded and overly-detailed manner), but does little to tell me why it matters, besides being an illustration of specific instances of abhorrent behaviour. Peace. AgingHippie (talk) 14:47, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

Yeah. Some of the incidents & people/websites involved are introduced in the narrative in a rather illogical order & some are covered in more detail than is needed in an overview article. I'll try to look at restructuring/overhauling it over the weekend if I can. My feeling is that the article should start with a section offering a fairly concise coverage of how things got started (the Quinnspriracy, the hashtag, 4chan & 8chan, renewed harassment of Sarkeesian, maybe Vivian James, and not too much more than that), followed by a section outlining some of key players (i.e. notable people or organisations promoting, opposing or targeted by Gamergate), and then maybe a section on why any of this matters. The blow-by-blow liveblogging of every new GG incident can be handled in the timeline, and we can create new pages for any of the people or events needing more detailed coverage. Wěǎšěǐǒǐď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 18:32, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

Why is everyone suddenly heading to this page though? It just seems like all of the complaints are "It's too long" and that an ongoing event is having fairly current coverage. And AgingHippie, all that Gamergate is is abhorrent behavior because there's nothing else that they've done.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 22:46, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

Right, but there's lots and lots and lots of abhorrent behaviour in the world. Why did THIS instance of abhorrent behaviour come across the radar of me--a man probably three times your age who has not played a video game since sometime before Bill Clinton was president, who has never seen the words "gaming" and "community" or "gaming" and "journalism" in the same sentence before, who isn't entirely sure what a "Chan" is and wonders if there are Chans 1-3, 5, 6 and 7. I have NOTHING TO DO with this world, and yet I have heard of "Gamergate" for months, not even counting this wiki. Why THIS abhorrent behaviour? What made THIS matter in a way other instances of equally abhorrent behaviour in other specialist communities does not? The more minutiae you add, the less that point becomes clear. Peace. AgingHippie (talk) 23:03, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

The main crux here is that it has combined a lot of other topics that RationalWiki already covers, concerning the men's rights movement, libertarians believing they're left-wing, and neo-Nazis and neoreactionaries capitalizing on them. It's a hodge podge of several topics as well as complete abhorrent behavior all centered around video games. Everything that people keep complaining isn't thoroughly explained is and I can't figure out why.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 00:53, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

"Why is everyone suddenly heading to this page though?" Says the single-purpose editor who was banned from owning editing the WP Gamergate article. Nutty Roux (talk) 23:30, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

I wasn't banned for that you fucking moron. And I was here before that ban was put in place.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 00:48, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

"from" Are you permitted to edit that article? Nutty Roux (talk) 01:01, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

Up until January 29, 2015, there was nothing preventing me from editing that page there. If you haven't fucking noticed, they site banned me because of "recidivism" and nothing at all to do with the content I contributed to the Gamergate page there.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 01:18, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

I thought you were topic banned. I could be wrong. Even looking at this stuff makes my head spin. Am I wrong? Nutty Roux (talk) 01:34, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

Whatever happened at WP may be interesting, but it is irrelevant here. The content on the page is the issue. Tielec01 (talk) 01:37, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

Ryulong, it would be entirely possible to have current and detailed coverage on the Timeline article. The problem here is too much focus on the details, too little on the overall message, especially for somebody new to Gamergate. 32℉uzzy; 0℃atPotato (talk/stalk) 23:52, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

He's been told that several times. Forget it. It's his article, and this is the way he wants it to be. Peace. AgingHippie (talk) 23:58, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

Do you have any non-gamer friends. Have them try to read this. I guarantee they will scratch their heads. And, Ryulong, you haven't addressed the big picture point. And who is everyone? Sterile (talk) 00:02, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

The issue is that no one outside of gaming gives two shits about Gamergate until it gets mainstream exposure, as it did with the multiple extreme death threats.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 00:53, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

Why is that the issue? That's not even true. Wẽãšẽĩõĩď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 01:02, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

No one outside of the online video game playing community really has any stake in what is going on in Gamergate.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 01:19, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

That's total bullshit. If you believe that, why are you writing all this on RationalWiki instead of a gaming forum? ωεαşεζøίɗ^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 01:21, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

That's total bullshit, redux: why is my non-gamer-community-oriented Twitter feed littered with it? Peace. AgingHippie (talk) 01:52, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

Well I don't know. This shit was here before I ever signed up.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 01:55, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

Maybe you could leave it alone then? I find it strange that you're so invested in this but can't justify why it's important. Weaseloid^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 01:59, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

I'm invested in this because these fucking assholes made my life a living hell for the past several months and they managed to get me kicked off Wikipedia where I had been for nearly 10 fucking years. I want to research this shit and cover it in enough detail that people realize how utterly reprehensible this shit is.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 02:07, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

If you step back for a moment you might see what some others see. I personally find your fixation disreputable. Your "investment" looks very much like a public meltdown. Nutty Roux (talk) 02:20, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

I don't care.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 02:26, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

Yes. You're obviously very invested. I'm usually right when I suggest people take a step back. Not bragging. People who hate me will agree. Nutty Roux (talk) 02:29, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

But does this actually matter here? Is what I've contributed incorrect? Is what I've contributed bad? Or is what I've contributed just a lot? I really don't care if you say I'm very invested in this. I know I'm very invested in this. It's why I signed up here. To add onto this page that rightfully takes the piss out of Gamergate by attempting to do my best as writing about what it really is. I may have gotten too enthusiastic but is it doing anything irreparably harmful?—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 02:44, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

Some of the stuff you've posted (e.g. about the Fine Young Capitalists) looks like it's wading into the same kind of territory as Gameragters themselves: gossip, dirt-digging, leaping to conclusions, & indulging in a rather simplistic heroes & villains approach. Wěǎšěǐǒǐď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 03:01, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

Anything I've written about here regarding TFYC is supported by the provided citations. Such as the fact that they are exclusively known to the world at large for capitalizing off of Gamergate and their prior feud with Quinn.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 03:05, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

Didn't you write Gamergate#TFYC's pretense dropped? --Someon (talk) 03:16, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

Isn't that sourced? And why the hell did you revert everything I wrote tonight?—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 03:29, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

Okay, so that's the only thing where I hadn't found anything third party to write about it.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 03:34, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

Shouldn't you just chill out a little on this subject Ryulong? Please, don't get angry or anything for me saying this, but it seems like you've got some personal issues with the Gamergate crowd which are compromising your abilities to report on them in a way that everyone readily can understand. Like AgingHippie said; how can a non-gaming aging hippie ever understand this article? Rationalwiki articles are supposed to be understood by everyone, or at least as many educated people as possible, and I think that your mentality right now is just oh so very 'in-crowd'. Now, I'm not here to pick a fight or anything, but something needs to happen to this article. And yes, I could go edit the article myself and delete/reorganise parts of it, but we both know that will just devolve into a edit war. Just take it easy man, don't let these Gamergate assholes get to your head, and be open to constructive criticism. Noone's trying to censor you or something. (InsertOpinion) (talk) 11:02, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

The page can be edited by people to make it easier for anyone to read. Cutting this page apart into smaller pages won't solve that. Perhaps some stuff should be moved off to the timeline instead but that can be dealt with later. Just because AgingHippie can't be bothered to click an internal link to see 4chan or a link to Wikipedia to w:game jam is not my fault.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 12:35, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

Sigh. We're still a wiki edited as a collaborative enterprise with the intent to inform a wide group of people, not a personal gaming wiki. There will continue to be problems if you confuse the two. And the big picture is still lost in the details. Sterile (talk) 12:03, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

The article should accurately say that Gamergate is the culmination of misogyny in the video game industry and that what began as an attack on a single woman by her abusive ex-boyfriend turned into a massive right wing hate mob with absoultely no idea or care about "ethics in video game journalism". Is that not present when you read the page? Can you not glean that from the lede?—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 12:35, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

Is the lede supposed to be the only part of an article that is accessible to the general audience? Or the other 160ishK of test? Sterile (talk) 12:42, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

The lede should adequately summarize the article for the uninitiated with the rest serving to fill out the rest of the deep details. The article does cover in depth all of the other bullshit that encompasses Gamergate, including the conspiracy theory bullshitters that are already discussed elsewhere on RW.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 12:54, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

Lede: covers everything quickly.

Section 1: Pre-Gamergate

Section 2: Gamergate begins

Section 3: Gamergate heads toward the climax

Section 4: Gamergate climaxed but is going out kicking and screaming for 3 months going to press

Section 5: Gamergate's claims on ethics are somewhat bullshit or already dealt with before they were a thing

Section 6 & 7: Taking the piss out of them in some form

Sections 3 and 4 are the ones that seem to be causing the most issues and they can be rewritten but only AgingHippie and Tielec01 have given concrete examples of what in these sections they don't personally understand. Tielec01's suggestion was useful. AgingHippie just is missing shit that is plain as day. Everyone else (particularly you) is just giving complaint after complaint of "I don't get it" without saying what in particular you don't get, but you do certainly complain that the page is long. What specifically needs work for you to understand it better other than unnecessary complaints that the page is particularly long?—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 13:01, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

Except Weaseloid tried to condense some of the prose and you then just reverted it. And more than one person have lodged the complaints: we don't need the constant stream over ever third tweet, blog post, game release, etc. It's like saying that to talk about World World Ii, you need a summary of every battle. Sterile (talk) 13:36, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

Weaseloid cut out a paragraph and a half because he didn't like the tone and my edit after that was to just harvest a citation that he had cut out in that blind removal. There was no "condensing some of the prose". And 90% of the content I've added is from major news sources or at least blogs of people who have the same POV as RW.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 13:40, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

Is the goal to summarize every source on Gamergate or to have a cohesive article? Seriously, how many times can you avoid the comprehensiveness question? Sterile (talk) 13:45, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

All content I've added has been major discussion points in some forum discussing Gamergate's abject horrors, hypocrisy, or failures. Perhaps some of it needs to go over to Gamergate/Timeline. Perhaps some things aren't relevant anymore and could be cut out. But is the only issue with this page its length?—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 13:59, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

No. Haven't you been listening? There are issues with length, readability, progression, explaining things poorly & in an illogical order, lack of analysis, and undue focus on marginal people, groups & incidents.

What I removed was a load of irrelevant aspersions about the Fine Young Capitalists' business dealings. That isn't part of Gamergate - unless it really is all about ethics in the gaming industry? The whole relevance of TFYC - which isn't properly covered in the current write - is their adoption by /pol/ & /v/ as their "Operation Chemo" cause for the twin reasons of "we will look really good if we donate to this" and "there will be a lot of asshurt". The significance isn't what TYFC are or do, but that the Gamergaters supporting & funding them don't really care what they are or do & were backing them as a wholly superficial & calculated act of trolling. Weaseloid^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 15:16, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

Hatred

No, seriously, how is this game relevant to the article? |₹Λ¥$€₦₦ ^{The eerie REM of revolving!} 00:24, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

Everything is relevant to this article There is stuff in the 2nd pgph of the section that mentions GG and some of the main players. Peace. AgingHippie (talk) 00:27, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

Can we source the claims about the developers being Neo Nazis? |₹Λ¥$€₦₦ ^{Here we are now, entertain us} 00:48, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

There was a source included.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 03:35, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

A Tumblr blog isn't a terrific reference, so I removed it. The Polygon article does fine. Also, a Steam release is official, so I added that too. |₹Λ¥$€₦₦ ^{I'm the coolest driver's high} 19:32, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

Mission?

Never mind the absurdity of this having a silver brain (it is nowhere near close), can someone summarize in one clear sentence how this even falls under the RW mission? Please? And then incorporate that concept, whatever it is, into the first paragraph of the intro? ħuman 19:04, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

I'll give you three sentences, from the intro of the rewrite I'm trying to do. Very slow going, can't seem to kick this fever and it makes my thinking cloudy. Anyhow, here is my intro rewrite:

"Gamergate" is the blanket term for an internet activism movement that claims to focus on alleged scandals in the video game industry, specifically "ethics in video game journalism". In reality, it is a misogynist harassment campaign intended to silence women in gaming culture. While harassment against women in gaming has been ongoing for a number of years, GamerGate is the flashpoint and focusing of this harassment.

From later in the intro:

While GamerGate was originally confined to the gamer community and 4Chan, it has been co-opted by opportunistic neoreactionaries, MRAs, and neo-Nazis.

It's really an unholy merging/perfect storm of things RW is generally opposed to, based as they are in woo and authoritarianism. --Castaigne (talk) 19:15, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

Yep at the last bit. Also, why is this talk page crashing my plugin container for Firefox? Narky Sawtooth (Floof!~) 19:28, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

Even more simply put, GamerGate is a reactionary movement opposed to to the presence of feminist voices in the general video gaming community. I gotta agree this article is an total mess. I think the problem here is that some folks are trying to use RationalWiki to host an exhaustive narrative on GamerGate rather than the concise snarky take down of this reactionary paranoid authoritarian movement I'd like to see. Marlow (talk) 19:29, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

I'm beating a dead horse here, but: 1. This is no silver-brain article; 2. It is missional, given the anti-woman activism and its grounding in internet culture, both topics that speak to our core constituency. 3. Marlow must have just gotten here, because many people want what ze wants, but are being run over by two users, one of whom throws the toys out of the crib whenever the suggestion to dial it back is made, the other of whom runs the wiki.Peace. AgingHippie (talk) 19:39, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

(EC) The problem is that, due to a lack of alternatives, the RW article is being used as a reference for an in-depth account. So, for the time being, at least, a thorough trimming would do a disservice to people actually using RW in favour of (perhaps self-indulgent) adherence to RW's usual brevity. It's certainly no more of a mess than some CP-related articles on RW. Queex_{chthonic murmurings} 19:40, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

"Not as bad as" is no defence. Many seasoned editors have suggested moving the minutiae to the "Timeline" article (count how many times the word appears on this talk page), so we can BOTH document this thing in fine detail AND have an article non-specialists will want to read, but Gerard says no, so that's that. Peace. AgingHippie (talk) 19:43, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

This just goes to show, that, while references are imperative, and having lots of them is good, references alone definitely do not make an article.--Tanis (talk) 19:48, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

How about we make a GamerGate/Laconic or move this to GamerGate/Verbose? (though I recall something about using the / causing issues or somesuch, so maybe not exactly that) Narky Sawtooth (Floof!~) 19:52, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

*shudder* No, please don't. An yes, mainspace does not support sub-pages, unlike Template or User space, it just treats them as separate pages.--ZooGuard (talk) 19:54, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

Maybe we should have a collective essay that the article starts off linking to, then? Sort of like what was being recommended, but not just for Ryulong? The reason why it's important to have this so long is that it's useful for providing a point-by-point rebuttal to a gish gallop that hasn't been challenged by anything of this size yet (that I'm aware). Narky Sawtooth (Floof!~) 19:59, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for your collective answers. I agree with the idea of (at least) two articles - one for casual readers that explains what it is and RW's stance on it, and the other one with 50 sub-sections and exhaustive detail. Let us do this soon? ħuman 15:41, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

I wish. It won't happen. Ryulong and David Gerard hath spoken. Come back in a week and see. Peace. AgingHippie (talk) 15:45, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

Silver?

So, should this finally have the Silver status yanked until it actually deserves it? Trick (talk) 19:53, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

I voted for silver in the first place, and let me totally nominate yanking the hell out of it now. Ikanreed (talk) 20:01, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

The "Silver" template reads: "We like it, and so should you." I am willing to bet the weight of numbers invalidates the first claim. Peace. AgingHippie (talk) 20:06, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

Yank it. |₹Λ¥$€₦₦ ^{THAT IS STILL LEGAL TENDER. I AM SANDWICH LAWYER.} 20:09, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

Well, it's readable to me. But, I am a hardcore gamer... Narky Sawtooth (Floof!~) 20:10, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

+1 from me too, obviously. And I'm a gamer myself, but this is still just a mess of information tossed out, not an actual article. I stand by my previous suggestion of having a play by play, not necessarily just the timeline but that could work, that people more familiar with writing detailed articles can reference to create an article worth having. Right now it may be understood by people involved but that's not the point of a wiki article. At all. Trick (talk) 20:13, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

-1 BAWWW IT'S TOO LONG who gives a fuck. Why is this such an issue? Why do people keep saying this page is shit for this reason? All attempts to cut back have been to remove valid information that is essential to understanding something about the whole.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 23:29, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

It's not unreadable because it is ridiculously long. It's unreadable because it is poorly presented. Article "ownership" often works against overall quality. You might want to take a back seat for a few days while cleanup ensues? ħuman 15:44, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

You have to admit, boss, that it's kind of rambly and unwieldy. --Castaigne (talk) 23:33, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, but the attempts by those who don't know shit about the situation to fix that have been catastrophic.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 23:36, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

I can definitely agree that it needs to be...I'm woozy, so "re-concised" is about as close as my brain gets right now. It's why I made a copy of the page over to my userspace to work on a re-write. Your input is more than welcome, of course. I need to figure out how to map all the bullshit... --Castaigne (talk) 23:39, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

People keep saying some of what has been added should go to the timeline instead when I've been adding people's critical commentary on these new events as they unfold so I don't know what's up or down.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 23:48, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

Hmmmm. Well, then I think what's important is to nail down the background that led to GamerGate (something that I can easily research, especially if I go back and read through some events I remember from the Geek Feminism Wiki), the flashpoint that started it (ie, the Quinn Post), and then determine what are major threads and what are side issues. --Castaigne (talk) 00:08, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

At some point everything becomes a side issue because of new people trying to harness Gamergate's power for their own financial gain. As we're seeing with Mark Kern right now.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 00:38, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

Can you remind me which editor from Wikipedia tried to get paid to edit Gamergate articles? Chrimony (talk) 02:34, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

I don't know. Did anyone get paid to edit or is that what Gamergate just wants you to believe?—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 03:05, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

Now I may dislike Ryulong as much as the next B8ter fuck, but I am willing to point your side's bullshit out just as much. The alleged "paid editing" was merely a bump from a Ghazi poster, which was majorly blown out of proportion by /r/trollshieldinginaction. --Madman (talk) 03:30, 28 February 2015 (UTC)The Madman

Technically two, but one gave much more than the other.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 03:58, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

Facts:

Chrimony (talk) 06:19, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

Why do you care so much?—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 11:14, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

I pointed out your own hypocrisy on a subject that you brought up and used it as an example of why this article is a one-sided hitpiece. What's so hard to understand? Chrimony (talk) 17:01, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

That didn't answer my question. And in case you haven't noticed RW was biased against the core gator demographic long before I signed up, as was this page before I began contributing to it. When will you and other gators realize the world is biased against your thinly veiled attack on a handful of women who wouldn't capitulate to the horde?—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 21:37, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

The answer to your question should be obvious. I'm here as part of Gamergate. I got in because of the mass censorship and the "Gamers are Dead" articles, over an issue I otherwise had earlier dismissed as indie drama without much looking into it. But why do you care so much? Because you're a White Knight. Chrimony (talk) 00:20, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

Gamers were never declared dead, they were declared over. People banning you or threads from privately owned internet forums is not censorship. And I'm not whiteknighting. You're just being an unapologetic MRA.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 00:29, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

"read through some events I remember from the Geek Feminism Wiki": Hee hee. This is the true nature of your "mission", "Rational" (take a drink) Wiki. Chrimony (talk) 02:34, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

Yawn.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 03:05, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

Nah, brah. I'm familiar with every niche wiki on the web, starting back when LJDrama was still a thing and Fandom Wank was occupied. I know it pisses of you Cat-Piss Men to find out that you're entire "movement" has been co-opted, but that's what you get for cozying up with Roosh and Elam and the Stormfronters. --Castaigne (talk) 04:01, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

I'm going to be bold and yank it. Tielec01 (talk) 02:05, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

What are the big points

Right now what we have is 50 (sub)sections. 50. That's nuts. No other article that's not a breakdown of a longwinded document has that kinda girth.

To me the actual big points are:

• The vacuous and libel-driven origin
• The enormous stupidity of engaging in threatening and misogyny under the banner of ethics
• The lack of discernible achievements in the arena compared misogynistic shit-stirring
• The constant spillover into things completely unrelated to their oh-so-important-concerns
• The right-wing/traditional misogynist instant buy-in.

Did I miss anything? Is there really anything that doesn't fall into one of those categories? Ikanreed (talk) 20:22, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

I would say yes, but that's because I have a rather more nuanced view of it as a gamer.

It's more like an octopus than anything else; many tentacles. I've been trying to figure out how best to thread it so each tentacle can be dealt with in its own section, but like I've said for the past few days, have a fever, brain cloudy, etc.

I'm gonna get really fucking high on DayQuil this weekend, though, so maybe some inspiration will appear. --Castaigne (talk) 20:25, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

That's the spirit. Peace. AgingHippie (talk) 20:33, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

I'd say it's like "everything but the kitchen sink" kind of detail. I'd say you didn't list the backlash by major organizations, which doesn't quite fit into any categories you listed, but it's perhaps an effect of these big points. LEFTYGREENMARIO 20:31, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

The astroturfing & deceit should be mentioned. E.g. the fact that #NotYourShield and Operation Chemo (funding TFYC) were ploys by Gamergaters to promote a phoney image of supporting feminism etc. ₩€₳$€£ΘĪÐ^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 21:34, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

I swear, the whole damn thing reminds me of this chart. Combined with this one. The original World of Darkness metaplot was easier to thread. --Castaigne (talk) 21:42, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

Let me interject my unvalued across-the-flow opinion. The issue with defining what GG is stems from the fact people are coming from it from a variety of perspectives ; you have some who are legit concerned about ethics and all that jazz, then those who are just not happy you're criticizing their pet thing, then (there comes ideology) you have some conservative with a biff against the media establishment in general and have located a breach, you have reactionaries from the left and the right who don't care for or vocally oppose identity politics, you have a bundle of people who just want to fuck over social-justice minded people and - of course - trolls.

On a more general ideological bent it shouldn't be viewed as a right wing conservative thing ; it's more a libertarian thing. Which, as we have seen with Paulbots and the like, tends to capture a lot of individuals with vaguely defined grievances and house a number of axe grinders. The ever unpresent Westonbirt (talk) 01:10, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

Aren't libertarians just conservatives who like weed?—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 01:27, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

Not all of them. It's petty ideological differences again. There are those who are conservative first, and are using the libertarian label because it's trendy to be anti-establishment (when you're not in charge) and then those who are libertarian first, who can be cut into those who think about it too much and those who don't think about it enough. The first half is full of paulbots and conspiracy theorist, woo peddling tree worshippers selling overpriced quartz extracts doused in eucalyptus essence to ageing hipsters in large energy inefficient air conditioned buildings outside city capitals, as well as the occasional person who gives more of a fuck about dodging taxes than social issues. The "not thinking about it enough" side is made of part-time liberals who don't feel like they're accomplishing anything as is, or reject progressive social/identity politics and would rather go home and watch "not-PC" shit on their DVR but still like Obamacare.

All that is to say, a sizeable portion of GG is probably the second flavour, whilst the first one is what you would find writing about it on Breitbart, mixed in with traditional conservatives. 'The ever unpresent' Westonbirt (talk) 01:39, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

I like how you say what you say Westonbirt, welcome (edit: I guess you've been here for awhile so disregard). I'm interested in this idea of the part-time liberal who rejects identity politics. However I disagree that GamerGate really comes from multiple angles. At its core it's just an anti-feminist movement (I think this is a fair description that most gator's would agree with, probably with some silly caveat about second and third wave). The ethics part has always been a sham, and though it probably fooled some people if they haven't figured it out yet they're seriously dense. I suppose they're are degrees of consciousness in the anti-feminist block, ranging from the hardcore neoreactionary pseudo-philospher to the kid who just doesn't like bitches ragging on his GTA V. But at the end of the day, I don't think the motivations behind the movement is that varied. Marlow (talk) 02:24, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

I surely do think they are varied. But when I think of prominent figures within Gamergate, there is both people like Sargon of Akkad, who certainly is more of a critic of feminism (and a right winger in the more traditional - although british - sense), and MundaneMatt, who is more of someone who doesn't care for it, and then Breitbart, who is there to bash anything that could be construed as "left wing". It's a bit like the Spanish Civil war, some are here because they live there and oppose Franco specifically, others are there to oppose fascism in general, and yet more are there to support socialism. As for that issue of "ethics ?", you can always find people to support the main party line - many will still insist the Tea Party is all about the bailout, or that it's the only reason it was started. They probably hold to it because they didn't research enough. 'The ever unpresent' Westonbirt (talk) 18:46, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

My problem with this article is that it is difficult to read. People go to Wikis like RationalWiki and Wikipedia to read summary articles that can give them, the average person, a general understanding of the topic they are looking up. This article is so confusing and poorly organized that I, somebody who just wanted a brief education on the topic, felt distracted by all the little parts and pieces of the article that weren't necessary. Hell, I just erased an entire section about how a gamergate is a queen ant or something. Who really thought somebody would come to RationalWiki to look that up? This article has some good content, but it is so poorly hashed together that, even after skimming through the article, I'm still not sure I grasp what GamerGate was about 100%. John Jacob Jingleheimer Schmidt (talk) 10:53, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

You removed a section included because it is humorous. In addition to pointing out some sort of actual event that happened in regards to a similarly namedentity.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 11:04, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

This section is a prime example of what I am talking about. I understand that there are conspiracy theories surrounding Gamergate, but do we really need an entire section dedicated to them? That entire section, really, distracts from the overall big picture of the fact that GamerGate is about sexism and stalking of various people, not generally about conspiracy theories. At least it was a great example, until I took my editing chainsaw to it. John Jacob Jingleheimer Schmidt (talk) 10:57, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

That was there from the beginning. And it ties into the rest of this website's topics.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 11:04, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

It doesn't matter. Both of the sections I cited above are just shitty asides from the main points of this article. "You removed a section included because it is humorous." No, it was just lame junk at the bottom of the page that further confuses the reader. John Jacob Jingleheimer Schmidt (talk) 11:07, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

It's a joke section. That's why it's included. It's at the end because you're right in saying it has little to do with the rest of the page.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 11:09, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

Leave the ref formatting in. Leave the links to InfoWars and SyrianGirlPartisan. Leave the mention of DARPA which is why they're going full tinfoil on Gamergate. Leave the jokey section title in because it is a pun on the bullshit Gamergate spews out. Holy shit you guys say you don't understand the topic and yet you spend time hacking away at things and claiming I shouldn't be editing the page anymore.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 11:11, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

(EC) Except that that section really wasn't very good or funny. Honestly, it was just, as I said, crap somebody added to the bottom of the page just because it felt good at the time. Otherwise, it was of no value and, indeed, of negative value to the article. John Jacob Jingleheimer Schmidt (talk) 11:14, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

I had originally put in a joke sentence at the start of the page using the information from Gamergate but someone decided to shunt it all the way at the bottom. Also the mention of GamersGate is relevant to this in some weird way.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 11:16, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

"Holy shit you guys say you don't understand the topic and yet you spend time hacking away at things and claiming I shouldn't be editing the page anymore." A couple of fallacies here:

1. While I haven't kept up with this topic, I am a long-time editor here and at other Wikis (WP included) and know what a well-written article looks like.
2. It is this understanding that makes me, as a RationalWiki editor, take license to hack away at the parts that I know are just bad. That whole "What a gamergate really is" section being an example of something that was just terrible.
3. Since I've not been involved in this until I saw the discussion on this talkpage yesterday afternoon, you cannot claim I said you shouldn't be editing the page anymore.

John Jacob Jingleheimer Schmidt (talk) 11:29, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

There have been multiple people saying I should stop editing the page and that I am not qualified to edit the topic while they have zero idea of what this is about or how things interplay. I've seen people delete the text from footnotes because it appeared trivial in the middle of the section where it was included but not delete the actual footnote itself. I've seen people remove citations supporting statements and then demand a citation for the statement that had previously been cited. You are free to hack away at the page but doing so with little to no comprehension of the topic is what causes problems. The only complaints about this page is that it is too long and people with no knowledge of the subject do not wish to read any part of it to even begin to understand it and then say that the article is crap because they can't understand it because they can't get past a single paragraph that wasn't even the paragraph they said was the issue. Multiple times on this page there's someone asking for clarification on a topic that is explained in detail. Someone asked why it was important to say two people were dating when the next section explains that they're the Adam and Eve of this mess.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 11:35, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

"You are free to hack away at the page but doing so with little to no comprehension of the topic is what causes problems." Except that, sometimes, you need outsiders like me to tell you what's wrong with it. In exchange, I have listened to some of the points you made, such as your points about the conspiracy section. It comes with editing a Wiki; people with different levels of knowledge will be complimentary to each other in different ways. You certainly know more about GamerGate than I do, but I also have written many Wiki articles and know how best to format them. It's a trade, and it's the reason why we're on a Wiki collaborating on this article. It's the reason no one editor has ownership of any one article on RationalWiki. John Jacob Jingleheimer Schmidt (talk) 11:42, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

The only thing I've seen say is "wrong" with it is that it's long. Only one person ever called out any particular section's writing as being obtuse or incomprehensible. There's been very little constructive criticism outside of that one instance. This is what baffles me. How can David or Castaigne or myself or anyone with any knowledge of this subject properly address criticism from you, AgingHippie, et al., when there's no clear definition of what is utterly bad other than "it's too long I don't want to read it"? Or when the only suggestions on how to make this less confusing for those without any sort of knowledge of what's been going on at Reddit or Twitter since August is to carve the page up like Thanksgiving turkey and the first thing to be split off is the event that started everything?—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 11:47, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

Except that that's not been my criticism. My criticism is that, after the first few paragraphs, it goes all over the place and is completely disorganized. There seem to be a lot of things that happened, but after the first few sections, I completely lose my sense of the sequence of events. I'll try to get more specific when I have some sleep. Also, there's a lot of characters caught up in this whole thing. To me, it would be better if, instead of having a whole bunch of sections about a whole bunch of events involving a whole bunch of people, it were organized into sections about specific events and specific players. A chronology of events, for example, and the player involved in those events. John Jacob Jingleheimer Schmidt (talk) 11:54, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

It's been other people's criticism. And I've been trying to organize everything with regards to person and time but there are so many people and so many things that happened to them. All I've been trying to do is cover things which other people have covered in a way that can be sourced. Also, Timeline of Gamergate exists for the barebones approach.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 12:03, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

The problems with this page have been pointed out to you over & over & over & you still insist that "The only complaints about this page is that it is too long". Pull your head out of your ass & listen to what others are actually saying. ₩€₳$€£ΘĪÐ^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 12:27, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

Very little of the criticism you have leveled at the page concerned any specific content that needed work.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 21:33, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

Gamergate's inevitable decline

There are 18(!!!!!) sub-sections to a section about the decline of Gamergate. Is it at all possible to consolidate those? To me, as a reader of the article and as an editor of the Wiki, that section is probably the most bloated part of the entire article. John Jacob Jingleheimer Schmidt (talk) 11:21, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

I was trying to do that tonight. The "decline" is more of "going out kicking and screaming for 4 months straight" and new shit keeps happening that just makes those affected ask "why". I tried to cut down on content and even axed a couple of sections, before making new ones to combine similar topics.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 11:24, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

Let's look at it this way: Could it be broken down by subject? For example, anything to do with doxxing and harassment summarized into a section or two about Gamergate's harassment of such and such, and then a follow-up section about how such and such responded to their doxxing and harassment? John Jacob Jingleheimer Schmidt (talk) 11:33, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

I did my best to do that earlier with Gamergate#Gamergate rings in 2015 with a new wave of harassment which I split parts off into Gamergate#8chan goes down, blame the SJWs and Gamergate#"August Never Ends". I also cut down Gamergate#Tyler Wilde and Anne Lewis into a single paragraph and cut out content from other subsections that I figured were irrelevant to the whole.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 11:39, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

The issue is so much shit is interconnected that you have to go into detail to make other shit make sense.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 11:41, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

Yes, it'll be a difficult task to undertake. I'm gonna go sleep (it's 6:00 a.m here), and I'll try hacking away at it tomorrow. Don't worry, I'll sandbox it so you can look at the finished product before I put it on the market here. John Jacob Jingleheimer Schmidt (talk) 11:48, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

I think the primary problem is that "Gamergate's inevitable decline" isn't so much a "decline" as it is four months of trying to remain relevant and grasping at whatever "victories" come their way. Namely the Law & Order episode 2 weeks ago and whatever Mark Kern has been doing this past week to also regain relevance.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 11:52, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

At some point this article will be 32k long, and cover the whole story effectively. There will probably be a couple of 128k "support" articles with exhaustive detail for those who care. I hope we reach this point sooner than later. And, no, that's not saying "it's too long". It's saying it is a very poor article at this stage. The "story" needs to be condensed by a non-gamer, while the detailed sub-pages can be linked to in myriad places (with section links) for the reader who wants more detail about any given part of the story. ħuman 16:01, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

Shunting things off to subpages is not the way to go at all.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 21:31, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

Respectfully, yes it most certainly is. It will happen. ħuman 22:22, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

What will happen is when someone types "gamergate" into the search box, several articles will "drop down" - it could be as simple as "gamergate" and "gamergate with exhaustive details". ħuman 22:23, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

Except time and time again it has to be explained to you and others that this won't work. There is no reason to shunt things off to "subpages" which the software won't allow just because you think this page is too in depth when that is what people need to show Gamergate's hypocrisy rather than the simple concise coverage you think this topic requires.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 22:45, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

Do you see the side bar on this randomly-chosen article Ryulong? Picture that sidebar with the word "Gamergate" at the top, and below that, a list of various articles that would each describe a distinct element of the subject. Peace. AgingHippie (talk) 22:50, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

As an aside, I'm in favour of that solution. Narky Sawtooth (Floof!~) 22:53, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

That's actually a very good idea; we could make the topic of GamerGate its own major category, start with the timeline in the main article, and then chunk the rest into separate articles that link off of the timeline article. The rest of the main article could then just be brief summaries with links to the details. John Jacob Jingleheimer Schmidt (talk) 22:56, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

Divide and conquer is a shit idea. There's nothing here that deserves its own page like you all keep suggesting. My writing needs copy-editing and shit that's no longer relevant is cut out.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 23:10, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

I propose we give this page its own wiki and link it on the main page. Or we could start it as an independent blog with a Patreon account and twitter handle. If we can get the money, we could start its own independent country on a recent volcanic island. 'The ever unpresent' Westonbirt (talk) 02:05, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

Changes to opening

I changed the opening pgph to try to frame Gamergate not primarily as a series of alleged scandals, which was the first definition given, but as a movement of people inspiired by those alleged scandals. Throughout the article, the author claims "Gamergate did this" and "Gamergate did that." Well, then "a series of alleged scandals" doesn't SWAT people or DOX people or harass people -- PEOPLE do that. This article is about the actions of a movement, and the first piece of information given about the term has to amke it clear we're discussing a movement of people and the things they do. The focus isn't the scandals, it's what people did with them that matters. Peace. AgingHippie (talk) 15:59, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

(Please use "add new section" to add a new section) ħuman 16:01, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

And I agree - if we are going to use "gamergate" or "gamergaters" as nouns in the article, they must be precisely defined in either the lead or the first subhead section. ħuman 16:03, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

Looks good so far.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 21:30, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

Rewrite

I have copied a version of the page to my own userspace for a rewrite. I have started on the intro; comments are welcome, though I'd appreciate it if edit suggestions were left in talkspace. See here. --Castaigne (talk) 17:54, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

Let's take it to the mob

How do you want to see RW cover Gamergate?

Please vote by signing, discuss in the dedicated section below.

As is: one long detailed article

1. Stop saying that this shit needs to be split up into smaller articles over and over again. This is ridiculous. The first attempt at doing this split off the entire section that was about the event that started this all and left a barely comprehensible "summary" of the section in its place. The "decline" section a major problem right now and it can be cut back rather than given its own page here. This is ridiculous because right now it seems like you guys want to make pages for people and topics that have no relevance outside of Gamergate just so this page is shorter.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 23:12, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
2. I've been following the article for months now, and I have to say I actually quite like the way the long article is constructed. It doesn't seem that just splitting this single article into many other articles will work. We have to at least preserve the big article for the people that want a giant infodump on Gamergate or simply find it hard to follow endless sub-pages. If we are going to split the article, we should at least preserve this long version. dietrich pls (comic sans pls) leonhart fuchs pls 00:35, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

   To that end: We could make all the auxilliary pages like specific articles for deletion, and transclude them all onto a behemoth overview. (Maybe on "A long-ass history of Gamergate".) FüzzyCätPötätö (talk/stalk) 03:26, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

   I think that's a good idea, actually. It should satisfy the infodumpster divers like me as well as folks who prefer bite-sized articles sorted by specific topic. dietrich pls (comic sans pls) leonhart fuchs pls 03:51, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

3. It's complicated because the topic is complicated. Breaking it up into pieces will not solve the claimed problems. And all breakup attempts to date have been utterly inept. If you really don't understand the topic, then you are not qualified to gut the article - David Gerard (talk) 14:39, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

With this turned into briefer macro-view article, linked to distinct articles on specific groups, events, and actors

1. Peace. AgingHippie (talk) 22:55, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
2. Tentatively yes. --Castaigne (talk) 22:59, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
3. So long as the main article also incorporates the Timeline of Gamergate into it, then I think it could be a workable solution. John Jacob Jingleheimer Schmidt (talk) 23:03, 28 February 2015 (UTC) See my formatting proposal below.
4. Y'mean the thing that pops up on the right (which is currently the Internet one), right? Why didn't we do this when it was brought up before? Also, should I draw the picture? Narky Sawtooth (Floof!~) 23:06, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

   If you can edit one of the other .svg icons and add a "witty" image to it, go for it. FüzzyCätPötätö (talk/stalk) 03:22, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

5. |₹Λ¥$€₦₦ ^{So you're telling me cocaine comes from scorpions?} 23:08, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
6. Grant (talk) 23:17, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
7. It's the obvious solution, an alternative to a sprawling mess. ħuman 23:47, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
8. This has been the best solution for a month. FüzzyCätPötätö (talk/stalk) 03:22, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

   It's a solution you utterly failed at implimenting when you began by hiving off the information on what started this all.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 03:23, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

   Which definitely means this proposal will fail. Herr FuzzyKatzenPotato (talk/stalk) 03:30, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

9. "Everything but the kitchen sink" is an issue here concerning readability. I do like the content the article has, but the detail is overwhelming. I don't know exactly what to do about this (I'm not experienced in RationalWiki), but as pointed out several times, GamerGate takes on so much themes that to document it as a whole will create a giant ugly, sprawling article. I'm not a fan of creating subpages either. I do believe that stuff about Anita Sarkeesian and the other victims be relocated into their respective articles pointing to a link so we keep the details without bloating this article. It's a start. Meanwhile, I don't really accept the article ownership attitude. LEFTYGREENMARIO 07:24, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
10. Seems obvious to me. GamerGate isn't actually all that complicated if you boil it down to what it actually is. What makes it complex is all the transparent attempts at memetic manipulation. If we want to analyze those point by point they should be spun off into separate articles for things like Vivian James and the donations to the Fine Young Capitalists. Marlow (talk) 19:56, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
11. Above all, remember reader friendliness. The basic narrative here is not complicated; as Marlow notes, the complexity arises from the multiple efforts at deception to insert the message. Also remember that last year's internet drama is approaching its sell-by date. What most readers in 2015 need to know to be up to speed here is a relatively small number of points. - Smerdis of Tlön, ^{If you burn with an inner fire, you are already damned.} 04:49, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

Some other option, briefly outlined, bearing in mind /subpages don't work well on MW

Keep this as the long version & move it to a different title signifying that it's a detailed blow by blow account (& preferably in essay space). Create a new article as an overview, summarising the subject & major themes in a few section without too much storytelling. Weaseloid^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 00:59, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

Which is what I have been trying to get to, one fumbling suggestion at a time. A readable overview, and a no holds barred version. ħuman 01:28, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

This. The page, as it is, will fall foul to TLDR; faster than you can say 'attention span' for a large proportion of people who follow a link to it and don't know/care what RationalWiki is. A solid summary with a link to a full account for those who want to know all the details will work much butter IMO. I read through the whole thing, and while a lot of it is critical to the overall development of the GG farce, another lot of it is, with the greatest respect, grown adults acting like toddlers with toys flying in all directions. That's not to day it doesn't need to be accurately documented and included in any full coverage article, but it's not really relevant to the core issues. Worm (talk) 09:56, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

Goat

1. Let's all become Laplace's demons. Narky Sawtooth (Floof!~) 00:27, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
2. Yeah, this. If someone does some restructure on this article, it better remain the prominent internet source to explain this hate-movement. Hipocrite (talk) 20:19, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

Discuss

I will go with this as long as a main thread is maintained on the macro-view and all issues involving Gjoni/ZoePost remain on the macro-view, as this was the flashpoint for the clusterfuck. I'd also need to see how this was going to be mapped first. While I might agree that Ryulong uses 5 words where 1 will do and is a bit rambly, I don't trust that everyone here who wants to edit has requisite backgrounds in both gaming and internet/IRL dramatic clusterfucks. --Castaigne (talk) 23:01, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

It's not your article nor your wiki. Whether you trust other editors is worth fuck all. |₹Λ¥$€₦₦ ^{Put de lime in de coconut, call me in de mornin'} 23:14, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

If you and others complain that you can't understand the article then why should you have a say in deciding it should be sliced apart into a bunch of smaller articles for easier consumption of something you already cannot comprehend? This supervote is bullshit.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 23:16, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

Nice to know you still haven't been paying attention to what others are saying. |₹Λ¥$€₦₦ ^{But does planting trees help bring people to Christ?} 23:23, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

Then for fucks sake tell me the exact criticisms here. Because it's mostly been "this page is too long". JJJS at least said "it sort of goes all over the place in this section". And Tielec01 had criticism to a specific section and gave a sentence by sentence breakdown of what the issues are.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 23:27, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

(EC) "If you and others complain that you can't understand the article then why should you have a say in deciding it should be sliced apart into a bunch of smaller articles for easier consumption of something you already cannot comprehend? This supervote is bullshit." They tried to have a Wiki written exclusively by experts already. Who is to say that everything would get its own separate article? We could split it off into subpages, like Gamergate/things gamers say, so that people will understand that it is tied into the main article. As it stands, the main problem with the article is not, as you claim, that it's too long. It's that the article as is is hard to follow who did what and when it happened in the chronology of things. John Jacob Jingleheimer Schmidt (talk) 23:28, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

EC "If you and others complain that you can't understand the article..." then, above all, it's a pretty good sign that the article is a failure and you're not doing the job you set out for yourself very well, Ruylong. Peace. AgingHippie (talk) 23:32, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

Well I'm trying but very few have said anything about specific actionable changes to be made to make it clearer.

The issue with most of the divide and conquer proposal is that the proposed split off sections, previously were poorly planned and simply taking existing sections of this and saying it should have a separate article. The timeline is good for being a timeline. This page I've been attempting to have commentary on things found in the timeline. The only other page that might be worth having is a "Dramatis Personae" page.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 00:32, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

1. Stop accusing people of not telling you what to fix. Just let people edit this wiki article as they see fit, you do not own it. 2. Stop characterizing the "multiple article" scenario in whatever attack phrase occurs to you. "Divide and conquer"? Really? ħuman 01:26, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

David Gerard complained about this too. Very few people have clearly said "This part needs work". And when the first plan was to shunt off parts of the article to create just massive summaries of everything that's a shit plan.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 01:44, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

We should just create a template for your responses, it would save you the trouble of typing. ħuman 02:47, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

It's not trusting other editors; it's trusting other editor's expertise and knowledge. Please do not take it as a personal slight. --Castaigne (talk) 01:50, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

"I don't trust that everyone here who wants to edit has requisite backgrounds". Wow, so our article on Gamergate can only be written by troo gamerz. No casuals allowed. ωεαşεζøίɗ^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 01:10, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

The issue is that people with extensive knowledge on the ins and outs are being treated as dangers to the project.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 01:21, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

^{[citation needed]} Weaseloid^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 01:24, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

Leonhart and Weaseloid's suggestions above seem to have a very broad overlap, one I suspect most could get behind. ħuman 01:30, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

That was not what I meant, but if that's the attitude you want to take, go right ahead, edit all you like. Unblock Chirimony and allow him to "balance" the article. Chop it into mush. Let, say, Smerdis shit all over it because he hates SJWs and would like them to all die in a fire. If you really want me to, I can make it Not My Fucking Problem and not help at all. And you can delete it for lacking missionality.

In fact, if you'd like to have Rochambeau over it, why don't we just go ahead and do that? And then you don't have to worry about it anymore. In fact, it sounds like the most easy, practical, permanent solution to me. Occam's Razor, right fucking there. --Castaigne (talk) 01:50, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

What the fuck are you even talking about? ωεαşεζøίɗ^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 02:59, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

He's remarking that you and others have taken what he said completely wrong. He's not saying we should go Citizendium and only allow those who claim to be experts to edit which has been intimated somewhere on this page. He's saying you and others should trust in the knowledge and expertise others have with regards to this subject.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 03:19, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

Others like whom? Do you consider anyone other than yourself to have this requisite expertise? Ŵêâŝêîôîď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 03:24, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

Gerard, Castaigne, ZooGuard, Typhoon, Shtrominer, Noise, Zero.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 03:28, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

What makes those people experts? ₩€₳$€£ΘĪÐ^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 03:34, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

They didn't try to break up the article. Ergo, expert. FuzzyCatPotato™ (talk/stalk) 03:36, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

Hit the nail on the head there.--Madman (talk) 03:39, 1 March 2015 (UTC)The Madman

They actually have a clue as to how it all fits together.--Castaigne (talk) 05:24, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

Don't fucking come at me with a piss-ant attitude when I advocate in a conciliatory fashion for caution, prudence, and some familiarity with the fucking subject at hand in trimming this cocksucking asshat of an article down to size. My good will and temper are rapidly being eroded by the hoi-polloi numbnuts here who whine about how it's too long and thus too dense to digest when the average member of this wiki fucking downs a full thesis on abstruse quantum physics and how it applies to nuclear substrates as light reading for their afternoon tea. So let's not go with "TL;DR" and blithely take an axe to everything or I'll goddamn give you exactly what you wish for and nobody will like it. --Castaigne (talk) 05:24, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

Cutting up the article

Consensus right now is 10:3 for cutting up the article. The question is how the article should be cut up. I see two broad, potentially not-mutually-exclusive ways of doing it:

1. Breaking it up into topic-specific articles; ie, Gamergate and sexism and Gamergate and intimidation
2. Breaking it up into event or person-specific articles; ie, Gamergate and The Fine Young Capitalists (or The Fine Young Capitalists) and Gamergate and Milo Yiannopoulos (or Milo Yiannopoulos)

Thoughts? oʇɐʇoԀʇɐϽʎzznℲ (talk/stalk) 20:16, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

Use the template Goonie drew up below and take anything that needs more than a couple of pgphs and turing it into its own article. Peace. AgingHippie (talk) 20:23, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

This is still a stupid fucking idea. I don't care if the vote is 100 to 3. This will not work at all. TFYC should never get its own page. Milo arguably is the only one that could get his own page because of all of the other bullshit he does but it should not be a page dedicated to hosting everything he did that was part of Gamergate. And splitting it up into topic specific pages is also ridiculous. Gamergate is exclusively about sexism and intimidation. What the hell is with these plans? They are always incredibly poorly thought out. The page is long we get that but cutting it apart is not going to solve anything. It's easier to go through it and figure out what isn't relevant to the whole in order to keep this topic easy to digest than it is to make it a multi page subject.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 22:04, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

Your concerns have been noted. While you are, no doubt, an expert on the subject matter at hand, you are no expert in how to write a readable and effective article. You are also a member of a community that operates largely on consensus, and a particular consensus seems to be emerging. I hope you respect the community enough to respect that fact. Peace. AgingHippie (talk) 22:11, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

I wouldn't even worry about it being cut up at this point. What it needs is reorganization, and I have proposed a format for that reorganization below. I've even started a sandbox version of that format that we can work on to try and get it to fit into that format. John Jacob Jingleheimer Schmidt (talk) 22:17, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ The tentative agreement looks to be "Try cutting it up." Please go ahead and try. Don't think that said tentative agreement was in any way an agreement to shift the tone, or alter the fundamental underlying point that gamergate is a hate movement focused on ruining women's lives for getting in their games. Hipocrite (talk) 20:22, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

you are no expert in how to write a readable and effective article - and most people here are not very good at it, either. Not to mention that the most eager splitter at the moment is a person who has demonstrated a rather questionable editing judgment when it comes to merging and splitting articles.--ZooGuard (talk) 08:37, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

Tentative cuttup

User:FuzzyCatPotato/Gamergate. Incomplete. Very open to change. Thoughts? Herr FuzzyKatzenPotato (talk/stalk) 02:41, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

's pretty good. |₹Λ¥$€₦₦ ^{Advocate for the liberation of Willzyx} 03:49, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

Splitting off the actual events that led to this to happen is not going to work. Ever. Why would we have a page just on the Zoe Post? Why would we give TFYC or Vivian James separate coverage? They are solely known because of Gamergate. The problem with this page isn't length. It's how the content is organized because apparently the chronological order of everything makes it all hard to digest. More work could be done towards figuring out a better way to structure this content and removing what isn't necessarily relevant to the whole anymore than just carving off whole portions of the page and keeping them the same.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 04:10, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

The Zoe Post, the Quinnspiracy, and the initial harassment all get one (not one each) page because they are what collectively spawned the movement. TFYC gets a page because it's a specific debunking of TFYC-related pseudohistory. FüzzyCätPötätö (talk/stalk) 21:44, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

That is still a fucking stupid idea. Why should the events that led to Gamergate be given a separate page from the whole? And TFYC are solely known for Gamergate and Gamergate's support of their nonsense.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 22:44, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

Why separate pages? Because readability. ʇυzzγɔɒтqoтɒтo (talk/stalk) 22:51, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

This can make sense on a single page without making new pages to house the content that you and everyone else claims makes it unreadable.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 02:19, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

It might be able to. I doubt that it possibly can, unless relevant detail is removed. If you think reorganization is all that's necessary, please write up a draft. FᴜᴢᴢʏCᴀᴛPᴏᴛᴀᴛᴏ﹐ Esϙᴜɪʀᴇ (talk/stalk) 02:21, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

I've been actively cutting out shit that's not relevant anymore and JJJS has a reorganization draft.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 02:32, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

Actually looking at what you've done I can tell you you've made a massive mess of it all again. You're dedicating whole pages to central events rather than saving that for the actual central article and hiving off content that seems unnecessary for the layman's approach. It is a fucking stupid idea to go "We'll have a page on The Zoe Post, a page on The Fine Young Capitalists/Vivian James, a page on the background harassment, etc." You're just taking vaguely related subjects on this page and making whole new pages out of them it's ridiculous.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 11:25, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

By the turtles of Tasman, you even made a damn nav template... *headdesk*

For the record, I think that both the current article and the proposed cut-ups are... sub-par. Multiple articles are hard to read, hard to keep in sync and hard to defend (on how many talk pages you want to bicker with User:Chrimony?). Instead of simply segmenting the current material, I suggest following the lead of Timeline of Gamergate and making pages that deal with the problem from different approaches: a main Gamergate article explaining what and how it happened and analysis why it happened, and an "Index to Gamergate claims" for debunking the claims that float around (one of the reasons why the current article is overfilled with detail is Ryulong trying to pre-debunk some common talking points). The chronicle-writing should be limited to the Timeline page.--ZooGuard (talk) 08:23, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

What makes the tentative article hard to read?

Synchronization seems pretty handle-able, since the main Gamergate article shouldn't change much, cuz our narrative on Gamergate won't change much.

That could work. That still effectively represents a cuttup - it's segregating the story of Gamergate from debunking Gamergate. FuzzyCatTomato (talk/stalk) 12:55, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

*cough* FüzzyCätPötätö (talk/stalk) 21:40, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

On fourth thought...

Actually having done some rereading of the current version (and some typo fixing), its main problem is its length.

I first encountered this article a few weeks ago. For some reason, I wanted to know what this "gamergate fiasco on RW" was all about. So first I went to WP to read their article. It told me what GG was about. Then I came here and struggled to make head or tail of what was even being said (granted that version of the article has been worked on a lot since then). But part of the struggle came from seeing a two page ToC following a weak, convoluted introduction. To me, that says "you have to read all this to get the story".

The article is too long. But the current intro is getting pretty good. I think having one article that mirrors the intro with the simple title, and with the phrase "Keep reading..." (or "Continued on page 19") ending it and linking to the entire story (basically this article with a name like "gamergate - all the details") would eliminate the intimidation while preserving the spirit. The long version could transclude the short version as its intro, I think, to maintain homogeneity.

This comment can be merged into the above discussion if desired, I just wanted to avoid ECs while I hashed it out. ħuman 01:53, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

It's long and there's concerted attempts to make it shorter and combine similar topics into less sections. Making a bunch of separate pages to cover everything in "Gamergate escalates" and "Gamergate's inevitable decline" isn't going to solve anything other than length.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 02:10, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

So, it is clear that you have no reading comprehension. Your response does not even come close to addressing what I wrote, it just plays a tape-recording of your default position. ħuman 02:46, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

You said the article is too long. This is something that I've been trying to address over the past week. I don't know what else you want me to fucking address.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 03:18, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

You can't read, obviously. Long after you are gone, what I suggest (that you clearly didn't read) will happen. I don't "expect you to do it". We will do it, once we decide exactly how. You do not have some sort of special veto power over actions regarding this article. ħuman 04:03, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

You address it by making it even longer and reversing all attempts at making it shorter. If that's addressing it, it's addressing it badly. Щєазєюіδ^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 03:29, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

The attempts made at cutting content removed context or just made the sentence just plain wrong. I spent most of yesterday cutting out whole sections that were no longer relevant to the whole.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 04:31, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

I spent much of last weekend doing the same but you & Castaigne just put back most of what was removed. Wēāŝēīōīď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 13:11, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

Well look at all the shit I cut out over the past few days.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 13:56, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

A counter-proposal to the above proposals

Since I am not satisfied with any of the above solutions to this article, I would like to propose a format that is more standard to what you'd find on a Wiki, which we could instead strive to have this article suit. It would certainly solve the problems of readability and organization in this article, which I argue are a much more important problem with it than its length. Indeed, the fact that it is so disorganized in its current state is why it seems so long. Take a look at my prototype. You might even like it. John Jacob Jingleheimer Schmidt (talk) 09:22, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

I agree that the chronological organization of this article does not help. (especially with the timeline article also present.) There's also an issue that there are a lot of terrible groups involved in GG, and this article includes some awful things they're doing independantly of GG. e.g. "8chan goes down, blame the SJWs". There's a lot of overlap between the groups, but this should be in our 8chan article as none of it is directly connected to gaming or the game industry--TiaC (talk) 09:48, 1 March 2015 (UTC).

It was somewhat interleaved with other topics in there, but I did have to split it off from another section.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 10:18, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

I like that article's shape. I think it would make a great main article, from which we could link to detailed pages. αδελφός ΓυζζγςατΡοτατο (talk/stalk) 17:54, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

I like what JJJS has laid out as a template for a "just the facts, ma'am take on the topic, for sure--next step to consider; turning it into a communal sandbox to start to fill it out in a collaborative manner. Peace. AgingHippie (talk) 18:11, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

I'd like to see the result of the prototype since it won't really show how long the article is finished after the information is filled. LEFTYGREENMARIO 20:32, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

Community sandbox

As suggested above, I've created a community sandbox for the Gamergate article that people can use to place the current Gamergate article into my prototype. Feel free to edit that sandbox at will. John Jacob Jingleheimer Schmidt (talk) 20:36, 1 March 2015 (UTC)