Talk:Gamergate/Archive4

This is an archive page, last updated 26 March 2020. Please do not make edits to this page.

Archives for this talk page:

<1>, <2>, <3>, <5>, <6>, <7>, <8>, <9>, <10>

, (new)(back)

Outing Wu as trans--removing link. SPOILER -- Who gives a hoot about somebody else's gender identity?

I understand the need to document claims. I also understand that not linking to stuff that is easily available to anyone everywhere is a futile gesture. But I also believe in principle, and, on principle, linking to a garbage case that someone tries to make about a private individual's gender identity is wrong. Ms. Wu said on Redditt she doesn't want to address the case, so let's not address the case. If people want to google it, fine. But linking to that kind of garbage just feels very, very wrong to me. Peace. AgingHippie (talk) 02:24, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

Fair enough. I thought the DoNotLink URL would be sufficient. Also, it's Mrs. Wu.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 03:31, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. I sincerely appreciate it. Peace. AgingHippie (talk) 04:06, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

Probably better to label it an nb footnote or whatever instead.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 04:19, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

I put some clumsy text in place of the ref that was there. Change it as you see fit. Peace. AgingHippie (talk) 04:23, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

We should really steal the reference templates from Wikipedia for alternate reference types.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 07:07, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

Drat, we can't use lower-alpha or upper-roman or whatever.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 07:11, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

Let's also note for the record that the person in question is NOT TRANS. Hipocrite (talk) 20:23, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

No, let's not note it. That makes it a "point" that "matters", even for the "record" which just invites Chrimony or a Chrimony clone to come here and contest it on specious "evdience" "for the record". It matters at all if Wu has done anything to involve trans concerns to the situation, otherwise it's fairly typical right making shit up and pretending it matters(see: Obama birthplace). Ikanreed (talk) 20:32, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

Oh, not on the article. We don't go around saying "THIS PERSON ISN'T TRANS" on articles about other random people. I'm noting it for the record here, since, you know, she's not trans, and hasn't done anything related to trans except to respond to people saying "you're trans," by saying "there is no way to appropriately respond to that assertion." Hipocrite (talk) 20:34, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

I didn't mean the article. Even here on the talk page, it invites people to contest it as if it matters. Ikanreed (talk) 20:37, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

What's the point of making a statement? I don't know if she is or isn't, I have minimal curiosity about it, and insisting that she isn't really doesn't constitute supporting her whether it's true or not. Official word on the matter is "nunya" and I'm content to let it rest there. Calieber (talk) 20:40, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

Imo the whole section is unnecessary beyond a mention that GG will make baseless and trans-discriminatory statements to detract from the real issue that is going on, kinda like what's happening with this discussion in the first place. The details don't actually matter at all. Trick (talk) 20:43, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

In which the lenght of the article is debated, again

You know, you've just described half the sections in this article. |₹Λ¥$€₦₦ ^{So you see, we have to kill animals, or else they'll die.} 20:51, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

I do know, and I've reiterated the point multiple times. But I figure, if it's little by little it may work better than blanketting the idea. Trick (talk) 20:52, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

But there is no real issue going on. Gamergate is just a bunch of sexist and homophobic MRAs who claim they play video games. Most of this page serves to provide evidence of that (and perhaps can be trimmed and reorganized) and to show that they have never once done anything with regards to "ethics in video game journalism" except manage to highlight all of the unethical journalists they've rallied behind.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 22:02, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

I doubt talking about TFYC, Hatred , Vivian James (who should probably be their own articles) contribute much to the central idea. |₹Λ¥$€₦₦ ^{Fuck you! And your eyebrows!} 22:11, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

{{sofixit}}. Hipocrite (talk) 22:25, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

TFYC used Gamergate to make themselves money by saying "Oh yeah Zoe Quinn did these awful things to us". Hatred's dev team is doing the same but going "We're against political messages in video games now here you go you can play as a white dude shooting up people at random". And there is nothing about Vivian James that separates it from Gamergate as a whole as it is the mascot that was created to spite feminism and also create a friend argument Gamergate uses.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 22:29, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

I think we have a {{seealso}} template or a {{main}} template. If we don't, we can create them. If they think those sections are too long, they can distill them down and we can toss up some related article links like wikipedia does at, say [1]. Hipocrite (talk) 22:31, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

Also Hatred's coverage is all of a paragraph and that's all it ever has been.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 22:58, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

Liiiaaaaaarrrrrrrrrrrr

it was two paragraphs |₹Λ¥$€₦₦ ^{Antonio stella bottom tile} 03:46, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

Well it's one paragraph now.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 04:11, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

Ok Ryulong, I'm going to say this again: People who are not involved and just want to learn about the controversy itself do not give a flying fuck about any of your little details. At all. Stick to what and when. Who, why, and how are minor things for separate pages, and where does not matter at all. (I am currently neither involved enough or savvy enough to take my own hand at it, but if it comes to it I may just try anyways.) Trick (talk) 13:21, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

the thing is that there are from time to time various major events that have taken place that show how fucked up it all is to the whole. Perhaps it's not important to say how Gamergate has treated Wu with regards to her game release (even if it shows they have no interest in ethics in video game journalism) or give detail on the opinions and whatnot surrounding the law and order episode or provide details on who was swatted and when or focus on hatred even if it is tangentially related. This can be addressed by cutting those sections down or out, but not making new pages to host that information separate from a bare bones explanation of Gamergate. someone with knowledge of the whole other than myself just needs to give this a read through and figure out what isn't necessary to describe in detail as it stands now and reorganize what's still in there to make it more digestible.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 14:28, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

"Time to time" should not equal 15 sections on a rise-to-fame and 17 sections on a fall, though. That's what this whole discussion has been about. The length from unnecessary details makes the whole thing incredibly muddled and simply unpleasant to read. Going back to my previous suggestion, if you had a sandbox or essay detailing the whole thing it could be used as a reference for everyone trying to fix this to make it more readable to both newcomers and those actually involved. Trick (talk) 14:47, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

Well I got overzealous in documenting all the shit I saw got plenty of air time on /r/GamerGhazi. That's why someone can go in and see what isn't necessary for understanding the whole or what is an example of the hypocrisy that pervades Gamergate and its "goal" of "ethics in video game journalism". That's why I listed three topics in my previous post that fall under the umbrella of "I don't think we need this anymore".—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 22:42, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

Agreed, this is just far too much info about drama and people. Look at how RW covers similarly idiotic movements: Tea_Party, Bitcoin, John_Birch_Society. Take the fluff to a blog or dedicated wiki. --Frybread (talk) 18:45, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

For at least a few of our editors, nut just Ryulong, this one hits way closer to home, thus the need for them to document it in a micro-fashion.... Peace. AgingHippie (talk) 18:48, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

Right, I get that, but you could say the same about Conservapedia - a page you can actually read in one sitting. My recommendation would be to cut down each section (escalation, decline, etc) to one or two paragraphs. We don't need to know the exact day Mike Cernovich joined, we don't need to know anything about David Pakman, or the exact details of every single DDoS campaign. GamerGate harasses people, here are a few of their worst examples, here's the citation to a blog/timeline if you want to see more. --Frybread (talk) 21:53, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

It's what many of us have been saying over the past month. Good luck making it happen. Wéáśéĺóíď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 22:13, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

Has anyone finished any of their rewrites? Because, at the moment, that's our best hope. I'm inclined to accept any of them. ikanreed ^{You probably didn't deserve that} 22:16, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

Alternate organization idea

First, a brief history of Gamergate, max 40kb (Jesus-size, or 1/4 current 160 kb). Covers misogynistic background, Zoe Post, major public events helping it gain popularity, doxxing & harassment, and surge of "anti-GG" journalists & pundits & GG's decline. One section each.

Second, rebuttals, 9-11 conspiracy theories-style. Examples: "Zoe Quinn DDoS'd The Fine Young Capitalists". Rebuttal: Nope, their website was just shit. "Gamergate has never doxxed anyone!" Rebuttal: Here's 49 million counterexamples.^{[1][2][3][4][5][6][7][8][9]}

This lets us (1) keep most of the detail, since Ryulong structured the page towards rebutting GG; (2) have a reasonably concise history, for teh n00bz; (3) increases page's usefulness for stuff David gets good emails about, like "remember when GG defended child porn", etc. FrizzyCatPotato (talk/stalk) 00:20, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

Will "[insert figure head] uses Gamergate to be personal army" work as a section? And how will the most recent turn of events, calling someone a racist and sexist for performing a literal sock puppet show, fit in to this new structure?—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 01:22, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

1: Yeah, why not? 2: Either (if major) a spot in decline or (if minor) a rebuttal to "X is racist". 32℉uzzy, 0℃atPotato (talk/stalk) 01:48, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

The issue is is that Gamergate is claiming someone is racist and sexist because he made a joke about their friend argument shield. See Gamergate#Gamergate becomes a punchline.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 05:31, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

They did. Why is this relevant to this proposed organization? Sir ℱ℧ℤℤϒℂᗩℑᑭƠℑᗩℑƠ (talk/stalk) 05:47, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

Asking what umbrella topic it could fall under in this reorganization attempt.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 07:35, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

If it's rebutting claims, then it'd be a rebuttal; if it's part of the story of the downfall of GG, it'd go in the downfall of GG. oʇɐʇoԀʇɐϽʎzznℲ (talk/stalk) 17:55, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

Is this a version you can support, Ryulong? Sir ℱ℧ℤℤϒℂᗩℑᑭƠℑᗩℑƠ (talk/stalk) 18:07, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

Yeah this seems all right.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 22:33, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

Which sections are most critical to documenting Gamergate's history? Which should be condensed to a rebuttal? (To Ryulong and to everyone.) ʇυzzγɔɒтqoтɒтo (talk/stalk) 22:47, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

*cough* oʇɐʇoԀʇɐϽʎzznℲ (talk/stalk) 21:01, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

Oh, it's nice that I finally get to edit here. I'm the one who sent in both those emails. First, lemme say one thing that is gonna be insulting towards the people who keep trying to chop this up because they don't know much about it: You should be glad you don't know much about it but you should know something about the articles you're gonna edit. Your ignorance is not a match for our knowledge. Brianna Wu and Ryulong have both been targeted by GG. I'm cited twice in this article.

That said, I'm more than willing to help you make an article geared towards people lucky enough not to know much about this. My take on the brief history, which may be slightly out of order: Sexist bg and the Zoepost, #burgerandfries and the Quinnspiracy and them getting kicked off of default subreddits and 4chan, #notyourshield and #gamergate(and their exodus to KiA and /gg/), "Gamers are dead" and email campaigns, repeated harassment of LW covered by mainstream press leading up to the Colbert Report.

I realize that still may be a lot but they're all pretty essential to understanding this clusterfuck and debunking the gish gallop. As far as organizing the rebuttals, my personal suggestion would be "GG and misogyny" "GG and anti-SJ" "GG is right wing" "Ethics in game journalism is a joke" "GG and conspiracy theories" etc. Cykosys (talk) 11:26, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for your input.

The problem is that, if our dedicated (albeit perhaps not-completely-knowledgable-about-Gamergate) editors can't understand the article, then it's not useful for newcomers, which is a big reason why this article exists.

Should any of GG's decline be mentioned in the history, or not (as your list currently implies)? Should porn-defense be a rebuttal or part of history? Where should TFYC and VJ go? Milo? Brianna Wu? "Further media triumph"? SVU? (Asking, because I probably fall into the not-knowledgable category.) Basically, if we went section-by-section (and paragraph-by-paragraph, when sections contain multiple ideas) what should go where? FüzzyCätPötätö (talk/stalk) 01:24, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

GG's decline should be part of a short summary at the very end.

That's why I'm willing to give my opinion on what is truly important in a concise summary. A newcomer should be able to come away from this with a basic understanding of GG talking points e.g. "If our concerns had just been addressed" and why they're wrong. The problem is that there are a lot of talking points. Each of the categories I mentioned doesn't need to be longer than a paragraph or so.

Porn defense, TFYC, VJ and SVU should all be part of rebuttals. They're honestly quite tangential (though the porn defense forced most moderates out and could be an ending point of the short history). Brianna should go into the harassment leading up to the Colbert Report.

For the summary, something like this might be a good start:

Gamergate has failed on almost every one of its nebulous objectives. It has failed to sway developers(short note that only a couple of prominent game devs (kern and wardell) support GG), gaming press (citations of alexa rankings of their hated press, 30% profits at kotaku, maybe cites on the escapist and techraptor and their small share of the market), and consumers (There's an analysis that GG was, at most, 10,000 core accounts RTing each other, a number I agree with based on active users on GG and KiA) They have become an industry joke(video of Tim Schafer at GDC), significantly raised awareness of harassment in the gaming community (CON, Online abuse prevention initiative, twitter harassment policy changes), and their targets have returned home safely. (Wu and Quinn tweets returning home) Intel has reinstated their ads on Gamasutra and pledged 300 million on their diversity initiative Cykosys (talk) 21:07, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

Draft

Draft: User:FuzzyCatPotato/GG. Currently 49.5 kb. What needs adding? What needs removal? (Anything not added to history will be added to rebuttals.) Feel free to edit. FuzzyCatTomato (talk/stalk) 18:50, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

*cough* αδελφός ΓυζζγςατΡοτατο (talk/stalk) 02:44, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

Sorry, IRL stuff. Will try to edit it up by the weekend. Cykosys (talk) 07:36, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

It's a huge, huge improvement over what we have now. Still too long, too many details, but a huge improvement. Implement ASAP --Frybread (talk) 19:17, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

Should I move this article somewhere else, to be liquified into rebuttals and replace this article with the copypasta I made? Or nah? Probably need more than 1 person's support, given the controversy last time I tried smth like this. Sir ℱ℧ℤℤϒℂᗩℑᑭƠℑᗩℑƠ (talk/stalk) 20:14, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

So can this draft go in?

User:FuzzyCatPotato/GG. 52.6 kb.
Can we (1) change the current article to this article, which (according to Cykosys and Ryulong) has the necessary core details of Gamergate's history, and (2) move the current article the Rebuttals to Gamergate (or similar) and use all of Ryulong's work to build rebuttals to GG's worldview? Sir ℱ℧ℤℤϒℂᗩℑᑭƠℑᗩℑƠ (talk/stalk) 18:33, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

• Main article
• Rebuttals of Gamergate
• Timeline of Gamergate - the present article, which is fine as is for this purpose

I thought that the "rebuttals" were going to be a part of the new restructured page.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 03:22, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

Since they'll get long, I was going to put 'em on another page, like Rebuttals to Gamergate or something. Herr FuzzyKatzenPotato (talk/stalk) 03:26, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

you've done a great job, and I look forward to an article I can read in one sitting.--Frybread (talk) 06:09, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

The draft seems to fall off the end a bit. Is this approximately the finished thing?

I have noted the restructure on /r/GamerGhazi, suggesting people comment here, there or just hack the draft - David Gerard (talk) 13:13, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

So what's the structure? Please extend the list below as appropriate - David Gerard (talk) 14:37, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

Nope, the draft still needs work. The draft probably needs more on GG's downfall. Please add what needs adding and remove unneeded detail. Should a summary be provided at the end?

So far, that's the structure. Main article has brief, overarching history; Timeline has detailed, singular-event-oriented history; Rebuttals attacks GG's version of history. Any more needed? Herr FuzzyKatzenPotato (talk/stalk) 15:29, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

Probably. When measuring length, just cut'n'paste the body text (not the refs) to LibreOffice or something. Doesn't matter if the refs are twice as long as the article body - David Gerard (talk) 19:03, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

Using the "intro-down, no refs" method and http://www.lettercount.com/, this article is 94.0k characters and the proposed main article is 28.4k, or 69.7% less. αδελφός ΓυζζγςατΡοτατο (talk/stalk) 23:10, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

Your draft cuts out any mention of Anita Sarkeesian being drawn into what was Gamergate but references that harassment towards her was happening alongside Quinn. Also there's no mention of the hacking of Quinn's personal files and Phil Fish's concurrent departure from gaming.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 05:26, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

Please, add what's necessary in. FU22YC47P07470 (talk/stalk) 14:54, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

I have no time to think deeply on it myself (say, would you like to hear about UK Home Office bureaucracy around marriages? No wait, LITERALLY NOBODY WANTS TO HEAR ABOUT THAT) but there's some excellent suggestions in the Reddit thread - David Gerard (talk) 17:00, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

I added the proposed rebuttal, but the other ones seemed to need further research, which I'd rather leave to Ryulong or others deeper into GG. FuzzyCatTomato (talk/stalk) 21:20, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

Sooo... What else needs to be added to User:FuzzyCatPotato/GG and User:FuzzyCatPotato/Rebuttals of Gamergate to make them good enough to put in as the article? FuzzyCatTomato (talk/stalk) 23:04, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

Cough Cømrade FυzzчCαтPøтαтø (talk/stalk) 23:57, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

dammit, all this making me think. Ryulong, how are these to your eyes? - David Gerard (talk) 18:44, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

ED

As what my good frenemy Fuzzy says, I am a EDiot. This understandably gives me a unique but mostly neutral viewpoint in the form of "You 're all idiots" . As thus, I nominate we cover the respective key players and go from there.--Madman (talk) 22:32, 13 March 2015 (UTC)The Madman

Ah, one of the famous doxxing crew. What's your history? Go back as far as LJDrama? --Castaigne (talk) 22:37, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

What? FuzzyCatTomato (talk/stalk) 18:50, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

ED hosts the dox of a lot of people, including several of GG's targets and critics. Gators move it there so they can claim plausible deniability. Cykosys (talk) 19:33, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, I know ED. I don't know what Madman's trying to say. FU22YC47P07470 (talk/stalk) 20:02, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

Oh, wow, you guys!

So, it turns out that everything was hoaxes, as you can see GG rallying about here (Caution: Link goes into their territory). Gee, now don't we feel silly? They really should ram this down our throats, as that GGer so helpfully points out!
Now, what's really weird is what happens if you were to actually follow that link in the tweet. Reading comprehension level: Zero. Narky Sawtooth (Floof!~) 10:13, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

So, the Party Van is finally involved. 'bout damn time these idiots got what's coming to them. Rumble rumble grumble grumble...--Madman (talk) 17:01, 14 March 2015 (UTC)The Madman

If you ask me, this particular incident is worth two, maybe three sentences. What Clark says amounts to "harassment is bad!" and some numbers she was probably given in private. If she wasn't a politician, I'd say it wasn't important at all. And as for Daddy Warpig, well, he's being a fucking idiot here, I think we can all agree on that. --Norman (talk) 11:49, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

On GamerGate

moved from RationalWiki:Saloon bar -- 15:03, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

Sorry for any mistakes/shitty grammar; tablets aren't very good for wikis.) I have decided to share my opinion on this whole gamer gate nonsense, so I can better understand your believes/opinions on this whole movement about "ethics in video game journalism". I am mostly centrist leaning towards antiGG due to the fact that most of the people inside are campaigning against feminism and "SJWs" instead of focusing on VIDEO GAME FUCKING JOURNALISM. I am all for ethics in video game journalism, and have been long ago this #GG thing came up. If they are about "ethics in video game journalism" they should be focusing on things like IGN and other reviewer's highly inflated scores, or shadow of mordor review copys only being handed out to large review conglomerates like IGN. They shouldn't be focusing on feminism and "SJWs". There should be an actual group like "People for ethics in gaming journalism" that would only focus on gaming journalism, and have nothing to do with feminism 'Legion^{what do you want from me} 03:51, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

This might be better at Talk:Gamergate as it's best to keep these things in one place.--Bob^{"I think you'll find it's more complicated than that."} 06:55, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

On the subject of IGN, note how they *do* attack Kotaku. Kotaku are the ones who pointed out the corruption in Gamespot, which was a major point in the IGN/Gamespot focus that used to exist. They're more concerned with the political views of gaming journalism than the ethics. (Also, yes, this should be moved to the relevant talk page. I don't know how to move it. Is it just cut/paste and leave a message behind? Is there a template?) Narky Sawtooth (Floof!~) 12:35, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

Don't you guys have an off-topic discussion page to keep this shit and not turn these talk pages into general forums?—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 21:34, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

Well, they sort of are general forums too, not the laserlike "article only" focus of Wikipedia - David Gerard (talk) 21:50, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

"Despite the fact that none of Gamergate's claims hold up under scrutiny". Sry guis, reddit chat mod logs were leaked. There was an explicit conspiracy to silence any discussion of Zoe Quinn early on. Looks like thats one claim that hold up. Not that you guys even care, you already made up your mind that its all white males hating women anyway. ^{— Unsigned, by: ‎71.57.184.210 / talk / contribs}

Google Translate is telling me this says "We broke sub rules and someone leaked modmails freeze peach forever".—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 10:30, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

Extreme wingnuttery

Can we add the "Extreme wingnuttery" category to Gamergate? It's identified in the first sentence as a conservative and reactionary movement, almost all of its supporters are associated with the far right (Breitbart, Conservapedia, Stormfront, etc.), and it's adjacent to the MRA movement, which is already included in the category, so I think it belongs. I'd do it myself but I don't have an account (yet.) Thanks guys. 129.100.179.54 (talk) 20:08, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

I tacitly disagree with that assessment. While the association with breitbart instantly marks it as pretty damn right wing, it's far more anti-left to me than pro-right. ikanreed ^{You probably didn't deserve that} 20:13, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

Call me a fence sitter. On the one hand your statement makes sense, but on the other hand somebody might misconstrued that as the victims being the wingnuts here. Zero ^{(talk - contributions)} 20:50, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

I would wait to see where it ends up at a year's annivesary before applying that particular category. When your most prominent GGers left standing on the field are Roosh, Vox Day, Mike "BASED JUICEBRO" Cernovich, and a smattering of other whackaloons, you are rapidly approaching the Extreme Wingnuttery horizon. But we're not quite there yet. --Castaigne (talk) 21:53, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

I dunno, I think the wingnuts in question are quite extreme enough to add the cat to the page - David Gerard (talk) 15:42, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

How can a movement that is defined solely by its anti-womanism be anything else but extreme wingnuttery? Peace. AgingHippie (talk) 15:44, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

Because people can be misognyistic fucks while also being leftists, centrists, or "apolitical". It's got some deep ties to the right wing, but that doesn't necessarily result in a right-wing ideology. I called my disagreement tacit, because well, I don't think GamerGate would exist if the American right wing didn't exist the way it does. But when you look at the movement itself, you pretty much only get the anti-feminism and misogyny. They're sure as hell not left-wing. ikanreed ^{You probably didn't deserve that} 15:54, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

I get your point, and, you're right: I in no way want to minimize the misogyny of the left by making it seem as if the right holds some sort of monopoly on patriarchy. Peace. AgingHippie (talk) 15:59, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

It's an ill-defined category containing hundreds of items which are "extreme" in different ways or not at all. Add it to this page or don't; it makes no difference. Wëäŝëïöïď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 17:48, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

That's a good point. I'm looking at this as ambiguous from one side, but the whole question is one filled with shades of gray. If someone re-adds the category, I won't object. ikanreed ^{You probably didn't deserve that} 20:51, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

Maybe this or this will get you to change your opinion.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 00:44, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

Why is it called "Gamergate"?

I couldn't find this in the introduction and as the article is far to long to actually read in the hope the information is there I wonder if anybody could explain? The "gate" suffix usually implies a cover up of some kind - but what is alleged to have been covered up and to what end?--Bob^{"I think you'll find it's more complicated than that."} 20:50, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

Zoe Quinn (a game developer) sleeping with a game journalist, which was widely interpreted (on very little factual basis) as an example of careerism, corruption & collusion. Gamergate originally referred to this trumped up scandal but ended up as the name for the people who kept shouting about it. Earlier versions of this article explained this more adequately but I think it's been lost in the minutiae. Wěǎšěǐǒǐď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 21:03, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

It's a supposed -gate (i.e. a scandal) in gaming journalism. Seems pretty self-explanatory. See the penultimate paragraph of the lead and here, next to the picture of an ant, for relevant information regarding your question. The introduction quote also sums it up pretty well. 141.134.75.236 (talk) 21:07, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

I worked on the intro a bit to include some of the basics and leave out some of the redundancy. Is it perfect? No, but it's way better than it was. Of course, once Ryulong wakes up, he'll throw his tantrum and kick and scream until I return to change his diapers. John Jacob Jingleheimer Schmidt (talk) 08:45, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

The original intro treated the meaning of the term a bit more explicitly. Feel free to borrow from it if you want to revise the current intro a bit. 141.134.75.236 (talk) 14:28, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

The -gate suffix comes from the Watergate scandal, so basically when they want to name a scandal they take x word and put gate after it Bubba41102 (talk) 15:53, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

What the fuck is your problem JJJS.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 18:29, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

Bob, it's called Gamergate because some nutjob who was on Firefly named it as such and it stuck.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 18:46, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

True story.

Wikipedia provides the history of England in 113,000 bytes, and gives a cogent analysis of feminism in 119,000 bytes. Ryulong tells the story of a controversy in gamer culture in 180,000 bytes. No wonder Bob can't find what he's looking for. Peace. AgingHippie (talk) 20:59, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

Heh, when "The Quinnspiracy" started and was the talk everywhere on the intertubes, I was initially left out of the conversation. About 5 minutes of asking the people about what was going on, all I found out was that a guy basically went on a diatribe about his ex-girlfriend, and I immediately lost interest. That's ALL it was; a guy angry at his ex-girlfriend. But molehills and mountains... I hate this topic so much I'd like to remove the "high priority" tag. Can I change it? Really annoyed at constantly seeing this thing in 'recent changes'.CorruptUser (talk) 21:10, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

You can remove whatever you want, but as long as Ryulong keeps live-blogging the thing and I keep trying to get it down to something shorter than a Joyce novel, recent changes ain't safe. Peace. AgingHippie (talk) 21:20, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

Dude, take two steps back and look at what you're proposing here. You want to discourage people from editing this because you "hate this topic" and get annoyed from "seeing this thing in recent changes"? Don't go the PRC's route, man. 141.134.75.236 (talk) 21:34, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

"Proposing" what? Changing the bullshit priority category on this article? Wěǎšěǐǒǐď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 21:54, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

So I see two possible responses here:

1. "Great riposte! Now also read the stuff following my first sentence and try again."
2. "Yes, let's ignore the point I was making and talk about the boring priority categories instead. Spoilsport!"

Pick whichever you like best. 141.134.75.236 (talk) 22:19, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

Well, since neither explain what your point is supposed to be, they're both equally worthless. Wëäŝëïöïď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 22:23, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

Not feeling like doing the snarky back-and-forth today. And yay, now CorruptUser went ahead and changed the priority for completely stupid and pitiful reasons. 141.134.75.236 (talk) 22:46, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

LOW is too uhh low; I bumped it up to MID. PacWalker 22:27, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

I mean I'd like to give it priority FUCK ALL sometimes, but that's just not accurate. PacWalker 22:38, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

What the fuck happened when I was asleep? I was blocked and this page was randomly demoted from bronze by that same jerkoff like what the fuck.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 18:31, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

Ryu, if you type in your name into google, the first thing to pop up is the story of how you got banned from Wikipedia for excessive editing of GG. The bigger question you should ask is "Does this matter? Does it really? Will anyone give a shit in 5 years? Does it matter SO much that I should add all this detail to the point where I could submit this as my doctoral dissertation?" Figure out what the Rationalwiki mission is all about. We are about providing a resource where, if someone's kooky friend says "hey, check out how Deepak Chopra proves that Homeopathy faked the moon landing", they can just come here and say "no, here is Rationwiki explaining why it's all bullshit". How does an article longer than Atlas Shrugged on GG really fit in with this? CorruptUser (talk) 19:09, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

(USER WAS BANNED FOR THIS POST) --Madman (talk) 19:16, 23 April 2015 (UTC)The Madman

No CorruptUser, you're wrong. I was banned because I yelled at people who were in Gamergate while I was on Wikipedia. It has nothing to do with the content I contributed. It's all the interpersonal bullshit where I didn't keep my cool. Everyone under the fucking sun knows that and just because that's what they write about me at ED or whatever godforsaken Gamergate Wiki site they have set up can't change that. And your "brief summary" gets so much basic shit just wrong. Gjoni didn't claim Quinn had sex for reviews, the angry mob did.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 19:21, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

See, that's the sort of thing I'm talking about. You haven't answered the bigger question; "Why does this article matter?" CorruptUser (talk) 19:25, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

Because I have first hand experience with it and I'd prefer to lend my unfortunate "expertise" on the matter while I constantly see updates in real time.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 19:29, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

Wait, who/how? Hold on a sec, I'm getting sidetracked. That doesn't answer the question. That's why you care about it. I'm asking why it matters to anyone else.CorruptUser (talk) 19:38, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

Well I thought that was what you were asking me. But 141.134.75.236 below answers for the wider reason. Gamergate is a clusterfuck of all of the worst things the Internet has to offer: MRAs, feMRAs, wannabe neo-Nazis, actual neo-Nazis, misogyny, homophobia, transphobia, pedophile apologists, rape deniers, rape apologists, anti-Semitism, Holocaust deniers, Armenian genocide deniers, Jayne from Firefly, you name it.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 19:43, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

CorruptUser, the article matters because vitriolic anti-feminist sentiment among gamers is a serious problem and a big fucking deal. Just because it's ugly and you don't want to look at it doesn't mean it's not notable. 141.134.75.236 (talk) 19:38, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

Brief summary

I think it's a great idea to have this, though the formatting could use improvement. Since it's just a few lines of text, how about if we put it in a compact little <div> box floating on the right and change the header into non-header <big> text? 141.134.75.236 (talk) 19:21, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

No, it's frankly useless, because if people can't gather that information from the intro paragraphs then all hope is lost on them.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 19:24, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

...I'm not sure I'm ready to take your opinion about brevity. Sorry. Having the section is essential. ikanreed ^{You probably didn't deserve that} 19:58, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

Nothing personal, but I'm going to edit down the brief summary. I think we should have as FEW details in there as possible. E.g., a brief summary of a(n American) football game is "Giants win Superbowl against Patriots 42-13", not "In 1972, Tom Brady was conceived in the back of his dad's pickup truck...at 3:42 PM march 15th 1985 Eli Manning took a dump...Each blade of grass on the field was bred in Ohio by a farmer named Cooter Jones..." CorruptUser (talk) 20:23, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

Your brief summary got shit wrong and if we leave those inaccuracies in it opens up the door for JAQing off. Gjoni didn't accuse her of sleeping around for good reviews. He named dropped one of her partners and let 4chan and Reddit come to that conclusion on their own.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 20:25, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

Fine, whatever. Does it meet your standards now?CorruptUser (talk) 20:31, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

Well at least now it's not a retelling of the intro paragraphs.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 20:34, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

So...

What happened to cutting the article down to size? I kind of liked FuzzyCatPotato's proposal for a shortened version. Did that fall through? As it stands now it looks like Ryulong is not letting anybody cut anything out. Just my impression. ConfusedLiberal (talk) 19:53, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

Your impression isn't far off from my impression. ikanreed ^{You probably didn't deserve that} 19:59, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

I'm up for that but all suggestions for stuff to cut out are central aspects of this rather than some of the latter minutae.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 20:09, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

The problem is that you seem to consider 95% or more of what is currently there to be "central aspects" when most of the rest of us simply don't see it that way. Alternatively, could we at least reword everything to use fewer words? I think you tend to inject a lot of adverbs and hyperbole.ConfusedLiberal (talk) 20:13, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

No, there were attempts to hive off each section of the article to separate articles. One of these proposals led to the entire excision of everything under the "Zoe Quinn" header to its own page. How are you supposed to improve a page by cutting out the central events? AgingHippie's cutting back of the Hugo Award shit was beneficial. There's a good lot of stuff that can be cut back with regards to anything from November 2014 onward (namely the content under "Gamergate's inevitable decline").—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 20:17, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

This article needs to be nuked from orbit. The ashes can be used to fertilise a new version of around 20-40% of the current length. Robledo (talk) 20:10, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

Can someone come up with a new complaint other than "it's too big" because that was going on months ago. There has been little to no actual criticism with regards to specific content that needs to be removed. All I see every time this page gets on someone's radar is "RYULONG IS A FUCKUP HE'S WRITING TOO MUCH".—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 20:17, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

Everyone's saying it so it must be wrong. Wēāŝēīōīď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 20:21, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

No one gives any god damn specific things that have to be cut out. It's all "IT'S TOO BIG" every single time and every time I point out that's the only complaint I have people coming in going "That's not what we're saying and if you can't tell that then you have to step back". NO ONE gives any specific criticism aside from complaining about length. It's not like I can't decide sections are superfluous to the whole.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 20:22, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

Several of us have cut out specific things. You invariably put them back in. Wėąṣėḷőįď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 20:24, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

Like what?—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 20:25, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

Goddammit, you're thick as hell. I've never seen such a small capability for reading comprehension. |₹Λ¥$€₦₦ ^{Flipping out the buttered fuck crumpets} 21:15, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

You know what? The mob voted for the shortened version, and if Ryulong don't like it, then so be it. If he doesn't like the mobocracy, then he can fuck right off. |₹Λ¥$€₦₦ ^{So you're telling me cocaine comes from scorpions?} 21:16, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

You say this but no one did anything about it.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 22:07, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

Lack of effort does not imply lack of desire. oʇɐʇoԀʇɐϽʎzznℲ (talk/stalk) 22:08, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

Furthermore, that's bullshit. Sorry Ryulong, there's numerous instances of people trimming stuff and you restoring it. Effort that gets rescinded isn't a lack of effort. ikanreed ^{You probably didn't deserve that} 15:13, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

Everytime that's happened it's been a baby and bathwater situation, like what AgingHippie did to the section on the Law & Order episode and the ridiculous petition that came from it.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 16:43, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

Again, I'm gonna peddle my thoughts: [1] Trim this to 40kb (see here, tho people seem to be doing that right here). [2] Move unnecessary details to Timeline of Gamergate. [3] Move rebuttal-ready details to a Rebuttals to Gamergate page (see here for an incomplete version of that kinda page). [4] Be happy and shit. FᴜᴢᴢʏCᴀᴛPᴏᴛᴀᴛᴏ﹐ Esϙᴜɪʀᴇ (talk/stalk) 21:23, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

Your version still has problems. People complaining "it's too long" have nothing constructive to add to this.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 22:09, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

Ryulong, you've spent thousands of characters asking people for specific complaints. Where's the specific complaint here?

You continue to act as if "the article is too long; cut it down to central details" isn't constructive. Sir ℱ℧ℤℤϒℂᗩℑᑭƠℑᗩℑƠ (talk/stalk) 22:19, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

Because it isn't constructive. It's just "it's too big" repeated ad infinitum. No one has any specific statements about any specific section aside from Weaseloid's removals in the article earlier. I've cut out like 6 sections already. What else is too long and detailed and should be cut back or cut out?—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 22:22, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

Okay, so let me repeat what everything's been telling you: the article is full of petty minutae that takes away from the main focus of the article. |₹Λ¥$€₦₦ ^{That rug really tied the room together.} 22:31, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

And I can work with that.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 22:42, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

I say we take it to the mob whether FCP's version should be implemented. |₹Λ¥$€₦₦ ^{Don't they call people like you stalkers?} 22:25, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

The main page is old and shouldn't be used; Ryulong's updated this page and not that one. I do like the idea of a rebuttals page, though. Herr FuzzyKatzenPotato (talk/stalk) 22:29, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

Sections 6.3, 6.9, 6.10 and 6.11 can all go. Sections 6.2 and 6.5 should both be substantially abridged. Robledo (talk) 22:33, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

I would say most of the second half ("Gamergate's inevitable decline" onwards) doesn't need to be in an overview article as it's mostly a blow-by-blow of what Gamergate did next rather than revealing anything new about what it's about, & hence would be better in the timeline or some other spin-off article. Most of the first half is more germane to what GG is about & how it happened, but there's still a lot of needless & repetitive detail there that could be trimmed or condensed. ₩€₳$€£ΘĪÐ^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 22:39, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

As I can work with this.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 22:42, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

I personally have no qualms over article length. My problem is basically that the article sometimes seems to shift from a chronological narrative to addressing specific points across the whole timeline without making this particularly clear or even making up its own mind about which approach it's taking. General-sounding and/or hardly-informative headers like "Conspiracy theories", "Send those emails!", "Gamergate and Wikipedia" and "Attempts to counter Gamergate harassment on Twitter" don't particularly help. 141.134.75.236 (talk) 23:08, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

The "conspiracy theories" section is cut. "Gamergate and Wikipedia" is now "Gamergate's invasion of Wikipedia". I'm not sure how "Attempts to coounter Gamergate harassment on Twitter" is remotely general sounding or uninformative. And how do you summarize Gamergate's ridiculous advertisment attack strategy in a single sentence?—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 23:15, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

Well, you don't need to summarize all of it in one sentence. The header just needs to describe the subject of the section. As to "Attempts to counter etc.", the title sounds like something that would've been (or should've been) happening throughout much of the Gamergate timeline, but it's a subsection of a chronological section ("Gamergate's inevitable decline"). 141.134.75.236 (talk) 23:34, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

Just having read the section, it's clear that it fits into the chronological narrative, though which November it's referring to is unclear to me. Also, were there no earlier major attempts to counter Gators on Twitter prior to this mysterious November? 141.134.75.236 (talk) 23:37, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

"Gamergate" is August 15, 2014, to November 21, 2024, so we are talking November 2014. A while back, someone cut out every single year because it was apparently too repetitive.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 23:44, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

Congrats, the Gamergate article is now only the 5th longest, at 150,000 bytes. Cømrade FυzzчCαтPøтαтø (talk/stalk) 23:20, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

Still twice as long as the article on Atheism. CorruptUser (talk) 23:25, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

Not sure how you can really judge the article based on the amount of bytes when approximately 1/4th of it is references. 141.134.75.236 (talk) 23:34, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

Yeah this page is still at 300 references because the second you leave something implied it opens the door for sealions.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 23:46, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

It's absurdly long. The general reader will ignore and only those already obsessed with the issue actually plough through it. It fails by trying too hard.--Bob^{"I think you'll find it's more complicated than that."} 07:07, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

It's not long. It's just full of references and the situation, as described elsewhere on this page, is so fucking complex that it needs to be this way.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 09:00, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

For somebody who is obsessed with the question I have no doubt that it's a brief summary. For the general reader it's a morass of Minutiae. It is possible that you are too close to the issue to see this.--Bob^{"I think you'll find it's more complicated than that."} 13:40, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

Bob, the problem is that if anything minute is left out of what remains of this it's an inch into a mile situation. One of Gamergate's main points is the whole "sex for good reviews to get money" scandal when the game was never reviewed by who they accuse and it is in fact free. Until I made this edit, after everyone's taken their chainsaw to the page, it doesn't say that the game is free and also a citation to the New Yorker was cut out as well. At this point, AgingHippie is cutting out adverbs and adjectives rather than trimming down any actual content, as well as cutting out everything I've tried to add back when the page lacks something vital or at least remotely interesting that ties into the rest RationalWiki covers.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 20:40, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

A simple proposal

Break section 4,5,6,8 and probably 3, and all the net drama, off into an article called A detailed history of Gamergate and leave the Gamergate article to do three things: (1) tell us what it is, (2) tell us what it proponents claim it is, (3) tell us why they are wrong and it is actually shitty. The article on it history can be used to support the argument it is shitty. - π 07:33, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

That is a terrible idea and has been shot down time and time again.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 08:49, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

why? The article is long and full of details of drama nobody cares about. Either that or the scrap head. I want an article that tells me what it is, why i should care and why it sucks, not the left over remains of six months of live-blogging. - π 09:00, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

I can't imagine why, unless it's that you have one history-specific "article" already. PacWalker 08:53, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

Because it's just a shit idea. There's no reason to slice this page up just because it's big. Large chunks have been excised already and there's no point of making a "history" page when Timeline of Gamergate does the same in less words. This page at least has things that made international news (or at least mainstream gaming news) as well as the analysis of said events.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 09:00, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

Not even bronze

According to our article rating system, a bronze article is: "Article is coherent and free of needless in-jokes, such as irrelevant references to Conservapedia, and the jokes and snark it does contain are balanced with factual content." If you ask me, that doesn't accurately describe this article. Therefore, I have removed the bronze rating unless we can come to a consensus that it meets that criteria. John Jacob Jingleheimer Schmidt (talk) 00:27, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

No, you don't get to unilaterally decide that considering when this went down from Silver there was a vote first. There are barely any in-jokes and there is a total of one reference to Conservapedia. Considering this page has nearly 300 references to cite the material within, I think you are blatantly wrong.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 00:29, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

Stop removing the fucking Bronze rating. I am fairly certain you do not have the authority to do that.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 00:31, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

"Article is coherent. This is incoherent. John Jacob Jingleheimer Schmidt (talk) 00:32, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

People have been fucking making it coherent for the past day and a half. You don't get to decide this shit. You're doing this just to fuck with me and I am tired of it.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 00:32, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

I'm not sure what's supposed to be incoherent about it or where the bunch of in-jokes are supposed to be. Mind being more specific? 141.134.75.236 (talk) 00:34, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

What's not coherent about it is that it drowns itself in the details. If you read through the article from top to bottom, there's such an inverse Gish gallop of events and people thrown at you that your head spins because you get lost. That's why I say that it's incoherent. John Jacob Jingleheimer Schmidt (talk) 00:37, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

That's the most succinct description of Gamergate yet.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 00:38, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

OK, so Gamergate really is that hard to follow then? John Jacob Jingleheimer Schmidt (talk) 00:39, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

That's the nature of the beast; a bunch of loosely connected events. Not documenting any of the events would basically make this article an uninformative stub. Not sure how that'd be helpful to anyone. 141.134.75.236 (talk) 00:46, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

The issue is that this page has to be 110% right on Gamergate because Gamergaters will point to the most minimal inaccuracies they can and harp on about it. Give them an inch and they'll take a mile. This is why I had been filling it full of detail. Because anything that can be interpretted differently will be called out and used as evidence in their favor. Even the most minimal lack of detail, inaccuracy, or lack of a citation is enough to let some asshole get their foot in the door and tear down all of the arguments within. It has to explicitly say that the mob decided Zoe Quinn had sex for reviews and because Eron Gjoni didn't say that himself. It has to show the faults within like Alexander Macris going over the head of The Escapist staff to push a Gamergate agenda and having given money to one of the people he interviewed when Gamergate pilloried Jenn Frank for the time The Guardian didn't publish her claim she donated to Zoe. It has to deal with every nook and cranny possible to peel away the flimsy veneer of "ethics in video game journalism" to show that it's the reactionary backlash against women and in particular Eron trying to use 4chan as his personal army to drive Zoe to suicide.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 00:50, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

And I had been contemplating a "Who's who" section or page to accompany this one because of the mess of people.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 00:54, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

" I am fairly certain you do not have the authority to do that." Any of us does. It's not yet that good. Peace. AgingHippie (talk) 01:14, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

It was good for the past several months. It was even silver until the last time everyone got their panties in a knot over this page. Why are we suddenly deciding the page isn't bronze status now?—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 01:46, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

The article was bronze status before I ever edited it. When I was editing it it was promoted to silver, but now there's some ridiculous backlash against me and this page that led to its demotion from silver to bronze and now you and JJJS are going "it's not Bronze good" is some real bullshit. I've restored it, again.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 01:56, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

2 things I'm wondering

1. Why do people pile so much hate on Ryulong for the article being too long and him being a bad writer when its overall structure and much of its content hasn't changed that significantly compared to before Ryulong made a single edit to it?
2. How is removing some adjectives and adverbs supposed to meaningfully cut back on the article's size? Is that even a desirable approach in general? I'd prefer a long article that reads normally over a medium-size article made up out of supershort sentences. 141.134.75.236 (talk) 01:35, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

The ant joke keeps getting taken out too.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 01:48, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

'Cause it's lame. Peace. AgingHippie (talk) 02:00, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

I liked it. :/ 141.134.75.236 (talk) 02:01, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

You guys need to decide whether this shit needs to be serious or snarky.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 02:05, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

Also "Sarkeesian on the Colbert Report set" is the most boring fucking caption ever. Stop taking out the jokes.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 02:06, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

This would be a better joke IMHO, though. 141.134.75.236 (talk) 02:11, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

I've settled for a more descriptive and snarky alternative that doesn't require Urban Dictionary.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 02:12, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

AgingHippie, what purpose is there to have this page be bland and bereft of any fucking snarkiness? I thought that was the whole purpose of RationalWiki and in fact one of the reasons that gives the page its Bronze rating that you keep removing because you have suddenly decided after 6 months the page is suddenly shit. Either give a reason or leave it in. I'm not going to sit by here having gone through the bureaucracy of the demotion from silver two months ago that suddenly now it's not worthy of "bronze" because three people don't feel like reading it anymore.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 02:24, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

Fine, here's your pacifier, put it back in. Peace. AgingHippie (talk) 02:26, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

It's not even like it's the "he's somehow unaware a gamergate is an ant" or the "gg GG" line. It's brand new material to replace the old that you had a problem with. Give me a decent reason for all of your actions.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 02:27, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

The page was bronze since fucking October. I wrote two new sentences. Leave it all in.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 02:29, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

It's not even just the bronze thing anymore. There's no reason to undo the caption or the ant sentence. And what the fuck just happened?—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 02:30, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

Your caption is far from funny. If it's not going to be funny, don't try to make it funny. The ant joke works batter pared down to a statement of fact. Peace. AgingHippie (talk) 02:32, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

It's better than "Anita on the Colbert Report set".—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 02:34, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

Come up with actual snark. What you had there wasn't close. Peace. AgingHippie (talk) 02:37, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

Are referential jokes any better?—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 02:42, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

Not that one, but you're just going to keep crying about it. Peace. AgingHippie (talk) 02:44, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

The ant photo needs some god damn context beyond "A gamergate is an ant". What the fuck got into you tonight?—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 02:50, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

Guys, plz

Are we done getting our monthly dose of pettiness out of our system yet? 141.134.75.236 (talk) 02:48, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

More like daily dose. |₹Λ¥$€₦₦ ^{Advocate for the liberation of Willzyx} 02:59, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

This, a daily dose? That can't be healthy. o_O 141.134.75.236 (talk) 03:20, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

It's a reference to the Daily Dose meme, aka "Piccolo Dick." Now thank the Doc. ConfusedLiberal (talk) 03:37, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

No idea what the hell is that meme. |₹Λ¥$€₦₦ ^{I'm sorry, dear. I'm reading Pokemon horror stories for the internet.} 20:00, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

It's that pornographic animated gif of Piccolo from Dragonball Z assraping Vegeta. It earned the name "Daily Dose" from 4channers posting it to the board on a daily basis to piss off the mods.

Well, that's 4chan for you. Glad I never go there. 141.134.75.236 (talk) 20:51, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

It's covered on this page here though.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 00:15, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

By the by

Someone messed up the image in this section. 141.134.75.236 (talk) 03:31, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

Linked on /r/kotakuinaction again

Not the article, the talk page. Twice in the last 24 hours. Just in case someone is wondering about the influx of new, peculiar editors here and elsewhere on the wiki.--ZooGuard (talk) 22:35, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

Hi KIA. Stop sending us your stooges who repeat shit from last October.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 23:26, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

Kia? I thought it was a Hyundai. PacWalker 08:05, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

Editorial questions

In the section on Zoe Quinn, a sentence ends with " it was [["social justice warrior"]] (SJW) propaganda." Can we just use either SJW as a blue link to social justice warrior, or just stand with a blue linked social justice warrior? Or, is there a legitimate reason that we have both side by side? John Jacob Jingleheimer Schmidt (talk) 07:59, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

Also, do we need all those gray links to Wikipedia articles? Can we find some way that doesn't turn those links gray? Aesthetically, they are a little annoying. John Jacob Jingleheimer Schmidt (talk) 08:04, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

Well, [[wp:crap]] is blue (but has the downside of looking just like a RW link), and it's probably possible to make other colours too. PacWalker 08:07, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

Hoping this doesn't spawn another round of the usual... PacWalker 08:14, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

I blue-linked them for now, and it makes the article look better in my opinion. That pale gray color, with all the Wikipedia links in the article, just didn't do it justiceand made it hard on the eyes. John Jacob Jingleheimer Schmidt (talk) 08:27, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

Why are you removing all the Template:Wpl shit?—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 08:55, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

See above, though I've simply gone and changed the template instead. I just didn't feel like breaking out the html color codes page at the time, but I'm even less in the mood for an edit war (it's 45 minutes until my bed time). John Jacob Jingleheimer Schmidt (talk) 09:05, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

Why not check web colors?—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 09:09, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

Been there, did that. There's nothing further to discuss on that note. It's just that that pale gray hurts my fucking eyes to see everywhere. A darker gray is better, IMO. John Jacob Jingleheimer Schmidt (talk) 09:12, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

You don't get how it works, Ryulong. For some fucking reason, in spite of actually knowing to the contrary, my brain seems to think the only way I can look up computer programming subjects is by going over to my book shelf and dusting off my programming books. Even though I've used the internet numerous times to look up programming-related questions and get answers in seconds, my brain seems hell-bent on spending hours searching through programming manuals first. Fucking limbic system. John Jacob Jingleheimer Schmidt (talk) 09:31, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

It's either that or open up paintshop and dick around with the color wheel.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 09:56, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

May I recommend steel blue, light steel blue, air force blue, air superiority blue, or blue-grey? Mayhaps one would find it more pertinent to use more daring colours like cornflower blue, glaucous, tufts blue, or possibly even carolina blue? Be careful with that last one. As a last resort, royal blue can be considered. Narky Sawtooth (Floof!~) 12:06, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

Air superiority blue? Air superiority blue cheese dressing for your freedom fries? PacWalker 12:12, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

Update: today's round has begun. PacWalker 09:08, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

In the section about Gamergate's inevitable decline, it states "Gamergate's crowning glory was to publicize its most hated enemy and her ideas and make the word "Gamergate" synonymous with misogynists, harassers, and trolls." My problem is with the phrase "crowning glory;" it would seem that it would be the antithesis of Gamergate's crowning glory, given the actual aims of the gators. So, is that really the correct phrase to use there? After all, "crowning glory" from the usage I'm familiar with usually refers to something the subject is extremely proud of. I doubt Gamergators are proud to have had so much of this backfire on them. John Jacob Jingleheimer Schmidt (talk) 09:17, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

This I believe is an example of sarcasm.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 09:18, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

I don't know what that is. PacWalker 09:19, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

OK, that's kinda what I figured. I just wanted to be sure that it wasn't being misused before I changed it. John Jacob Jingleheimer Schmidt (talk) 09:25, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

This one is a bit odd, but does anyone else think of this Revelation upon seeing the header "Revelation as coordinated hate campaign"? I always do for some reason. PacWalker 11:48, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

Is there a better synonym?—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 22:11, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

"Exposure" maybe? Not like the context doesn't already make the intended meaning pretty obvious though. 141.134.75.236 (talk) 22:21, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

Changed it to "Exposed".—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 22:38, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

So I thought I'd read this from the beginning

So I thought I should actually try to to read this monster in order to have an opinion. But I find it starts:

Gamergate is a misogynistic and reactionary backlash in the video game community against feminism and other liberal ideologies. The controversy erupted in August 2014 when game developer Zoe Quinn's ex-boyfriend alleged that she had cheated on him with multiple partners. This spurred a torrent of harassment and threats that spread to target Quinn's colleagues, supporters, and anyone else who held similar opinions,...

The article seems to assume that every reader knows what Quinn's opinions about everything are and that it's not necessary to mention what they are before talking about people who hold similar ones. But I have no idea who this woman is or what her opinions might be. This is a really absurd basic mistake to make in the introduction to the article.--Bob^{"I think you'll find it's more complicated than that."} 17:29, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

The "similar opinions" are feminist ones. Perhaps that does need to be clearer.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 20:30, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

Or just women-tolerant ones. Seriously, the backlash you see from these guys for women just existing within the gaming industry is truly unbelievable. 141.134.75.236 (talk) 22:42, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

A List of Gamergate Victories

I tend to hang around sites that GGers consider havens. So, I've compiled a list of Gamergate victories that I see touted about. Since a bunch of "lol p4wned those marxists lolol" would flood the page, here's the one defining rule for this list: Zettai mode! (Additional, non-zettai-mode info will be added like so.)

1. A government agency actually changed a few words to be more clear. (GG claim: "This means we changed the policy! Weee!")
2. They got a canned response from the IRS once. (GG alternates claims of "That means the FBI have found no harassment" and "lol p4wned now they got IRS on them lolol")
3. Some stuff about policies on websites.
4. Creating a few things that might be conflicts of interest by their weird standards. (Claim: "CHARITY CHARITY CHARITY LOOK AT HOW MUCH WE CARE CHARITY CHARITY")

So, yeah. That's some stuff. 絶対! Narky Sawtooth (Floof!~) 01:31, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

...Actually, this list looks too sad. Surely there's something else? Narky Sawtooth (Floof!~) 01:33, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

Don't forget they made Anita Sarkeesian culturally relevant. You can't have a conference now on anything without inviting her.- π 01:38, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

It was raised at one point that it's actually unfair to Sarkeesian, Quinn, Wu, Harper, etc. for saying "Gamergate made them who they are today".—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 01:46, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

I am sure they are good at what they do, but Anita Sarkeesian is the only person in all this i had heard of before (I had heard of none of the pro-gate people otherthan Thundf00t, but given they appear to be mostly opportunists who latched on i am not really surprised) and even then I first heard of her when her kickstarter went through the roof. - π 04:00, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

True, but attributing their achievements to the actions of Gamergate still takes away from the achievement. I guess if you're not really into indie games you won't have heard of much of the people affected. I know I wasn't and I hadn't heard of anyone involved until I started trying to do damage control at Wikipedia. Same can be said of the people advocating for Gamergate, particularly all of the people who are blatantly opportunists.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 05:00, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

[Edit Conflict] That's not really the "zettai-mode" I'm looking for here. On that note, though, it's interesting how they keep saying "omg Streisand effect!" and then get surprised when literally (no, really: this is literal) calling someone irrelevant a whoooooole lot results in a spotlight. I mean, if someone's so irrelevant, what's the point of shoehorning that everywhere? They spent two months doing nothing but that! Narky Sawtooth (Floof!~) 01:47, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

Gamergate Response

Because Sawtooth desires open discussion and has a lot of stamina for such a conversation, here is the place to discuss the list of GG victories. If the discussion grows too large, it may be moved to the User:NarkySawtooth space.

I guess the most obvious ones would be the ethics policies websites like IGN, Eurogamer and Escapist have put in place. Most of the other 'victories' have been reactionary, disproving allegations or at least pointing out how fallacious they are. To be honest though that's pretty impressive for an eight month old movement which has gotten so much shit from the mainstream media. ^{— Unsigned, by: Kingnoname1 / talk / contribs} 12:30, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

They don't operate any differently with the change to ethics policies. Narky Sawtooth (Floof!~) 12:39, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

"Once moderate voices fled Gamergate's toxicity..."

What moderate voices? There seems to be noting in the article that points to a moderate wing of the movement. Peace. AgingHippie (talk) 20:43, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

The legitimate aspect of #NotYourShield comprises the "moderate" wing.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 20:51, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

Here are the twitter analytics for #NotYourShield. It appears to have started in September of 2014 and its peak as of now is March of this year.--Naqoyqatsi (talk) 22:44, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

What is the relevance of this?—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 22:51, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

The fluctuation and the fact that its peak was less than two months ago makes it difficult to conclusively state that these "moderate" elements are on the decline.--Naqoyqatsi (talk) 23:00, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

Okay, now you've completely blown your masquerade as a disinterested party. No-one with a lick of sense would make the claim that there hasn't been a decline in moderate voices in GG, let alone put moderate in scare-quotes. Queex_{chthonic murmurings} 23:05, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

If you have an analysis supporting this claim, I'd be happy to review it. I'd like to think I have enough sense to know when I've been wrong.--Naqoyqatsi (talk) 23:24, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

Here's another thing. You and Weaseloid and everyone else who's taken a hacksaw to this page have indiscriminately removed content and then in all of your subsequent edits you suddenly see something that has no context and then you have the balls to ask why no context exists for that. And you remove context for items that have no other context on the page. You have all erased the fact that Matthew Rappard is the only known member of TFYC and then in the one instance where his affiliation is noted you remove the affiliation and just leave his name in there with no fucking context.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 21:01, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

Um, Ryulong, you might've skimmed over it, but right after Matthew Rappard it said ", a representative of The Fine Young Capitalists". That might not be the most accurate description, but with your recent change that sentence reads uh.. really weird now. 141.134.75.236 (talk) 21:05, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, that's what's gonna happen when editors leave giant piles of problematic writing for others to clean up. No apologies here, brah. Peace. AgingHippie (talk) 22:21, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

I'll content myself with observing that sometimes a parent is unable to see that their darling child is in fact a fat little fuck who needs to go on a diet and get some fucking exercise. Robledo (talk) 23:36, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

That's a terrible analogy. So much effort has been put into cutting this page down because it's simply long (a side effect of the extensive sourcing). Perhaps some things aren't inherently related and that's why they were cut out. But there has been so much context cut out for the sake of brevity that these questions constantly come up and all I can think is that this had to have been coveed at some point until y'all took a chainsaw to it.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 03:08, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

I'm personally aware of more than a few gamers who were initially sympathetic to the movement, such as it was, based on tribal feelings and general cynicism towards 'formal' media. Eventually, they all seem to have wanted to disassociate themselves from the movement, or quietly stopped linking to sympathetic articles. From what I can tell this seems to be a common experience. There's a lack of reasonable cites, largely as its not the sort of thing that's notable enough to get space in articles. Big ticket former Gators leaving the fold get reported on, but that's not really the same thing. Queex_{chthonic murmurings} 08:52, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

I had the wool pulled over my eyes initially. Now, though, it's so clearly politicized that it's made me wary of *any* ethics complaints. Narky Sawtooth (Floof!~) 09:00, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

But this is about ethics in RationalWiki!! PacWalker 09:02, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, there's little evidence that there was ever any substantial "moderate" contingent of Gamergate. It started in the sewers and went down. The narrative that "moderates" ever existed in numbers to have any perceptible influence is conceding way too much to Gamergate - David Gerard (talk) 10:02, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

Well the point is that Gamergate now is exclusively the anti-SJW "I think /r/TumblrInAction is the best sub" set or people trying to fleece Gamergate for money (Aurini, Mason, Gjoni, Techraptor, Honey Badgers), political clout (Cernovich, Sommers, Yiannopoulos), or using them as their personal army (Gjoni, Brennan, RogueStar, Kern, Beale).—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 10:10, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

My experience is that, initially, they had tolerable success in suckering non-wankers into supporting them. In terms of influence over the group as a whole, certainly not substantial. In terms of participation, certainly not substantial. In terms of numbers, maybe substantial, I don't think a proper accounting is even possible. I think it's worth keeping some acknowledgement of that in the article if only to avoid doing a disservice to those who got out. If one of those former suckers ends up reading the article, I don't want to tar them with the same brush as the core. Gamers are nothing if not tribal, and GG had enough tribal markers to appear legit if you didn't look too closely. Queex_{chthonic murmurings} 12:09, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

They did have some initial traction with the less toxic parts of the gaming community. Hell, I remember that even /r/SubredditDrama (which is pretty SJ-friendly these days) supporting the movement for about 42 seconds. |₹Λ¥$€₦₦

^{So you're telling me cocaine comes from scorpions?} 13:31, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

RationalWiki? What a lie.

This article is a disgrace.

Rational: adjective, based on facts or reason and not on emotions or feelings. having the ability to reason or think about things clearly

Yet this article is clearly biased towards one side. There is no discussion about the shit the other side does against GamerGate (just check out KnowYourMeme for a bit of that), no acknowledgement of what the movement has achieved. This "Rational"wiki spews not reason or facts, but bias. Propaganda.

To all who wrote this article, you should be ashamed of yourself.

Yeah, no insults, no harassment. That's more than your side has given me for my beliefs and I've never considered myself a gator until the Honey Badger fiasco.^{— Unsigned, by: 68.39.135.189 / talk / contribs} 03:34, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

The only fiasco there is that the honey badgers are an actual thing. If you're a follower of those manbaby MRA crackpots, like Stefan Molyneux, not only do you have no place claiming anyone isn't "rational," but it was only a matter of time until you jumped on the creepy GG bandwagon. Please take your intense fear of women and go away. ^{— Unsigned, by: 24.243.62.225 / talk / contribs}

"But I thought this was supposed to be RATIONALWiki!" Drink! PacWalker 03:37, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

Rational does not equal neutral, genius. 141.134.75.236 (talk) 03:42, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

However, it does ideally involve more goat than this page presently contains. PacWalker 03:44, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, goats are always nice. 141.134.75.236 (talk) 03:45, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

There are two links to goats on the page though. Also "just check out KnowYourMeme" is like kindergarten level Gatordom. Go back to the nursery.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 06:32, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

Two goats on this page? Child that's a homeopathic dilution. *not being serious at this point* PacWalker 09:32, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

Reality has a bias against GamerGate. --Aile Dhoo (talk) 16:07, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

I'm upset that Rationwiki won't give both sides to the debate about whether we should bomb Belgium until every last person is dead or at least horribly maimed, and maybe France just to be sure. I mean, unless we give the pro-mutilate side equal weight as the "wtf is wrong with you" side, obviously we aren't doing our job.CorruptUser (talk) 16:59, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

But the French deserve it! I mean, those filthy cheese eating bastards handballed Ireland out of the 2010 World Cup. |₹Λ¥$€₦₦ ^{Rollin' around at the speed of sound} 17:07, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

This is why Americans prefer to kill each other over the other football. PacWalker 17:26, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

Um, what's wrong with Belgium? They invented fries, you know. 141.134.75.236 (talk) 20:49, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

But clearly did not know what to do with them afterwards. I mean, mayonnaise?!??! Really? MaillardFillmore (talk) 21:15, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

HELL YES. PacWalker 21:25, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

We Americans on the other hand, take mayonaise, put it on salad, and call it "ranch dressing". ikanreed ^{You probably didn't deserve that} 21:32, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

Before you can call it ranch, it needs some buttermilk or yogurt added. Why can't we all be chums, and put vinaigrette on both fries and salad? MaillardFillmore (talk) 21:39, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

BECAUSE YOU BUTTER YOUR TOAST ON THE WRONG SIDE! CorruptUser (talk) 21:47, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

BUTTER YOUR TOAST ON BOTH SIDES! PacWalker 21:48, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

WELL, LA DI DA! I GUESS GOOD OLD BACON GREASE ISN'T GOOD ENOUGH FOR SOME PEOPLE. MaillardFillmore (talk) 21:51, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

Wait, that's what it is? I didn't know that! So... My potato salad recipe idea that involves ranch dressing and mayonnaise is actually viable? ...Why the heck am I getting confirmations for my recipe ideas on a Gamergate talkpage? Narky Sawtooth (Floof!~) 06:11, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

Ranch dressing is mostly mayonnaise, if you've never made it yourself. Basically all you're wanting here is to shift that balance even further. ikanreed ^{You probably didn't deserve that} 13:13, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

This US presidential candidate has the solution for world peace involving the universe's biggest swearword. --Aile Dhoo (talk) 22:15, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

You wanna know what's a lie? The cake. THE CAKE IS A LIE!!! John Jacob Jingleheimer Schmidt (talk) 08:00, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

Because it wasn't a cookie cake, that's why. PacWalker 08:02, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

So can we create another heading within the article explaining some of the positives brought about by Gamergate and reasons why people follow it? Perhaps also removing the generalisations and flat out insults, neither which live up to this sites name of 'rational?' I'm more than willing to put in the 15 minutes required to make this more balanced/logical/rational but if this site does truly dismiss multiple view points as it appears I won't bother. Keep in mind if the point of this website is to provide information, as its own page suggests, it should provide as much information on the subject as possible. This doesn't mean it must be unbiased but it should show both sides of the argument. ^{— Unsigned, by: Kingnoname1 / talk / contribs} (UTC)

There is one side. The facts. And if you have any facts that prove there is something positive done by the movement, then bring them instead of playing the pronoun game. Zero ^{(talk - contributions)} 11:44, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

Another thing: It's best for any positive things to be related to the RW mission. Ethics in video games journalism... Really isn't a priority here. Narky Sawtooth (Floof!~) 12:43, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

This is so pathetic, why not just have two articles explaining both sides positions instead of letting Ryulong stoke his ego? ^{— Unsigned, by: 24.154.201.168 / talk / contribs}

There's a side that is not only fact based but an alternative position? DO TELL. Zero ^{(talk - contributions)} 05:03, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

" How are you getting all of this wrong Robledo..."

I've told you. People trying to edit your writing "get it wrong" because the original text you wrote is incredibly unclear, bogged down, and muddled. Stop blaming other people for the consequences of your poor work. Peace. AgingHippie (talk) 02:17, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

Then how come every single time I try to correct the completely wrong summarizations you get on my case?—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 02:55, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

And you constantly cut out content from the lede because it's covered elsewhere in the article. Isn't the whole point of the intro?—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 02:58, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

And it's not like there are 300 references to get the right information from either.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 02:59, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

AgingHippie - I've looked at your changes and the ones Ryulong reverts. You keep fucking up in all the ways Ryulong has been pointing out: you carelessly leave dangling references, you write summaries of history that are actually untrue. Your resulting text has less bytes, but is actually wrong. You are being sloppy as fuck and not helpful. Please take more care not to fuck up, you're really not doing well so far - David Gerard (talk) 10:17, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

I'm being reverted constantly because I am restoring longer more accurate wording rather than the half-assed attempts to cut out every single descriptive word.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 01:11, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

AH None of what DG said is true - he is simply looking after a mate because of what he perceives to be some sort of historic injustice served by WP.

We have DG and Ryu saying that the article is shit hot and everyone should juts leave it alone, and we have the rest of the wiki saying that it is a clusterfuck of inane detail and unreadable text. Please continue doing your good (and unsung work) of trying to craft a readable article out of this behemoth of incomprehensibility. Tielec01 (talk) 01:39, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

Should also note that Ryulong's efforts are useful, lest I be accused of being negative, his contributions just need to be mercilessly edited by someone who can actually communicate via written text. Tielec01 (talk) 01:46, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

Tielec, you don't have to make this a one-side-vs-the-other thing. Ryu can be a know-it-all ass and perfectionist sometimes and AH can be sloppy and overly vague sometimes. These positions don't contradict one another. 141.134.75.236 (talk) 01:56, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

You are very correct to point that out 141, like all of us AH can make mistakes. I wouldn't characterise Ryulong as a perfectionist, but I think I understand what you are saying. Tielec01 (talk) 02:06, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

Although I do prefer AH's style to Ryulong's. |₹Λ¥$€₦₦ ^{Fuck you! And your eyebrows!} 03:04, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

AH's edits have been to cut out pretty much every adjective and adverb.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 04:51, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

It is fascinating to know that you have acquired telepathy and are able to read DG's mind, Tielec. When did you acquire this facility?

As it happens, I find the article to be completely comprehensible, if perhaps not written in a more terse style that I prefer. And you are highly incorrect that "the rest of the wiki" don't like the article. The only complainants that I see are the same ones over and over again. So please do not arrogate to yourself the title of Speaker for the Mobocracy.

I also do not care for your damning with faint praise tactics. Excoriate and be vituperative, or compliment, but do not engage in passive-aggression in your vendetta. --Castaigne (talk) 19:30, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

Sorry I forgot that you are the other person that likes the article; but I can't bring myself to be angry with you after using excoriate and vituperative in the same sentence. Well done.

As for DG he has said that WP made a mistake to ban Ryulong and he doesn't want us to make the same mistake. Although it may seem like mind-reading to half-wits when a person reads a sentence and reaches a conclusion, please be assured that it is somewhat less miraculous. Tielec01 (talk) 06:07, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

Correlation does not equal causation; it is well known that Ryulong was ousted from Wikipedia due to abuse of process - something that has been remarked on in several places off RationalWiki - but this does not mount to an accusation of protection. Further, I am very, very suspicious of some of the anti-article proponents, aside from the obvious trolls. This does include yourself; I question the agenda of several people. Especially when the complaint is too long. We all read doorstoppers for fun; there's really not such a thing. The only people I can see making such a complaint are these "vidya" types with their ADD. --Castaigne (talk) 15:04, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

I am record as saying the article was too awash in detail to present a coherent narrative (i.e "too long"). I am neither a "vidya type," nor do I have ADD. Peace. AgingHippie (talk) 15:45, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

Too awash in detail to present a coherent narrative does not equal "too long". That merely makes it confusing. "Too long" is "so many words, cannot read". It's like complaining that a Dickens novel doesn't finish up in 100 pages. --Castaigne (talk) 16:17, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

I do have ADD. I also know plenty of other people who like their facts presented in a somewhat concise manner. I'm told it's even rather common. PacWalker 15:49, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

Indeed, I like facts presented in a concise manner myself. I don't have a problem with that.

I do have a problem with "TL;DR", which is really what the majority of the complaints are. In fact, TL;DR is something that will cause me to dismiss someone as a complete idiot or as someone who can only do Twitter-length reading.

I can't tell if you are joking or serious Castaigne. What does a pithy, barely true, statement about correlation have to do with anything? Did you just say you were very, very suspicious of me; am I part of a conspiracy which cleverly started before GG even existed? When you said you think Ryulong was banned due to abuse of process, did you mean Ryulong's abuse of process (which was why he was banned) or some other nefarious figures conspiring to get him life banned from WP by abusing the banning process? Did you just accuse me of pretending to read minds then, with no hint of irony, accuse those who think the article is unreadable of having ADD?

Spare a thought for my disease addled brain, although I must look like a silly pleb from the rarefied heights of your genius, I still want to understand those scraps of knowledge that you allow me to scrabble together from this article. Tielec01 (talk) 03:00, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

What process did I abuse that I got banned for it?—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 06:05, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

I don't think this is a conversation that you want to have, or that will be fruitful Ryulong. If you like, post a link to the arbcom decision (terminology may be incorrect) so that people can make their own mind up. Tielec01 (talk) 06:46, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

And I can point to all the critcism of that decision in the media.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 09:06, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

So far what you've done, Tielec, is to lie about it repeatedly. Your motivation is unclear (could just be sheer bloody-mindedness), but you should probably stop doing that - David Gerard (talk) 10:15, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

"It turns out that editors who get banned from Wikipedia and immediately come here without changing their ways may be more trouble than is worth indulging" - David Gerard

Funny how quickly you change your mind when it comes to friends isn't it David.

I have two motivations:

• To have a decent Gamergate article; and
• Hypocrites annoy me. Tielec01 (talk) 11:08, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

And, of course, that isn't the order events happened in here either. You really need to get actual events straight before you start making claims, or claiming others should act on your (to be generous) misunderstandings - David Gerard (talk) 16:18, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

It also shows you didn't do your research on the arbcom decision at all, or you would know what actually went on. So is that lying through willful ignorance, mere failing to do the research, or is it solely to produce a false impression of Ryulong to the uninformed? Be precise, my dear fellow. --Castaigne (talk) 16:17, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

I will deal with the latter two items first, as they require shorter responses.

I meant specifically that there was a cabal seeking to remove Ryulong for their own purposes which was accomplished specifically through an abuse of process. And in fact, it is known who those people are, being various GamerGate adherents.

Secondly, you did not say the article is unreadable. You say it is too long. It is the equivalent of looking at a copy of David Copperfield, declaring "Derp derp! This is too long!" and ripping out all but the first 50 pages to bring it to a length your pitiful reading comprehension can digest. If you mean that the article is unreadable, that it is incomprehensible, then say that, you addle-pated twit. Be precise. I deal with moronic utterings like this every day and do not care for such imbecility in this wiki, especially in someone who claims to have an interest in the frequently long, lengthy, and door-stopper topics of functional neurology.

Now then, as for what I am suspicious of. It is well-known that you are a crony of Nutty, Smerdis, and others who cast a disparaging eye on modern feminism and social justice. And here we have GamerGate, a combination of MRAs, NeoReactionaries, and other recalcitrants who share a similar view as you and, while they pursue methods you may not endorse, have the same end goals as you. Why then should you not provide support, subtle and abstruse, given without alliance, in order to shape the narrative to your preference? Why, should the article be cut down to a few inconsequential paragraphs, would that not be a victory for your viewpoint? The GamerGate trolls who show up will be blatant and your subtlety in clamoring for "moderation" will then go unnoticed by the unvigilant.

No doubt, you will say this is fanciful and bluster that it is untruth and maligns your glorious intentions to bring this wiki to what you deem its fulsome end. Very well, your protest is already made for you. But much like Smerdis' attempted framing of Whedon leaving Twitter due to feminist animosity - already refuted by Whedon himself - your protest strikes me as weak and insincere. And so I frown, in judgment, and also in great ire and high dudgeon, as well befits my temperament and tendency towards the inquisitor.

Was that too long for you, or shall I be more precise? I am sorry if my discourse does not meet your expectations; I am no genius, nor even more than an average man, much bedevilled by life and the vagaries thereof. --Castaigne (talk) 16:29, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

Mistake in "Harassment and doxxing"

There's inaccurate information in the "Harassment and doxxing" section. The following statement: "Nude photographs acquired in the hack were distributed online and to her family and employers." is incorrect. The actual pictures are hosted on [redacted] and [redacted] under the pseudonym [redacted]. They even have the watermarks in the original images. Someone may want to correct this misinformation, which has remained in this article for several months and hundreds of edits. It may give more skeptical observers the impression that this article is misleading.--Naqoyqatsi (talk) 06:03, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

Reading the source provided (Christian Science Monitor no less!) appears to confirm the above - nowhere in the article is her family mentioned and from my reading it just says the nudes were posted online. Feel free to change by the way Naqoyqatsi. Tielec01 (talk) 06:23, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

Sorry, to be clear, her family is mentioned in the context that their details were distributed online (doxed) not that they were sent nude images. Tielec01 (talk) 06:24, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

Quinn has repeatedly said that her father has been sent the photos.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 06:59, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

Then pop in a reference and leave the statement as is, the current ref doesn't support the statement. Tielec01 (talk) 07:00, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

I'm trying to find one.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 07:01, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

Also I think that Naqoyqatsi's indepth knowledge of this fact is a bit circumspect.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 07:01, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

"...all the while, they were targeting members of my family and sending naked pictures of me to my dad." Cited. Also redacted Naqoyqatsi's mentions of screennames and websites because we are not doing any fucking doxing here.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 07:06, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

"...leaks of nude photos she'd sent to an ex long ago...". There, another.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 07:24, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

Both good enough for me. Tielec01 (talk) 07:26, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

It's untrue, though. There is a watermark on the bottom right corner of the pictures. Every single one of the images has a watermark from the site they were originally hosted on it. The pictures were not acquired in any hack, that is a lie. The pictures were hosted on two sites where anyone with a credit card could access and redistribute them. No article will change what the skeptic can disprove with a simple search.--Naqoyqatsi (talk) 15:10, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

Also, I'm not sure what would be "circumspect" about directly researching any claims made by written sources, rather than accepting them as facts based on preconceived notions. Are you claiming that learning all the facets of a situation before writing about it is a bad thing? What exactly are you insinuating here, Ryulong?--Naqoyqatsi (talk) 15:21, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

Pictures having a watermark does not prove they were originally hosted at the site. They could well have been uploaded there after they had been 'hacked' from a different source. For a self-proclaimed sceptic, you're not doing a very good job. I think the word Ryulong was searching for was 'suspect'. I think it's rather suspect, too, that a single-topic editor just happens to nitpick a small detail in this article, and in the process drop potentially doxxing links. Very suspect indeed. Queex_{chthonic murmurings} 16:11, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

If you're looking for evidence to prop up a narrative, yes. I can link to where the pictures came from, but Ryulong would redact it again. Of course, the fact that this was redacted for "doxxing" her to begin with should be evidence enough of its authenticity.--Naqoyqatsi (talk) 16:37, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

The evidence is: Direct links to where the sets were hosted, interviews with the photographers who shot the sets, the professional quality lighting and photography, the presence of other women in the sets, etc. None of this suggests they were pictures for a single person. Of course, all of this information will be suppressed if I link to or paste it here, but the fact is that the article contains a lie.--Naqoyqatsi (talk) 16:41, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

Please don't link to nude photos here. Ruylong has made his case with reference to decent independent sources. You are trying to make a case based on independent research which has been through no sort of objective vetting. Unless you can get a link to work done by actual professional researchers/writers/journalists backing up your case, this is a non-starter. Peace. AgingHippie (talk) 16:53, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

I have a link to the professional photographer detailing her experience with ZQ. Considering blogs like "We Hunted The Mammoth" and Twitter posts are cited liberally, this should suffice.--Naqoyqatsi (talk) 17:15, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ I'm not sure how this makes your case. A professional photog took some racy photos of someone. That someone then had her stuff broken into and copies of the photos distributed without her consent. What does the photog say that complicates that simple story? Peace. AgingHippie (talk) 17:20, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

(EC)Even if everything you claim is true, it still doesn't contradict the line you have a problem with. There's no reason why the photographs, even if they could be obtained elsewhere, could not have been brought to the attention of the shit mob via hacking. Besides, I have no idea why you're making such a small detail your hill to die on. When it comes to 'confirming narratives', I can only draw your attention to the way you take that facebook post at face value, yet insist on a much higher level of scrutiny for anything Quinn says. That's not the action of a concerned sceptic. That's a partisan trying (badly) to ape a sceptic. Queex_{chthonic murmurings} 17:23, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

As stated prior, there is plenty of other evidence to confirm my claims and just a few writers on your side. I don't link to it, but there is 'nothing' that suggests the photos were acquired in a "hack". There's just too many coincidences. The fact that things like the RS scandal happened should be reason enough not to take everything from a media outlet to the exclusion of all conflicting evidence.

There is a big difference, by the way, between "my computer was hacked with photos I had on it" and "I posted photos to a website which anyone with a credit card can access". This is simply about truth vs. narrative. Find verifiable evidence that I am wrong and I will admit it, but the base evidence does not suggest your view is the rational one.--Naqoyqatsi (talk) 17:31, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

I think you're Alex Jones. Prove me wrong. Narky Sawtooth (Floof!~) 17:35, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

The burden of proof is on the one making the claims. I have provided evidence of my claims. Now it's your turn to provide evidence refuting them. Not random writers repeating what Zoe said, actual verifiable evidence. The facebook post has a picture of the three of them sitting together, by the way. Please check if something is false before dismissing it.--Naqoyqatsi (talk) 17:40, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

(EC) The base evidence suggests that the entire line of enquiry is irrelevant. It doesn't matter how freely available an image is, there is no excuse for using it to intimidate someone or harass their family. That such was done is the important fact. How the photos came into the hands of the malefactor is a side issue. The harassment is the fact of the matter. Trying to steer culpability away from the harassers is pushing a narrative. And what possible purpose does that particular narrative serve other than to try to shift blame in part onto Quinn, or to generate some cock-eyed excuse for the harassers? "there is plenty of other evidence to confirm my claims and just a few writers on your side." - side in what? This particular detail, or the larger issue? If the former, then whoop-de-doo, there are more people on your 'side' rejoicing in irrelevancies. If the latter, you've just not been paying attention for the last eight months. How many of these writers you claim support your point have a source other than a potentially axe-grinding facebook post? 'Cos if they all track back to there, it doesn't matter how many of them there are, that's just one source. Queex_{chthonic murmurings} 17:42, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

I want the truth. My narrative is what I think is true. If you have verifiable evidence that proves the pictures were acquired in a hack, please provide it. Otherwise, please correct the article to accurately state the source or remove the passage.--Naqoyqatsi (talk) 18:03, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

If you have verifiable evidence that proves the pictures were not acquired through a hack, please provide it. Otherwise, I see no reason not to leave the passage as it is, with its current cited sources. Queex_{chthonic murmurings} 18:06, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

I provided it and it was then redacted by Ryulong for "doxxing". However, a simple search for the topic matter will quickly uncover the truth. I am looking at a direct link to the site right now. Of course, Ryulong seems to be on a hair trigger regarding this - he removed her stage name and the names of the websites - so I'm not about to link to it directly.--Naqoyqatsi (talk) 18:23, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

That argument reflects a complete lack of understanding of what "reliable source" means to me. A reliable source isn't a name, it's a major publication with a reputation for honest reporting. ikanreed ^{You probably didn't deserve that} 18:26, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

Then why are "We Hunted the Mammoth", blogs, and Twitter posts used as supporting citations in the article?--Naqoyqatsi (talk) 18:28, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

Because though he's a pain-in-the-ass editor who cannot write for shit and is way too heavy-handed on the block/vandal button, Ryulong has done a remarkable job of researching the topic at hand and of using a variety of secondary (newspapers and other reportage) and primary sources (notably Twitter posts) to put together a solid narrative of Gamergate. Peace. AgingHippie (talk) 18:37, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

Zoe Quinn has said on several occasions that the photographs were discovered as a result of the hacking incident. Whether or not those photographs were professionally taken (nice job linking to that whole "she stabbed a guy" myth too) the fact is they were discovered under questionable circumstances and shared without her consent as part of the whole "let's get her to kill herself" campaign Gamergate started off as. So is your complaint now that they weren't downloaded as a result of illegitimate access to her personal files? Because I don't want to have to bother her to get any more of a personal clarification than I already have.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 19:38, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

(EC)Most of those are primary sources documenting "X said Y" by linking to a place on the internet where, surprise surprise, X said Y. Comparing that to backing a conspiracy theory with random pseudonymous conjecture isn't reasonable. You should know it's not reasonable. If you find cites of that sort supporting more vague statements, by all means, bring up specific examples to fix. But don't use it as a "NO FAIR NOT INCLUDING MY CONJECTURE" excuse. ikanreed ^{You probably didn't deserve that} 19:39, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

What's good for the goose is good for the gander. None of the sources suggest the pictures were acquired in a hack. One seems to imply they were sent to an ex-boyfriend: "leaks of nude photos she'd sent to an ex long ago". This claim was a complete fabrication and has been removed.--Naqoyqatsi (talk) 04:00, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

So the issue appears to be the use of the word hack? I know this word has different meaning to different people, but if the pictures were acquired against the wishes of the victim then as far as I am concerned this was hacking. Where the pictures available to the public or where they private and acquired through nefarious means? Do we have sources on this issue? If not how can we find out? Tielec01 (talk) 04:43, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

[Link redacted] NSFW This is the website which Zoe Quinn produced pornographic images for. The earliest images were added in 2006[edit]. Additionally, there is a movie where you can see either Zoe Quinn or a very convincing impersonator speaking. So we either have a multifaceted conspiracy spanning over half a decade or we have a few misinformed journalists who took everything at face value. Which is more likely?--Naqoyqatsi (talk) 05:01, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

I'll excuse myself from visiting the site - were the pictures available to the public? If so then the word hack is not right, it's more like they were distributed against her will in an attempt to harass her and her family. Tielec01 (talk) 05:18, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

I went out of my way to contact Zoe Quinn concerning this and she said that her blog was hacked in order to distribute these photos that Naqoyqatsi seems very knowledgable about and I have to fucking scrub this page's history again.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 07:28, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

The issue is thusly. The only way that anyone discovered any of this information was through the fact that all of Zoe Quinn's personal information was compromised, downloaded, and shared amongst #BurgersAndFries. The point of the statement is that Gamergate felt the need to dig that deep into her personal life, found these photographs which are apparently very dear to you Naqoyqatsi, and then proceeded to send them and share them in ways that are solely meant to ruin her life. To us, and to the world, there is no difference between

• Hacking into her personal accounts, finding these photographs in her personal files, and downloading these photographs and distributing them to her friends, family, job, and the world, or
• Hacking into her personal accounts, finding out she had an account on these websites, finding these photographs posted on these websites associated with her account there, and downloading these photographs and distributing them to her friends, family, job, and the world

because the content was still discovered or acquired through illicit means for the sole purpose of ruining her life. The means are inconsequential here as the end is still the same.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 07:43, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

That said, your sources do not clearly say that the photos were acquired via a hack. Your sources only say that pics were distributed. So that's what we have to go with. And that's really damning enough. But if you find a published interview with Quinn where she unambiguously says the actual photos were taken from her hard drive, run with it. Peace. AgingHippie (talk) 13:25, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

Funny how this went from "conspiracy theory" to, "Ryulong has done a remarkable job of researching the topic at hand" to, "your sources do not clearly say that the photos were acquired via a hack". But I'm sure the rest of the article is just fine. Chrimony (talk) 14:59, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

He has done a remarkable job. He overstated his case in one instance. That happens -- I've done it in higher-stakes settings than a marginal wiki. I'm confident that people who are seriously interested in the topic will find any other instances if they exist. Peace. AgingHippie (talk) 15:04, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

Chrimony, welcome back. AgingHippie, Naqoyqatsi is splitting hairs here. Quinn herself has said the photographs were obtained through illicit means as a result of the hack. Whether or not they were discovered in the hacked data or if the hacked data provided a trail of breadcrumbs to them is not of consequence here.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 16:37, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

Uh huh, I'm sure it's only in this one instance that he overstated his case. Or, you know, if you see a roach in your kitchen, there's a good chance there's more. Not that they haven't been pointed out before, but it seems lately there's been more interest from other editors in not having this article be a total joke for some reason. Chrimony (talk) 04:54, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

Why don't you show us some of those Chrimony? You've been here months longer than Naqoyqatsi and have yet to put anything forward resembling an inaccuracy, even as minor as this one, that my writing has introduced to this page. And Naqoyqatsi is clearly only aware of this because Gamergate likes to make sure that they can claim whatever dirt that they dig up on people comes from "publically accessible sources". Even if they only found these photographs behind a paywall on a website they only discovered after Eron Gjoni dropped enough hints for someone to find each and every one of Zoe Quinn's other online accounts. And these were uploaded to her blog after someone got their hands on her unique "post to Tumblr by email" address when her accounts were hacked, as well as sent to her friends and family to alienate her from them. But please, Chrimony, regale us with your evidence that this page is filled to the brim with inaccuracies that I introduced. Just don't repeat the same bullshit conspiracies Gamergate has been spinning since August last year.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 05:50, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

How dismally wunderbar, you have returned. If you have a substantial edit to make, do it. If you're just here to whine about how Ryulong is doing it wrong, fuck off. I'm rather tired of hearing the same bullshit over and over again from you. --Castaigne (talk) 18:27, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

I agree it is of no consequence here. Which is why we should stick to the claims backed up by the very fine independent sources your excellent research has produced. EDIT: I'm holding the line on this because the horrible people who are looking for holes in your article will latch onto one over-statement or bit of conjecture on your part to argue that the whole thing is full of holes. By making a claim and supporting it with only your word (which, to be erfectly clear, I ACCEPT, thought we both know there are tons of people who won't) you are jeopardizing the good work you have done. Don't undermine yourself like that. Find a source that unambiguously supports you, or accept that your sources will only let you make a certain argument until other sources come to light. Peace. AgingHippie (talk) 18:29, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

Well the only source on this I have is a private conversation and the vague wordings of all of these articles (that and it is incredibly difficult to Google this without compromising her privacy).—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 22:21, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

Wait, one article said that they were "leaks of nude photos she'd sent to an ex long ago". Which one is it? If they were posted there without her permission, she should sue the webhost.--Naqoyqatsi (talk) 22:29, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

This is what I can gather from some other sources: Gjoni was on Reddit and in #BurgersAndFries giving out her screennames. Someone on 4chan found the photographs on the website you metioned. These were then uploaded to her social media when the accounts were compromised and sent to her family and employers.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 22:51, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

So what was published was not in line with what actually happened.--Naqoyqatsi (talk) 23:04, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

Perhaps there are seeds of truth in what was published on these websites but they withheld information out of respect for Quinn's private life. Otherwise known as ethics in video game journalism. What is important here is that people sent the photos, of whatever provenance they were, to her dad, and now the article reflects that it just so happens to have happened around the same time as all of her social media being compromised. And that I may have interpretted her message to me inaccurately.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 23:06, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

The section in question was garbled when I saw it. I have removed the errata but may have removed some information you wanted to keep in, Ryulong. You'll might want to review it and add some of it back.--Naqoyqatsi (talk) 23:21, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, the way I rewrite leads to that.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 23:30, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

Chrimony's hot takes

And be sure to post your proof that this page is a massively inaccurate summary of Gamergate because of my writing here, Chrimony. That way it's easier to read and respond to your petty nitpicking.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 05:55, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

I'll be doing a comprehensive critique of "your" bullshit article, Ryulong, in the coming days. But on my user page as an essay, and not here, where my comments in theory should not be collapsed, reverted, or otherwise fucked with. Not that I lay all the blame on you, as you're just part of the clown posse. I will note one thing: You only changed the article about the "hack" after resisting and AgingHippie drew a line in the sand. It seems some bullshit is too much for the tribal elder. Chrimony (talk) 18:00, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

No, it was only changed after I re-read another citation that made everything clearer. And no, you post your findings here. That's what this page is for. And mind you, practically everything new I wrote has been excised from the page in the past two weeks, so what's left is what everyone here has written.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 20:19, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

"And no, you post your findings here." What, you're ordering me around? Thanks for the laugh. No, I'll post it where I said I would and for the reasons given. Chrimony (talk) 00:12, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

This page is for improving the Gamergate page. So why state you're going to tear it apart anywhere else?—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 03:57, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

Two big reasons, if I had to guess: (a) collapse immunity and (b) a page for just his take, with others relegated to the talk page. PacWalker 19:24, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

You do your cutesy doxxing tricks that have been deleted in the past, there will be a problem, userspace or no. You know what we don't condone around here.

And I shall be watching you. --Castaigne (talk) 18:29, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

Oh look, another fabrication. I've never "doxxed" anybody on this site. Please show the diff. You won't of course, as you didn't in your last fabrication. But I see you've got your strategy already planned out for deleting any evidence that you don't like. Chrimony (talk) 01:29, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

Son, my strategy is very simple and doesn't involve deleting any evidence. If I decide a troll needs to be taken care of, I know how to deal with that myself without involving this site at all. But hey, keep on pushing there. I know all trolls think they're safe behind their "anonymity"; it's just a pity there's no such thing on the Internet and never has been. --Castaigne (talk) 15:15, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

As expected, you did not back up your accusation with a diff, just like last time. That would be hard for you to do since it is a fabrication on your part, just like last time. What was unexpected were your threats of off-site retaliation. That's a new low, even for a clown posse member such as yourself. Chrimony (talk) 17:35, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

You seem to think I'm required to prove stuff to you. I'm not. As for off-site blah blah, get over it. You're a Gator; welcome to the internet. No fucks given.

What baffles me about guys like you is that you seem to expect me to play by your rules, rather than just doing what I've done for 25+ years. You know how to win the game? Flip the fucking table and punch your opponent in the face. That's a metaphor, by the by, in case you can't tell the difference. --Castaigne (talk) 18:26, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

They are not my rules. If the situation were reversed, and I was making threats of off-site retaliation, I'd be banned in minutes. Also, you of course aren't "required" to prove anything, as I have no intention of suing you for libel, but when you make false accusations on supposed "black and white" diffs that I "can't deny", and have nothing to show for it when being called out, it shows you're a lying scumbag. Chrimony (talk) 18:47, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

"If the situation were reversed, and I was making threats of off-site retaliation, I'd be banned in minutes."

I haven't even made an actual threat of retaliation yet, but there you go. In order for it to be a "threat" or "retaliation", it has to be specific.

Tell you what, though, if you're feeling real froggy, I'll shoot you my physical address. You can show up and we can brotango like real manly Gators. That's not a threat; it's an offer, sonny-jim. We can rochambeau for great justice! I think that would be, as you Reddit kids say, "top kek". Or something like that. I'm not up on all the slang the youths today use.

"Also, you of course aren't "required" to prove anything, as I have no intention of suing you for libel"

Oh, but it would be AWESOME if you did. The dreaded LIBELSLANDER!

I really wonder, though, where you got the idea that I actually consented to debate with you. Or are required to debate with you. Or even listen to you. Pro-tip: Look up something known as a "kill file". It dates back to Usenet. --Castaigne (talk) 19:05, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

Pro-tip: The point of a kill file was to ignore somebody, completely. The proper "kill file" response is *PLONK* and to never respond again, whereas you'll keep on being the clown and responding in your clown ways. You can't help yourself. Chrimony (talk) 19:14, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

That's right, Chrimony! So why haven't you used one on me yet? Might cause those veins to bulge yet. --Castaigne (talk) 15:48, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

One important advantage Ryulong has is that he's here in good faith, whereas you're a Gamergate troll. This "tribal elder" wishes to point out you're only here because RW is tolerant somewhere beyond reason - David Gerard (talk) 20:24, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

Yes yes, everybody you disagree with is a troll. But thanks for showing you actually think it's beyond reason to allow dissent. Another fine example of the tribe at work. Chrimony (talk) 00:12, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

What on earth are hot takes? Dave Bernard (talk) 00:19, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

Congratulations on finding this page with your first edit.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 03:55, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, I think. What are hot takes? Dave Bernard (talk) 02:14, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

What do you think they are?—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 03:42, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

Holy shit. Don't be rude until you need to be. "Hot takes" are responses to things without having dug into them for depth and context. You know, the first comment to every news story on the internet. ikanreed ^{You probably didn't deserve that} 18:35, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

I wasn't aware of the term before, myself. Ryulong needs to learn to get along. Narky Sawtooth (Floof!~) 20:32, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

I really can't see the point in getting along with what's likely to be an ally troll. --Castaigne (talk) 21:01, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

The point is to get chummy with them and then when they least expect it, you stab them in the back, with a big dagger, over and over again, while laughing maniacally. :) 141.134.75.236 (talk) 01:40, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

I used to do that, but now I just put them away.. My patience is exhausted with them. --Castaigne (talk) 15:15, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

Thank you. Dave Bernard (talk) 21:13, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

Bomb Threat

There was a bomb threat against a GamerGate meetup recently which resulted in an evacuation. At this point, I think providing no ground to the two exposed mass murder threats against supporters of GamerGate and many cases of individual harassment constitutes a lie by omission. On an individual basis, there are over 300 documented examples of GamerGate supporters being harassed here alone. It is disingenuous to have a passage on "just asking questions" while selectively omitting death threats.--Naqoyqatsi (talk) 04:37, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

I'll start with your first link: if a meeting had to be evacuated because of a bomb threat in the nation's capital, I would think such a story would have been covered at the very least in the local news section of the Washington Post if not numerous branches of the so-called "mainstream media" -- NYT, CNN, Fox News, ABC, CBS, MSNBC, BBC, etc. And yet you link to something called "the Inquisitr". Why that website and not a more standard news source? Peace. AgingHippie (talk) 04:56, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

Like Kotaku?--Naqoyqatsi (talk) 05:01, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, 'cause when I want an update on a bomb threat in a major US city, my first place for that kind of info is Koatku. Whatever the fuck that is. Peace. AgingHippie (talk) 05:08, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

I counted six references to Kotaku in the article. There is also a reference from Kotaku titled "Bomb Threat Targeted Anita Sarkeesian, Gaming Awards Last March" in the Anita Sarkeesian article.--Naqoyqatsi (talk) 05:14, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

You're encouraging him... which is good. PacWalker 05:16, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

The #GGinDC bomb threat is already covered on Timeline of Gamergate. Also, Naqoyqatsi, we already fucking debunked that stupid PAX East thing when you brought it up last week.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 05:40, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

How was the first mass murder threat "debunked" exactly? You might also want to update the "Gators predictably blame SJWs/feminists, despite no clear evidence" portion. The fact that this bomb threat was phoned in while the bar was inundated with unsolicited emails and phone calls from people aligned against GG lends credence to the theory that someone against GG did this.--Naqoyqatsi (talk) 15:19, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

Even if it turns out that it was from someone against GG, blaming "SJWs/feminists" is still pretty out there. Blaming a specific anti-GG group - if the bomb threat was both the work of someone against GG and from that group - would be far more pertinent. Currently Arthur Chu is attracting the blame; We'll have to see if any evidence comes up. Narky Sawtooth (Floof!~) 15:53, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

The only evidence there is of anything is that Arthur Chu emailed the bar concerning the meet up and that a Twitter account that has since been deleted made a threat. Nero blames feminists. Rogue star blames Chu. There is no evidence of any known person doing anything illegal in this instance. Just some mystery suspect that no one has caught or identified.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 19:31, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

I notice you failed to mention why Lizzy claimed to have cut all ties to GamerGate when you namedropped her. I'm going to put on my conjecture cap and venture that this article and using her full name on this site will not do Lizzy or her family any favors. I would appreciate it if you revdelled that edit. Edit: Also,Ryulong, please revdel this request after it has been taken care of.--Naqoyqatsi (talk) 01:55, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

No, Naqoyqatsi. The timeline already covers lizzyf620's departure from Gamergate, and Kotaku's article explicitly uses her full name and screenname in their coverage (not to mention her previous Twitter screenname also used this surname), so I see no reason why we at RationalWiki should not do the same.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 03:35, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

Does this article have to discuss every unimportant hoax invented by GG? It is already too long. We need to focus on the danger this crazy hate group means to women online. Please keep doing the good work you are already doing with this article.--Petra (talk) 19:08, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

Ryulong, please debunk every single Gamergate talking point over here at Rebuttals of Gamergate. That article has no size limit; feel free to port stuff from this page to that. FuzzyDogPotato (talk/stalk) 20:16, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

No. Why the fuck did you go through with making that page anyway?—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 20:42, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

So you could shorten this article and still rebut GG, like you said you wanted. FuzzyCatPotato™ (talk/stalk) 20:45, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

That wasn't the point of this.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 21:44, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

Could you be any less vague? FU22YC47P07470 (talk/stalk) 21:48, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

That page is a noble attempt but probably a failure in practical terms - David Gerard (talk) 21:59, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

Then add more rebuttals. FüzzyCätPötätö (talk/stalk) 22:37, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

I mean the observable fact nobody else has shown up to it - David Gerard (talk) 22:41, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

It's been 1 hour in mainspace. That's like, 6,000 years in internet time, right? ʇυzzγɔɒтqoтɒтo (talk/stalk) 22:43, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

You're the only one who thought it was a good idea.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 03:42, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

Dear God, not that 'gamergate harassment' tumblr again. For those who haven't encountered it before, it's mostly composed of slightly mean comments, most of which are either perfectly defendable generalised statements (along the lines of "GG is packed full of morons" or "Gamers have always had a shitty underbelly") or personal beefs centred around specific things the 'victim' has said. Now, there are genuinely disturbing ones in the mix, albeit a minority, and they should be denounced as much as any other. But that doesn't excuse the interpretation gymnastics involved in trying to portray the mild entries as serious. "The good news is that your kind of gamer is dying out" is not a death threat, FFS. It gets even stickier when you remember that GG has well-earned reputations for both devouring its own and shitposting while pretending to be their enemies, so an unknown proportion of the genuine harassment is coming from themselves, not their bogeymen. The only ways someone could possibly point to that tumblr as good evidence of harassment would be if a) They have difficulty interpreting reality, b) They are somehow unable to distinguish harassment from other speech or c) They are straight up lying, either to themselves or to others. Queex_{chthonic murmurings} 10:53, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

This article consistently presents a view point which is diametrically opposed to the foundations of RationalWiki

Going from the very basic guidelines of the RationalWiki

   Analyzing and refuting the anti-science movement.
   Analyzing and refuting crank ideas.
   Explorations of authoritarianism and fundamentalism.
   Analysis and criticism of how these subjects are handled in the media. 

This should be the perfect place to critique the slanted perspective presented by the media, the attribution of misogyny and harassment to an entire pressue group when in fact it is: a) received by supporters or either side of the debate and b) could, so far, only be attributed to third party trolls (as noted on the BBC). No identifiable individual on either side has conducted any known harassment. In addition, the exploration of authoritarianism above is presumably to critique said position; as in to oppose censorship and media circle jerks, rather than to defend it.

On the other hand you have the very tangible achievements by the group to promote diversity in gaming, consumer-focused journalism, a journalistic ethical code, and defending the idea of "gamer" as an cultural identity.

The lack of rationality in the article, as is, is frankly appalling; instead the basis seems to be personal agenda and vitriol representing the views of the authoritarian (Read: side with the power who have and are abusing that power) stance. RegisDeddij (talk) 19:49, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

Drink! PacWalker 20:14, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

"perfect place to critique the slanted perspective presented by the media"

That's actually not what we do here. There is no NPOV; there is only SPOV.

"the attribution of misogyny and harassment to an entire pressue group"

Hey, there are no leaders or formal memberships in GamerGate, so that means anyone who claims the hashtag is good to go!

"In addition, the exploration of authoritarianism above is presumably to critique said position; as in to oppose censorship and media circle jerks"

Well, since no actual censorship has occurred (hint: needs to have government suppression, not applicable to private parties), that's no worries. And so-called media circle jerks aren't authoritarianism either. Might want to read the wiki entry.

"On the other hand you have the very tangible achievements by the group to promote diversity in gaming, consumer-focused journalism, a journalistic ethical code, and defending the idea of "gamer" as an cultural identity. "

I'd argue tangible achievements very readily.

But frankly, speaking as a long-time gamer, gamer is not a cultural identity. It's a fucking hobby and/or pastime. Man, you guys need to get over yourselves.

But hey, a big welcome for a new concern troll! --Castaigne (talk) 20:28, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

It's astonishingly regular how often people go "Wait, you're not telling me I'm right about everything? How irrational of you." Gamergate is a particular draw for that sort because, you know, it's a grassroots campaign almost entirely centered on protecting its own image. But in general, I only see articles here defending a point of view to an unreasonable extreme very rarely. I try to give people a chance, and they end up making it clear they're not interested in dialog. Gamergate is shit, and calling it shit isn't a huge leap. ikanreed ^{You probably didn't deserve that} 20:40, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

And it's pretty blindingly obvious to those not involved on the behalf of the campaign. Which is why I like poking them when they show up; they're such cute little trolls. --Castaigne (talk) 20:42, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

Media outlets are under pressure to make money, and an easy way to do this is by breaking sensational stories. This can encourage the media to overplay news stories or leave out information that would detract from an otherwise great story.[...]Political leanings may lead to lying by partisan reporting, in which scandals involving one party as front page news while similar incidents among another are relegated to bylines buried towards the back of the newspaper.

This article and the heavily defended media publications both fit RW's definition of "lying by omission". See: Ref1 Ref2Ref3. It may have been stated that harassment against supporters of GamerGate will not be included in the article, so it should be clear to anyone who doesn't have a pet war that this article is incompatible with the stated goals of RW. Even if GamerGate is as horrible as the article claims it is, the media has already covered it almost exclusively from that angle. There's no myth to debunk.--Naqoyqatsi (talk) 20:04, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

Naqoyqatsi, please provide content that has been omitted such that this page even remotely meets the "lying by omission". The mere "GG HAS BEEN HARASSED TOO" has been debunked because a bunch of people lashing out at Gamergaters after being bombarded by them for days on end do not count or the extreme minority of actual threats made against them do not matter in the long run as it is not an example of anything that fits in with coverage anywhere. But with regards to your new links, no one is defending Kotaku at all on this page. There is perhaps a discussion to be had about improving video games journalism reporting but Gamergate hasn't championed that discussion. You also don't really know what the stated goals of RW are because RW also exists to to host articles to show right wing nut cases for what they really are, and Gamergate falls under that header considering that 48 hours ago someone gave them a positive spin for not knowing shit about its origins and Gamergate is already heaping praise on this idiot for not having done research that calls them out for what they are. Even that skullfucker Aurini has posted a response.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 20:20, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

Okay, first off people getting harassed for posting under the GamerGate hastag are humans, not "GamerGate". The people sending them death threats are not justified in any way. Really poor choice of words there.

Second, you might want to check the "Substantive efforts against journalistic corruption" for Kotaku.

Third, if this article just parrots what every outlet with far more influence than RW is screaming, why does it even exist? In its current form, it seems impotent at best.--Naqoyqatsi (talk) 20:31, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

First, I have not condoned sending death threats to Gamergaters. Harassment is wrong period. Second, pointing out one instance of shitty reporting that predates Gamergate is not evidence. Third, because you assholes are the anti-vaxxers of video games. While most of the world realizes Gamergate is shit, there are still people (like the author of journoterrorist.com) who still buy into your shit. It doesn't matter if every single fucking liberal blog and newspaper out there has already called Gamergate out for being a sexist, misogynistic, and multi-month long example of domestic abuse perpetuated because of 4chan mentalities, because there will still be people who think that Gamergate has anything valid to say about any of its pet topics and give Gamergate the time of day and let it continue for another fucking year. So do not lecture us on what RationalWiki is supposed to cover as if you know anything about it beyond what someone wrote about it on the site years ago and probably hasn't been updated since.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 20:34, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

Let's just friggin' cut to the chase - do you have substantive edits to make concerning your viewpoints with appropriate references, or are you just going to do as Chrimony does and bitch here on the talk page without doing a damn thing? --Castaigne (talk) 20:56, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

Question about standards for references

As I am scanning through and looking at the references for some of the material on this page, some of them do not hold up to the standard I expected. For example, the citation for the sentence ending "multiple documented ethical failings" (currently ref 84) is a link to a Tumblr page ( http://sjwilluminati.tumblr.com/post/108202883236/comfemgem-brainstatic-olliezero-the-more ) which contain text allegations about the subject of the sentence (Milo Yiannopoulos) but no actual sources or references for those allegations. Do allegations made on a Tumblr post with no details or links count as documentation... or is there something else that I'm missing here? Thanks. Gregstevens (talk) 19:01, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

Well, let's see. Did you check the references under Milo's section, which confirm the text allegations presented? --Castaigne (talk) 19:07, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

EC On its own, that's not a good reference, but some of those allegations are better-supported in other parts of the article, IIRC. Peace. AgingHippie (talk) 19:08, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

Tumblr isnt a proper source, wikipedia would be 10 times better, use the milos section source then. Bubba41102^{Taste the shortness} 19:10, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

EC Tumblr can be a fine primary source, especially for an article that's about events that take place almost entirely online. Wikipedia is only as good as the people who contribute to a particular article. Peace. AgingHippie (talk) 19:15, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

I find it more interesting that this user created an account and more or less came straight here within 15 minutes of creation, but that would appear to be more of my suspicious nature. --Castaigne (talk) 19:12, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

HE could have been looking at it beforehand, that is a bit paranoid. Bubba41102^{Taste the shortness} 19:16, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

I am suspicious and paranoid, yes. These are accurate descriptions of my general outlook. --Castaigne (talk) 19:21, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

It is also all over recent changes nonstop (like, nonstop nonstop). WalkerWalkerWalker 19:18, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

Castaigne, you are absolutely right. I've been going over this page for a while, before creating my account, and was primarily motivated to create an account so that I'd have the flexibility to ask questions. I've actually been a fan of this site for a long time, but have "dawdled" (I suppose you could say) about making an account, simply because I didn't have a particular drive to interact before now. But don't worry: I'm familiar enough with the website and the culture that I have no interest in "challenging" the tone or mission or whatnot, of this article or the website. ;-) This was a sincere question about reference citation. Gregstevens (talk) 19:18, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

Very well; see my comment below in reference to the help section on references. --Castaigne (talk) 19:21, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

(ECx5)Shame that you're here to defend your "good friend and colleague" rather than honestly improve our article. But yeah, what Castaigne said. Most of the claims have substantiation elsewhere. And let's not pretend any writer for "Let's publish doctored footage to destroy a charity" breitbart.com is going to be have any actual ethics on any journalism. ikanreed ^{You probably didn't deserve that} 19:12, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

I further refer you to the help section on references, along with endorsement of ikanreed's comment. --Castaigne (talk) 19:14, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

Castaigne, thanks for the link! I checked out the article. As to ikanreed's comment: yes, I've been friends with Milo for almost a decade, despite that fact that he and I have opposite politics. I didn't actually COME here in order to "defend him", but it's quite natural I think (psychologically) that when I see a cited statement about someone whom I know, I check out the reference. It's nothing sinister, it's just curiosity. I was checking out multiple references listed on this article because I was interested in the subject matter presented here. At any rate: I wanted to state that for the record. I think my friendship with Milo is neither here nor there when it comes to my question about the quality of the Tumblr reference. I'm not here to pick any fights! :) Gregstevens (talk) 19:27, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

Okay, petty outside concern withdrawn. ikanreed ^{You probably didn't deserve that} 19:30, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

The Tumblr source exists to show a Gamergate supporter holding these particular people up on a pedestal and then someone else tearing that down with various things that are sourced elsewhere on this page IIRC.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 20:41, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

Also, it seems that someone from KotakuInAction has seen this post and saw fit to use a series of bot accounts on Twitter to send me the same message 5 times within a 5 second timeframe. For you braintrusts out there reading this, sjwilluminati.tumblr.com is run by the same person who used to run @sjwilluminati on Twitter you fucking idiots.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 01:45, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

Yes, this has been a Twitter retweet botfest topic today. O NOEZ LINK TO TUMBLR. That's literally the most substantive objection Gamergate can come up with - David Gerard (talk) 18:21, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

It's like they think we're an encyclopedia. ikanreed ^{You probably didn't deserve that} 18:51, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

I can't wait for them to threaten us under RICO or the Logan Act. --Castaigne (talk) 18:55, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

Rico? This is about ethics quality in journalism reeds. Vandoren. WalkerWalkerWalker 20:33, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

UPDATE: SOMEONE WHO TAKES TWITTER SERIOUSLY HAS BEEN FOUND. All this and more after this break on the Onion News Network. WalkerWalkerWalker 20:26, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

"Cutting out bloat"

I am tired of this lame excuse AgingHippie. The content I added back has relevance. Just because you don't give a shit about it doesn't mean shit. Giving context that explains that KIA's mods forbid anyone from directly linking to Kotaku or even RationalWiki as well as pointing out that they actually have something to automatically crawl the websites for them is relevant to the discussion of the archive services.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 22:08, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

AgingHippie, quit reverting me on this shit. It's getting tiring.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 00:50, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

Mabye he has good reason, this article is reallllllllly big, and that normally means unnecessary information, not every single detail needs to be stated in the article, and some of the stuff you have reverted was just cutting out unnecessary information. Bubba41102^{Taste the shortness} 01:05, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

"Vice discovered that X." VS "X". The latter is preferable. Peace. AgingHippie (talk) 01:18, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

Agreed it cuts out unnecessary information, i think someone needs to check the byte count on this article, compared to other articles. Bubba41102^{Taste the shortness} 01:46, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

Stop cutting out the plugin shit though.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 02:29, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

Removal of unsourced defamation reverted twice now

I'd like the involved parties to justify this and this, please. It should not be controversial to remove unsourced libel, particularly a statement like "The IGDA's Puerto Rico chapter was shut down sometime later; Rosario blamed feminism", a man who is "a primary sponsor of @IncludeGirls group that seeks to increase women roles in tech". I noticed that a slightly edited form of this statement remains in the article, despite the absence of any confirming evidence. I'd recommend we ask Rosario for his input on the matter as you seem so confident of the veracity of your claims. If private twitter exchanges with involved parties are acceptable sources, as Ryulong has vouched, then a more consistent source should also suffice.--Naqoyqatsi (talk) 22:13, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

Really? It's libel? Tell me, what court was the libel case adjudicated in? What were the damages awarded? Who accused who of libel?

I'll let others deal with what counts as a source or not, but libel is a very specific legal charge and we have very dim views of those who throw around libelslander accusations around here, examples of which you can view at the Rome Viharo and Jarrah White talk pages. Are you intimating that you're going to file a libel suit against RW in court? Or are you just throwing the term around in an attempt to bluster and swagger? --Castaigne (talk) 23:04, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

I have not been wronged legally and hence have no motivation for involvement, but I call them as I see them. Unsourced and misrepresentative claims about living persons are libel and open this wiki to potential liability. RW ignores those observations at its peril, not mine. I doubt it will amount to much, but restoring defamatory information is ethically compromised at best.--Naqoyqatsi (talk) 00:00, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

It can be found with a google search it's just that out of respect for people who aren't conspiracy theorists who believe that Roberto Rosario was hospitalized after being jumped by an "SWJ mob" [sic]. In reality, we only need to point out that Rosario is a blatant anti-feminist, which is obvious when he's favoriting videos by dunderfuck, "Red Pill Philosophy", Jordan Owen, The Amazing Atheist, and LeoThePirate on YouTube. A lot of dunderfuck.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 00:25, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

Quote - "Unsourced and misrepresentative claims about living persons are libel"

No, that is not true. While libel varies from state to state, opinion, satire, comment, and criticism are absolutely permissable under the 1st Amendment. Criminal liability doesn't exist. Civil liability would have to prove monetary damages. Any attempt to sue for libel for those statements would fail, especially when Section 230 of the Community Decency Act of 1996 was bought into play. Federal caselaw says your wrong. Don't believe me? Check with Popehat. Or an actual attorney. I'll put money down on how that would go.

Quote - "open this wiki to potential liability. RW ignores those observations at its peril, not mine."

Sounds like a veiled threat to me. What, you can sic the Based Lawyer on RW? Don't think so.

Quote - "but restoring defamatory information is ethically compromised at best"

Your opinion is noted. I find the information not to be defamatory. I will revert as I see fit. --Castaigne (talk) 00:42, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

I cut it out to stop him from complaining anymore though.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 00:49, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

Take it as you will, but I won't waste my time excusing myself for your baseless conjecture.--Naqoyqatsi (talk) 02:07, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

"Substantive GamerGate accomplishments"

I would like to know the rationale for this edit, mainly because it seems to paint Gamergate in a positive light, much unlike the rest of the article. -Einstein95 (talk) 05:47, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

It includes GamerGate accomplishments in a section devoted to them. It wasn't not about fitting in with the rest of the article, it's about being in line with reality.--Naqoyqatsi (talk) 06:09, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

"GamerGate.me cites GamerGate-affiliated fund drives raising $100,000 for a range of charities, $71,496 of which was for "Women making Video Games For Charity" by The Fine Young Capitalists"

This is already covered by the article (Operation Chemo and Vivian James), and that statement also fails to say whether the donations were accepted by the charities and whether they knew where the money came from.

"GamerGate has also succeeded in costing Gawker "thousands of dollars already, and could potentially lose thousands more, if not millions" after a letter writing campaign to its advertisers"

Again, this was already covered in the article (Gamergate vs. advertisments). These also provide more context that was significantly lacking in the original edit.

-Einstein95 (talk) 06:40, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

It shouldn't be in the article because it has no sources outside of Gamergate's incredibly unreliable garbage sources. Naqoyqatsi, do not add this content to the page again and do not remove all of the accurately sourced content calling out Gamergate for failing at its intended goals. The Gamergate concept of "reality" does not mesh with what has been documented by everyone else.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 06:48, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

And let me cover the rest of the section:

• No one changed any ethics policies. They merely made them public.
• OneAngryGamer doesn't know anything.
• Gamergate.me is just the Gamergate wiki.
• TFYC is not a charity. The fundraising for TFYC was not for charity. It was to develop the video game. The sales of that video game, which hasn't been released yet, would have gone to charity.
• Gawker has not lost thousands because of the approximate month or so of lost ad revenue.

And as Einstein95 points out, all of your contributions are already found elsewhere on the page and in much more detail and accuracy with the depiction of actual facts. It was completely unnecessary to erase a section with dozens of sources to make a section that shows Gamergate in a positive light.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 06:55, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

Apart from anything else, how on earth is costing some company X amount of revenue a 'substantial achievement'? Shutting down a bad company is a substantial accomplishment. Forcing a bad company to make significant changes to how it operates is a substantial accomplishment. Making a nuisance of yourself to the tune of a couple of grand is not. You want a substantial accomplishment against bad journalism? Look at what happened to the News of the World, and how quickly it happened. That's the yardstick to measure against. That this item is even posited as an accomplishment at all demonstrates the effectiveness of the GG anti-reality force field. Queex_{chthonic murmurings} 10:22, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

Ryulong, I saw you also removed my edit here. Which source stated that harassment was being organized from that thread?--Naqoyqatsi (talk) 13:43, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

I have removed the defamatory section yet again. I have also removed a similarly misleading and unsourced portion, "Rosario blamed feminism". I don't know where you're getting your info, but this is the third misrepresentation I have removed from this article.--Naqoyqatsi (talk) 16:13, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

I think we'd all take your specific criticisms a lot more seriously if you could demonstrate any ability to recognise when you were in the wrong. Care to make any comment at all about the section you inserted on accomplishments? Queex_{chthonic murmurings} 16:18, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

Yes, it was already covered elsewhere with the notable exception of the revenue. It "thousands, if not millions" does not imply that Gawker lost several thousand but rather several hundred thousand. I also take issue to the unsourced claim that TFYC is not a charity

I see, however, that you saw fit to add back the defamation I removed. Could you explain what possessed you to add back the defamatory statement, "The IGDA's Puerto Rico chapter was shut down sometime later; Rosario blamed feminism"?--Naqoyqatsi (talk) 16:27, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

It happened. I'm pretty sure Ralph retorted reported on Rosario's words with regards to the closure of IGDA Puerto Rico but because Ralph can't really be trusted overall why bother linking to him?—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 21:43, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

Correction, Fart has Rosario on record for blaming the SJWs for the dissolution of IGDA Puerto Rico.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 21:46, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

So you aren't linking to the page because you can't trust it, but you're including the information because it was mentioned by the source. Am I getting this right?--Naqoyqatsi (talk) 22:20, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

It's relevant to say he complained about SJWs and feminists as that's clear from his Twitter but the only citation I can find is on Fart's website which I don't want to use.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 00:09, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

Hey Ryulong, do you know where you could put these rebuttals? FU22YC47P07470 (talk/stalk) 15:27, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

I'm not using that page.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 19:46, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

Addressing the arguments of a hate group, that just gives them more visibility. It creates an image of a "controversy", when there is none, and it will inspire trolls to write "rebuttals to rebuttals", and so on. Only when the arguments are widely known, and the damage is already done, then it makes sense to address them individually. But most people don't care about a group of angry gaming boys and what they believe, so there is no need to refute it point by point. The only reason why anyone pays them any attention is their hate and harrassment. That is all that needs to be addressed. --Petra (talk) 20:18, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

Most people don't care about what some kooks think really happened on 9/11 either, yet we refute those arguments too. That's what RW does. Vulpius (talk) 01:39, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

Why not use the page, Ryulong? You get really really pissed whenever material is cut. Shunt it over there and refute arguments, like you said you intended this page to do. Consider: right now, I could read wade through this article and still have doubts about whether Gamergate actually achieved any journalistic reform, because we don't cover the specifics. And nobody's going to sort through the thousand events on the Timeline for rebuttals. If you care about this, and you wanna silence GG criticism as being totally shit, then pre-write the responses. αδελφός ΓυζζγςατΡοτατο (talk/stalk) 02:32, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

Because content that AgingHippie personally does not like from this page that is removed is different from having to tell Naqoyqatsi how wrong his arguments are whenever he logs in to this website to JAQ off.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 03:31, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

Milo Yiannopoulos

The Milo Yiannopoulos section should really be expanded. This dirtbag is one of the primary forces keeping this "movement" going.

http://i.imgur.com/9i2TVjb.png

A article on the "journalist" mightbe another strategy and aid in also provide much deeper profiling. Also: remember to sign your statements. --Aile Dhoo (talk) 13:54, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

I second the suggestion of a dedicated article for Milo. ConfusedLiberal (talk) 14:28, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

Added to to do list - David Gerard (talk) 18:25, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

While you're at it, maybe an article on Mike Cernovitch would be beneficial too. That way we can just mention his involvement and not provide his whole backstory here.ConfusedLiberal (talk) 22:48, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

Will it include the word "mastubate"?—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 23:31, 15 May 2015 (UTC)