Talk:List of Gamergate claims/Archive1

This is an archive page, last updated 10 May 2016. Please do not make edits to this page.

Archives for this talk page:

Nyar![edit]

Don't forget that whether or not people against GamerGate are bad is of no consequence to the overall validity of GamerGate, or lack thereof. Narky Sawtooth (BoN is paranoid!) 05:26, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

I've added that in, but feel free to edit this if you have any suggestions! Sir ℱ℧ℤℤϒℂᗩℑᑭƠℑᗩℑƠ (talk/stalk) 14:58, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

Red links[edit]

This article is a fucking sea of them. What's with that? Peace. AgingHippie (talk) 20:22, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

They were to the GG page I'd had in my userpage, which strangely seems a lot like the current GG article. I've been changing them out. 32℉uzzy, 0℃atPotato (talk/stalk) 20:32, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

Studies to look at[edit]

http://www.newsweek.com/gamergate-about-media-ethics-or-harassing-women-harassment-data-show-279736 and rebuttals https://medium.com/@cainejw/a-statistical-analysis-of-gamergate-utilizing-newsweek-data-e2bada31ea7e and https://medium.com/@cainejw/an-actual-statistical-analysis-of-gamergate-dfd809858f68

There was an excellent rebuttal to the articles by Caine JW here. Zennistrad (talk) 01:52, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

Strawman-tastic[edit]

“”Gamergate has shown great support for Vivian James, who's female. How can Gamergate be misogynist?

Was this ever said by anybody? And it seems the tubular cat added this in. Wasn't FCP the one saying not to strawman? Narky Sawtooth (BoN is paranoid!) 11:25, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

I'll try and find a quote; this is a standin. When'd I talk about strawmanning? FrizzyCatPotato (talk/stalk) 16:58, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

Better? FuzzyDogPotato (talk/stalk) 17:17, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

I think so, yeah. Also, strawmanning was mentioned here. Narky Sawtooth

(BoN is paranoid!) 23:44, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for reminding me; I've been trying to get quotes, but I've been busy. FüzzyCätPötätö (talk/stalk) 02:23, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

Much better title[edit]

With this title, suddenly I like this article. Gah! Nice one :-) I've directed /r/GamerGhazi here to critique/help. Suggestions in the thread too - David Gerard (talk) 16:09, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

Not Your Shield[edit]

It should be mentioned that the tag was first put out by @j_millerworks (who is a black man), but then the usual suspects broke out the sockpuppets to "signal-boost" it right away. Best to bring up that this isn't just the work of "straight libertarian white guys." Mind you, they're still horrible people regardless of their ethnic backgrounds. For instance, @j_millerworks himself tweeted a fake bioterrorism threat against PAX but then claimed he was drunk when he did it. --Paul S (talk) 19:07, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

Original ZoePost Threads on 4chan[edit]

I've managed to find archives of the first Zoepost threads on 4chan's /r9k/ and /pol/, which demonstrated the sheer amount of misogyny that was involved and how little it had to do with "ethics" until it was spun by /v/ when they picked up on it. Zennistrad (talk) 22:36, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

Add 'em, possibly also add 'em to main article. The FCP Foundation (talk/stalk) 23:04, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

Well, then[edit]

This page caused KiA to blow a gasket. Most of what they're saying is "This isn't complete! So much for RATIONALwiki!" Well, yeah, it's a work in progress. Articles don't just pop up in a day. I guess we're on the right path, here. Narky Sawtooth (BoN is paranoid!) 01:42, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

...But they do have some good points thrown in there. Incorporating. On a related note, I'd rather have them say "these are my claims and these are bad rebuttals" than "these are not my claims." I mean, they're always going to say the former. Narky Sawtooth

(BoN is paranoid!) 02:52, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

Linkpls? 32℉uzzy, 0℃atPotato (talk/stalk) 02:55, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

On 2nd: Yeah, we need sources for the claims. Herr FüzzyCätPötätö (talk/stalk) 03:02, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

Do you really want this link? Most of it is "but this list isn't complete!" and a single comment that's somewhere along the lines of "but Ghazi barely has any users, this is proof that they have no ground!" That last one ignores the fact that, if someone disagrees with GG, they're unlikely to copy the "laugh at those we disagree with" method. Ze Frank has a video (I'll need to find which one) that somewhat covers this, although it's more about YouTube likes/dislikes. It's great for explaining why GG getting excited over up/downvotes on videos and steam reviews is meaningless. I really need to find that video again. Narky Sawtooth

(BoN is paranoid!) 03:56, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

About a recent edit[edit]

The majority of them won't see it. They don't tend to look at the page live. They just archive a specific revision and complain about stuff that's already been fixed. Every time. Narky Sawtooth (BoN is paranoid!) 14:57, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, but it doesn't hurt to try. FuzzyDogPotato (talk/stalk) 15:46, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

Why I removed those two bits[edit]

"Why the hell would anyone dox themselves?"

JMiller did. It's bad to imply that nobody would dox themselves while showing how someone did dox themselves.

"Gamergate's only evidence..."

One person got two people mixed up. I don't think that person's name is "Gamergate." It could be kept in as a factoid, but making them look like the face of Gamergate is cherry-picking. Narky Sawtooth (BoN is paranoid!) 03:14, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

Seems fair. It's interesting how most of the posts decry the "lack" of sources and then fail to provide countersources. Herr FuzzyKatzenPotato (talk/stalk) 03:22, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

Mad mad mad. LlamaPastor31 ^{Something else} 03:27, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

So, shall those two bits be removed again? Also, what is Llama saying "mad mad mad" for? Narky Sawtooth

(BoN is paranoid!) 03:36, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

Why are you calling me Llama? I am not a llama. {{subst:nosubst|User:LlamaPastor31/sig}} 07:14, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

Why remove the anchors?[edit]

They're useful for in-article linking. oʇɐʇoԀʇɐϽʎzznℲ (talk/stalk) 13:37, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

It makes no sense to have an anchor in a section title header. Just use the section title for the link. Besides, none of the anchors are being used.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 21:24, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

"Rebecca Watson just Doxxed a Female Dr on twitter and tagged her place of employment!"[edit]

Reddit post here with image here.

Watson's twitter (and selected responses) here and linked article here.

Negative reaction from other skeptic here.

Positive (?) reaction from other skeptic here.

What do you guys think? Are her actions justified or not? 32℉uzzy, 0℃atPotato (talk/stalk) 15:00, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

The fuck does Rebecca Watson have to do with GamerGate? She's a feminist skeptic. And she's voiced opinions that doxxing isn't that bad before. ikanreed ^{You probably didn't deserve that} 15:43, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

From the reddit post: "Rebecca Watson who, aside being infamous in Atheism+, created an anti#GamerGate video calling us all misogynists and harassers." She's opposed to Gamergate. Sir ℱ℧ℤℤϒℂᗩℑᑭƠℑᗩℑƠ (talk/stalk) 15:47, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

Oh, I see. This is the "everyone not a brain dead moron is part of a movement to stop us and thus evil" conspiracy theory they've got going on. Okay. Carry on. ikanreed ^{You probably didn't deserve that} 15:50, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

More generally, I was asking if her actions were justified. Herr FuzzyKatzenPotato (talk/stalk) 15:51, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

Not really. It's not as shitty as a medical doctor providing (false) private medical information about a patient to the public to defame them, but it's really shitty. ikanreed ^{You probably didn't deserve that} 16:09, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

You would be entirely correct, Ikanreed. Rebecca Watson is one of the EVUL SJWS and needs to be destroyed! GATORS UNITE! (Note: This is partly why I find them so contemptible. They are so easily co-opted.) --Castaigne (talk) 16:29, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

She deleted it and apologized, right? I'm too sleepy to properly comment on the ethics of what she did, but dang... That response. The people upset over this are so not ethical. Narky Sawtooth

(BoN is paranoid!) 15:51, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

Oh, nope. No apology. Well, then. Narky Sawtooth

(BoN is paranoid!) 15:56, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

Now that I think about it, though, here's a good defense of her: She's not getting twenty-thousand people to harass this person, is she? Narky Sawtooth

(BoN is paranoid!) 16:49, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

Rebecca Watson has never had a problem with "doxxing".
Truth is an absolute defense.
On that basis alone, yes, I consider it to be perfectly justified. I don't have a problem with doxxing either. In fact, I think I would be perfectly happy if all anonymity were stripped from the interwebs. --Castaigne (talk) 16:29, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

I just love this response[edit]

From here:

I think it's hilarious that the response is "nuh uh, there's a whole bunch of collusion" and the evidence used to support the collusion is already debunked on elsewhere on the page. FuzzyCatTomato (talk/stalk) 15:20, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

Y'know, that looks like the usual "Jesus will return in my lifetime" babble, right down to the "[We are] the first group to stand up." And as a long-time, very avid gamer, I must say... They sure do think they're the entirety of "gamers." Narky Sawtooth

(BoN is paranoid!) 15:32, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

Another thing: Weren't you around for me messing with the template? Check the documentation, yo! Narky Sawtooth

(BoN is paranoid!) 03:45, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

#NotYourSheild[edit]

Some GGers claim there was an earlier thread where #NotYourShield was founded, without sockpuppet plans and with minority suppot. Thoughts? The FCP Foundation (talk/stalk) 15:26, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

We already know. An in-context version of it is cited somewhere on this wiki. Narky Sawtooth

(BoN is paranoid!) 15:37, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

And the IRC logs are important for it. Narky Sawtooth

(BoN is paranoid!) 15:40, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

I think we cite a chat log here, but the argment is that this chat log came first, and had none of the intent to decieve/coordinate. FU22YC47P07470 (talk/stalk) 15:44, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

I'm a bit fuzzy on the details, but it works out the same either way. Narky Sawtooth

(BoN is paranoid!) 16:53, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

Dan Olson on 8chan vs. Anderson Cooper on Reddit[edit]

One thing that I think is important to bring up is that what Dan Olson did with 8chan is pretty much identical to what Andersoon Cooper did with Reddit's now-infamous banned subreddit /r/Jailbait, except instead of being a niche article with an audience of thousands at best Andersoon Cooper broadcasted it to an audience of millions. Zennistrad (talk) 18:06, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

The New Reactionary Mind: How GamerGate is a Conservative Movement[edit]

A while back I'd written a thing about how GamerGate is, in fact, a conservative movement and how their claims that they're "not right wing" are based on a somewhat naive understanding of the underlying thread of conservatism. I thought this might be good for the page. Zennistrad (talk) 04:49, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

Please bring this old rebuttal to Talk:Gamergate#Deconverting gamergaters? because it is handy right now.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 05:50, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

"GamerGate Achievements"[edit]

http://wiki.gamergate.me/index.php?title=GamerGate_Achievements This list seems comprehensive of GG "success" talking points. If possible, it'd be nice to have a specific response to each. FᴜᴢᴢʏCᴀᴛPᴏᴛᴀᴛᴏ﹐ Esϙᴜɪʀᴇ (talk/stalk) 21:45, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

Count how many regard ethics in video game journalism.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 21:47, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

Every single one, obviously. 32℉uzzy, 0℃atPotato (talk/stalk) 00:06, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

I love this one. "YouTuber Boogie2988 releases a Code of Ethics for his work." That's game-changing. FU22YC47P07470 (talk/stalk) 00:07, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

I was going to bring this up myself, but I never got one of these. Here are some responses:

1, 2: So far, so good.

3-5: Oops, now they're trying to take down sites that disagree. They may not like to put it like that, but as The Washington Post points out, "for targeted sites like Gamasutra, a smaller, gaming industry news site, or Gameranx, a five-person operation, targeting advertisers isn’t just a form of protest: It’s a threat to their very existence."

6: Frank wanted to include that disclaimer in the first place, but the editors thought it was too minor.

7: Painfully obvious that they did this to spite Quinn and to deflect claims of misogyny. (Terrible strategy there, by the way. Hint: the thing to do about those claims is not throw money at the first self-described feminist organization that takes your side. The thing to do is stop slinging mud at "feminists" as a whole.)

8, 9: Obviously it doesn't excuse any of the group's misdeeds, but hey, there's nothing wrong with donating to charity.

10: Agreed, censorship isn't the right response to the Sarkeesian Effect. Pointing and laughing is a far better response.

11: Yep, that's a positive thing Gamergate did. Really. But why is this the only time they listed it? Don't they claim to fight all the harassment they see?

12-21: More attempts to take money away from dissenters. Not an achievement worth being proud of.

22: North never mentioned Gamergate. How is this a Gamergate achievement?

23-27: Donating to charity is always nice, but donations are Not Your Shield from criticism. (And honestly, what point is there in donating as part of Gamergate rather than on your own? Maybe it's something to wanting to belong to a group, but more likely it's the "deflecting criticism" thing.)

28: Exposing doxxers isn't Gamergate's stated mission - at least, not its primary mission, but it's a good thing.

29: Without any doubt? The only thing they established is that doubt exists.

30: Didn't care enough to watch the whole video. I'll just assume the three of them said good things about Gamergate. And if you interpret Gamergate's mission as "getting the media to say good things about Gamergate," then that would make this a success.

31: What an unpleasant thing to say. Hopefully the guy doesn't start multiple campaigns attacking the income of people he disagrees with. Speaking of which...

32: Look at that: another campaign attacking the income of people Gamergate disagrees with!

33-35: And here's more from the first campaign.

36: I approve of Gamergate putting its complaints and goals in writing. It makes the issue that much less confusing. But are the writers really speaking for Gamergate, or just for themselves? In fact, how many Gamergaters even know this "dossier" exists?

37: Heh.

38: A legitimate complaint was resolved appropriately. Good work!

39: Ok, but how is that a Gamergate achievement? It sounds like the correction happened without any Gamergaters getting involved.

40: Even if they're only donating to deflect criticism, they're still donating.

41: Donating to poke fun at the other side? Unnecessary, but again, they're still donating.

42: If only they could take a little fun-poking too. Though to be fair, it wasn't a great joke. And while I didn't read the whole discussion, it sounds like everyone was mature.

43, 44: Why are these even on the list? The blocklist has nothing to do with their stated mission.

45: Another website removes all Gamergate discussion, only now it's a victory?

46: Agreed, that was a bad idea. And as with #42, I didn't read the whole thing, but it sounds like people were mature about it.

47: A dev tries to do something odd, but he can't. How does that make it a Gamergate achievement?

48: And this is why I hate these "operations" so much. This is not "voting with your wallet." Voting with your wallet would mean avoiding Gawker, thereby depriving them of advertising revenue. I know, it won't deprive them of much revenue, but that's how voting works. When a few customers deprive a company of a million dollars, that isn't voting, that's rigging the election. If Gawker really is alienating its readers, then those readers will stop viewing ads. You shouldn't be making that decision for them.

49: Good for you, but this only counts as on-mission if the game was taken down for unethical reasons, which is unclear. (Also, Valve would have to be a game journal, because "ethics in game journalism.")

50: Interesting article. Odd that he doesn't mention that the address/image were posted by mistake... Also, except for the picture at the end (has anyone verified that?), there's no evidence of anything beyond accidental doxxing.

Ok, that covers everything listed for 2014. That's all for now; maybe tomorrow I'll come back and color-code them. Player 03 (talk) 10:22, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

Nice. We should do a side by side. FU22YC47P07470 (talk/stalk) 13:01, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

Color coding done! Green means it was a worthwhile accomplishment. Red means that it's actively harmful, or that the claim is false. Gray means that it's unrelated to their mission, or that Gamergaters can't claim credit, or that the achievement is just plain insignificant. Totals: 19 green, 19 red, 12 gray. Player 03 (talk) 21:01, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

2015 doesn't have nearly as many accomplishments listed, so I guess I'll go ahead and get those out of the way.

51: It's hard to tell if Gamergate is responsible for these, but because it's their stated mission, I think it's fair to assume so.

52: This one looks pretty straightforward. No problems here.

53: TotalBiscuit being attacked, fairly or unfairly, doesn't count as progress. And raising awareness isn't very impressive either, especially considering the almost-nil chance of Gamergate following up on their awareness-raising.

54: See, this is why you shouldn't lump your enemies into one group. "Anti-Gamers"? I guess so, but the people in question were trolling everybody, not just Gamergate. Also, given how many blatant lies he tells, I'd suggest taking his confession with multiple grains of salt.

55: From one of the sources: "It looks like The Verge is now getting on board the ethics train, because the train has no intentions of slowing down or stopping any time soon. Brakes? None. Destination? Ethics City." So the train's going to go straight through Ethics City and out the other side?

56: The person in question doesn't seem to have been involved in Gamergate, but then again, neither was Toys for Tots. (I'm following the news report's example and omitting her name.)

57: Sounds good.

58: Wait, Gamergate supports HLH?!?! (As of this writing, the line reads "GamerGate started a charity in his honor to help support HLH.")

That brings us to 25 green, 19 red, and 14 gray, but I think I might need to add a new color for charity, because as nice as it is, it's not their stated mission. Player 03 (talk) 22:50, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

Added blue for fundraising, but I'd be happy to change it back if they add "donating to charity" to their mission statement. New totals: 13 on-mission achievements, 12 fundraisers, 19 counterproductive projects/false claims, and 14 irrelevant "achievements". Player 03 (talk) 23:10, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

Other Zoe Quinn things[edit]

Some common rebuttals to the argument that Nathan Grayson and Zoe Quinn were not in a sexual relationship before he wrote the articles about her was that they were friends beforehand, and this apparently was proven because of some bullshit about them being friendly with each other on Twitter. I thought it might be pertinent to post Jay Allen's fantastic rebuttal to that claim, since it demolishes the argument that merely being casual friends with someone is a "conflict of interest." Zennistrad (talk) 20:12, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

"Gamergate isn't misogynistic"[edit]

This is a claim that appears often enough that we should debunk it clearly.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 06:39, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

Question about Phil Fish[edit]

Did Gamergate really did that? According to people who saw the dox (I haven't, I'm just parroting what people at /r/SubredditDrama said) it starts with "Hello everyone, I am the head mod over at /V/ and leader of 4chan.org and Anonymous." which makes it pretty obvious that it wasn't 4chan or Anonymous. It couldn't have been GG trying to frame 4chan after moot kicked them about because it was before moot kicked them out. So, who did it? |₹Λ¥$€₦₦ ^{Work that sucker to death} 15:01, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

Gamergate was reveling in it when it happened so there's not that many suspects.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 21:28, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

Clarify[edit]

"This faulty application of AND on WAM!'s data but not on the GGAB data vastly underestimates the harassment." FrothyCatPotato (talk/stalk) 20:25, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

I think this was Narky's addition to the main page a few weeks ago. It's described better there.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 21:27, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

I've rewritten that section. Hopefully it's clearer now. Player 03 (talk) 21:03, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

I had just rewritten it for clarity and you cut out one of the jokes.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 21:29, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

Oops. Yeah, I wondered about that, but I figured you'd put it back if it was important. Player 03 (talk) 22:57, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, it was mine. In more layman's terms, since it's taking a specific (human-picked) subset of harassers from GG and comparing them to an overly inclusive (robot-picked) list of GGers, the actual result is a figure stating that anywhere from .66% to 100% of GGers are harassers. It's basically like comparing the amount of salt in one sea to the amount of water in the world to say that water isn't salty. Narky Sawtooth

(BoN is paranoid!) 14:51, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

Hmm. I was away from this topic for a while. Narky Sawtooth

(BoN is paranoid!) 14:57, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

Ethics policies rebuttal[edit]

I think we should add rebuttals to the claims that some gaming sites (IGN, Escapist, etc.) have changed their ethics policies due to gamergate. I know that some gamergaters say that polygon added ethics policies because of them, but polygon had ethics policies way before. Anyone care to help? Physicsandmath (talk) 18:36, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

Definitely, it's a claim they make a bit - David Gerard (talk) 18:42, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

All I'm aware is that they added clauses concerning Patreons which is apparently anathema for Gamergaters (and libertarians I bet).—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 13:15, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

Adrian Chmielarz and E3 2015[edit]

Has anyone else bothered taking a look at this article supposedly debunking the claims about E3 2015 and female protagonists? - Zennistrad (talk) 18:42, 4 July 2015 (UTC) 18:21, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

Bweep bwoop, context alert[edit]

"Supporting real women in games. Because we're misogynists, right?"
I'm pretty sure "real women in games" is referring to TFYC, and Vivian James is supposed to be a representation of them supporting TFYC. Narky Sawtooth (BoN is paranoid!) 12:31, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

People constantly refer to Vivian James as a living person that they support though. If it's supposed to be a stand in for TFYC, well they're still wrong that they're supporting women.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 20:49, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

I mean that she's a stand-in for the donations, not TFYC. Narky Sawtooth

(BoN is paranoid!) 23:28, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

ZQ self-defense wouldbe-rapist-murderer killing claim.[edit]

Mallorie Nasrallah, a photographer who did a shoot (or techincally, 2 at once) with Quinn almost 8 years ago has weighed in on the decidedly anti-ZQ side. There's a load of complaints, which may be generally trying to make ZQ look bad or may be a genuine account, or some combination thereof, and a lot of hearsay, but crucially she provides an email from ZQ in which Quinn claims to have stabbed a man to death in self defense. MN having done a shoot with ZQ, and the genuineness of the email have been confirmed, most everything else (the roomate did deny ever having blocked the shoot being released) is hearsay as ZQ herself isn't commenting. ZQs defenders are saying her attackers are accusing her of murder & MN is making stuff up, her attackers are accusing her of inventing/imagining the rape-stab-death-incident (and several other attempted rapes she allegedly claimed to have happened). 92.25.139.158 (talk) 08:06, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

You know, if you want to call it other than a justifiable homicide, there's a legal process for that. Elsewise, I suggest buggering off. 173.25.47.250 (talk) 08:17, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

http://idledillettante.com/2014/10/23/five-ridiculous-gamergater-myths-about-zoe-quinn/ —Ryūlóng (琉竜) 08:56, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

This is goddamn nuts, and this probably deserves going in this article (if that cesspool of insane troll logic can be abbreviated into coherent form) - David Gerard (talk) 14:37, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

Indeed. Herr FüzzyCätPötätö (talk/stalk) 15:03, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

Some More #NotYourShield Stuff[edit]

One of the claims that's made on the page is that #NotYourShield started out as an astroturf hashtag campaign. One of the sources cited in the wiki is this article by Ashley Lynch, title "A Final Word on #NotYourShield." Unfortunately, it seems that someone has already taken the liberty of posting their own rebuttal, perhaps someone should take a look at it? Zennistrad (talk) 02:15, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

Both of your links are the same. FuzzyCatPotato!™ (talk/stalk) 03:05, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

Whoops, my mistake. Here's the real rebuttal. Zennistrad (talk) 07:33, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

The author has an avatar meant to mimic @a_man_in_black so I'm sure this is going to be good.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 08:29, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

"We're not an astroturfing campaign we're real people my identity is being erased Brianna faked harassment look at this steam thread". Ah the usual.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 08:34, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

Also, it looks like the post is from /v/ and not /pol/—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 08:35, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

That is a pathetic "rebuttal." Narky Sawtooth

(BoN is paranoid!) 10:31, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

Care to explain why? I'm not reading it. ^{— Unsigned, by: 184.151.222.136 / talk / contribs}^{(signed by bot)} 17:58, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

A quick glance reveals "blah blah blah j_millerworks didn't dox himself blah blah blah Wu tried to incite harassment against herself on the Steam forums blah blah blah." The first bit is corrected at the bottom, but it wasn't removed. Narky Sawtooth

(BoN is paranoid!) 19:02, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

Is this Benghazi or Gamergate[edit]

U carry on more than those crazy wingnuts in Washington do about Benghazi. Just shut up. Women crap at games, known fact in Korea. KimHyung (talk) 11:24, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

Way to make your countrymen look as rock-stupid as you are, there. Good job. Queex _{chthonic murmurings} 11:26, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

Right.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 11:35, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

"Sarah Butts is a pedophile"[edit]

This is a particularly common one, so I feel it's worth addressing. From what I can tell it's usually based on a few 7-to-10-year-old forum posts. As far as I'm aware the similar bestiality allegations were taken from a chatlog that was deliberately taken out of context. Zennistrad (talk) 01:26, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

This has been addressed in not such clear language under List of Gamergate claims#Just plain old libel.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 02:34, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

Could probably do with clear language, idjits are still riding it for all it's worth - David Gerard (talk) 20:29, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

It's been incorporated into the page in multiple places.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 21:07, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

Usefulness![edit]

A go-to cite on Tumblr. So that's nice.

Are all these in? - David Gerard (talk) 07:53, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

Zennistrad is one of us though. Also that list might be outdated.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 13:10, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

Has anyone read any of this? Zennistrad is in here somewhere, I think.^{— Unsigned, by: 68.181.206.58 / talk / contribs}

Considering that the first post is that incredibly ridiculous stretch that Quinn raped Gjoni based on some weird unknown definition of what constitutes "rape" I'm guessing that this person's blog won't be of any help.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 21:32, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

They're referring to Quinn's statements about cheaters potentially exposing their partners to STDs. Narky Sawtooth

(BoN is paranoid!) 22:25, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

That would of course have to mean she actually cheated on him instead of breaking things off with him and moving on while he persistently thought they were still together.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 23:25, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

And now we have to choose, which side of the lover's spat we believe. Or we just choose to believe neither sides.--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ 11:09, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

It is best to avoid alleging someone raped anyone through some weird contrivance of what one party said about infidelity at some unknown point in time. And that's why everything in the randomly linked tumblr blog will not be used.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 14:44, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

That statement is specifically called out about two posts in (Here, to be specific, lines "With regard to the rape allegation, you’re probably right that it was a bit misleading without the context. I regret that a little, though I feel like I should keep my post unedited for archival purposes."). Please reconsider?^{— Unsigned, by: 68.181.206.58 / talk / contribs}

What are we supposed to use though? This "kazerad"'s really bad interpretations of reality? His victim blaming? His accusations of professional victimhood?—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 05:04, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

Do you have specific examples of how his claims are false? Your arguments seems to hinge on how everything some nobody on the Internet says is completely wrong, even with sources attached. (Unrelated: he's not entirely a nobody; he makes this webcomic)^{— Unsigned, by: 68.181.206.58 / talk / contribs}

He's saying Zoe Quinn is a professional victim. He's saying that Quinn and others are privileged and are facing people who don't care about that. There's just a lot of hackneyed talking points deep in this guy's blog. It seems for a long time he's believed all of the Gamergate talking points, despite several of them were debunked weeks into Gamergate. There's another post using the whole "Claire Schumann" fiasco too. And he seems to be firmly in belief that Quinn emotionally abused Gjoni, as opposed to evidence that suggests everything otherwise. He's too far gone. And I've never heard of Prequel tbh.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 06:54, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

Nutshell of why he agrees with Gamergate, albeit reluctantly. It's becoming clear that you're dismissing what he's saying after a few posts when there are a lot of posts with increasing amounts of nuance. I understand that you don't support Gamergate at all, but I'm asking you to read (and consider and possibly incorporate) an opposing source with (in my opinion) actual logic behind its words.^{— Unsigned, by: 68.181.206.58 / talk / contribs}

The purpose of this page is to debunk the incredibly ignorant and factually wrong talking points Gamergate supporters trot out at every opportunity. Kazerad's stance as a supporter of Gamergate and whatever nuances he claims exist does not fit in with the goal here.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 21:39, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

The use of Kazerad's posts serves two purposes: A.) To provide citations for some of the "erroneous" claims or new claims not on the list, and B.) as a rebuttal to counterarguments presented on the page. While I personally believe Kazerad's claims, I'd like to see it incorporated (and probably be ground to dust logically) rather than completely ignored.^{— Unsigned, by: 68.181.206.58 / talk / contribs}

It would probably be unfair to use his blog as constant sources of the claims to be debunked. And also we're not providing Gamergate a venue for rebuttals. They have their own websites to refute claims against them (that we can then cite to refute their counterarguments). But the real crux here is that I don't want to spend any more time than I already have reading Kazerad's blog when you clearly have done so already. So please provide specific entries from his blog that you think might be useful for incorporation on this page in some fashion, and explain why you think they should be incorporated. Say it might be useful to cite a particular claim Gamergate has made. And maybe I could consider an argument he has put forward that attempts to refute one of these other claims if there is a suitable way to refute that as well (other than what appears to be his insistence that #NotYourShield is important rather than it just being the meeting place for Gamergate's token black friends to be trotted out as examples that Gamergate isn't racist).

And as an aside, please sign your posts with four tildes so I don't have to keep tagging all of your comments as unsigned.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 00:06, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

That post uncritically claiming Eron Gjoni is an abuse victim is a red flag. While I understand where the accusation came from and am on good terms with the person originally responsible for making that claim, I have to disagree. This post does a good job of explaining how I feel about the issue. - Zennistrad (talk) 12:47, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

Edit/accuracy question[edit]

I'm probably doing this wrong, sorry in advance, but this bit from the page:

Claim

Eron Gjoni's restraining order against Zoë Quinn was thrown out! That proves Gamergate doesn't harass people!

Rebuttal

Whatever the result is of the legal battles between Quinn and Gjoni has no real bearing on Gamergate's actions. Just because one judge ruled in Gjoni's favor does not mean that everyone else in Gamergate is suddenly exonerated of all that they have done.

Is that claim accurate? It doesn't seem to match the rebuttal: how would a restraining order BY Gjoni AGAINST Quinn getting thrown out be an example of a judge's ruling "in Gjoni's favor?" Sure it isn't supposed to be Quinn's order against Gjoni being thrown out? Just seems...contradictory this way? (I don't know the facts of this claim; I'm just saying that looking at it without context, as-is, the claim and rebuttal seem to be drawing two different conclusions.)^{— Unsigned, by: 24.7.70.225 / talk / contribs}

The order was against Gjoni. The text you pointed out was an error. Thank you for pointing that out.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 03:46, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

A potentially valid point[edit]

I love that RW tried to paint all GG charities as uniformly and singularly spiteful. That's intellectually dishonest at the core of it. While some of the people doing donations probably felt like that, because there are always some people that will do shit like that, there's simply not enough people out there that would be so spiteful as to waste their money throwing it at causes just to piss off A-GG. Especially as many times as it has happened. αδελφός ΓυζζγςατΡοτατο (talk/stalk) 18:40, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

Not sure I see anything resembling a "point" here, much less a valid one. Please elucidate. Peace. AgingHippie (talk) 18:46, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

Original intent matters and has been established in several cases. Also why is that in announcements? Is the containment that bad?—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 21:08, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

To look at later[edit]

http://wiki.gamergate.me/index.php?title=Corruption
http://wiki.gamergate.me/index.php?title=Point-Counterpoint
"Abby "Plebcomics" did dox herself"
deez nuts
BOFA

Cyber-harassment or "Cyber-violence"[edit]

On a related note to the UN appearances from Sarkeesian and Quinn, I feel it would also be prudent to tackle the downright silly claim that "Cyber-harassment/Cyber-violence isn't a thing, there's no real life consequences! Sarkeesian is saying stuff like calling her a liar and she sucks is harassment and wants to censor it! Why are they focusing on this when there's REAL violence going on in other parts of the world?!" I feel it should be pointed out that, in essence, the use of terms like "harassment" and "violence" are essentially elevated terms of "bullying", and on that note, considering the vast number of people who have been victims of cyberbullying (Amanda Todd and Tyler Clementi as the most prominent examples), it's downright silly to claim that there can never be real-life consequences, since it can force people into changes in their own personal life, such as having to employ security to take you to places (as is currently the case with Sarkeesian), fearing for your life when people dox you or turn up at your place of work threatening your life (the latter of which happened with Randi Harper) and of course can make you so miserable that you may feel compelled to suicide, as has happened to numerous cyberbullying victims.

On what Sarkeesian said, while I will grant that the phrasing is poor, when you consider that some of the examples of calling Anita a "liar" includes mass-brigading her with baseless, long-debunked accusations of her being a "scam-artist" and a "fraud" as well as claiming that she's doxed herself and that she's faked threats against her, then hell yes that's an example of harassment. Similarly, the ways that members of Gamergate have used to tell Anita that she "sucks" have included pretty much every female gender-specific insult under the sun, as well as threats of assault, rape, and murder, not to mention attempting to hack her Kickstarter and YouTube accounts, doxing her to the point where she had to flee her home, and threatening places where she is due to speak with massacres unless she doesn't appear. This is the kind of so-called "freeze peach" that Anita and Zoe want to root out, and frankly the sorts of people who engage in such vile harassment absolutely deserve to face dire consequences for their actions, and the fact that these people want to protect that kind of free speech says a hell of a lot more about them than it does about Anita or Zoe.

Finally, on the "Why is the UN focusing on this when it should be focusing on REAL violence", this is the fallacy of relative privation, or in another words another version of Dear Muslima. Humanity is capable of focusing on more than one problem at once, and since there are many real victims of cyber-harassment, that fact is compelling enough to treat it as a problem that should be resolved.

Please let me know what you guys think of this with any edits if necessary, and if I can go ahead and put this in the main article? Jon91919 (talk) 15:25, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

This is a really good answer to a question I posed regarding 'Nonsense Claims' in the Anita Sarkeesian page. Maybe put this there? ^{— Unsigned, by: 136.159.49.117 / talk / contribs} 18:14, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

There've been really bad people speaking before the UN, not some two-bit Youtuber and programmer of a boring game targeted by the GG clowncar, so it's not so bad.--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ ∈)☼(∋ 16:17, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

Jon, seems like a fair point. Add in. Cømяade FυzzчCαтPøтαтø (talk/stalk) 17:11, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

An extreme minority claim[edit]

I keep seeing one person claim that this debacle was the genesis of Gamergate, but he's so far the only person to insist this to be an incontrovertible fact (even though someone has just told him that both Sarkeesian and Quinn were subject to violent threats before March 2014). At what point is it inappropriate to have an entry that just says "Rebuttal: You can't be any further from the truth."?—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 10:14, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

"This is trivially false. The harassment of all involved started well before then. See x y z." - David Gerard (talk) 07:59, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

I've since added it to the page. Maybe you can show w:User:Wnt so he stops repeating the claim.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 23:14, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

If you think I'm touching Gamergate on WP you're on crack - David Gerard (talk) 00:03, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

Heads up[edit]

There's a 'rebuttal to the rebuttal' regarding Christian Hoff Sommers in the section 'Gamergate has support from Feminists!' I think the rebuttal given is a little weak...maybe add that it's only the one prominent feminist they can think of, or go into more detail regarding why she's not necessarily promoting feminist ideals. It's true that someone's employment doesn't automatically discredit their viewpoints...especially when considering how people want to discredit Anita because she worked for a sketchy guy once in college. ^{— Unsigned, by: 108.49.130.99 / talk / contribs} 01:23, 3 November 2015‎ (UTC)

...You clearly misread. Narky Sawtooth

(BoN is paranoid!) 03:00, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

Christina Hoff Sommers isn't a feminist. She's an anti-feminist who calls herself a feminist so her MRA fanboys have someone to point to that says they're not anti-feminist. She does nothing but write and complain about the current state of feminism and repeats MRA lies about rape and the wage gap. That's all we really have to say on it because she has her own page locally. Also, all of the other "rebuttals" on the page were garbage and contradictory, like the claim Gamergate isn't about someone's sex life when then insisting that it's about who someone had sex with, as well as the fact that the other BoN doesn't understand how Gamergate can't understand statistics properly which is just sad.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 04:15, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

Watson v. Sutton[edit]

Paravant are you even reading what I've added? Or are you just blinded by your predisposed hatred towards me for the Brony shit? @FuzzyCatPotato wrote that entry on the Sutton bullshit. I rewrote it so it works better. But you keep protecting the page and blocking me because somehow using references already on the page is apologism? My latest edits are pointing out that Rebecca Watson wasn't even originally responsible for the dox, but PZ Myers was and how fucking obvious it is that she's the one being attacked and not him. What is your problem?—Ryulong (talk) 03:13, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

Someone else not getting attacked for doxxing is not a reason to excuse somebody elses doxxing. I don't give a shit who originally added it, it got removed for defending doxxing from one page and should any other page it shows up on. --"Paravant" ^{Talk & Contribs} 03:16, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

Does anything in this defend doxing at all? No. It's saying Myers is the one responsible and the only reason Watson is targetted is because she's a woman which was absent from the page in the first place. Nothing in my edit is apologism. It's pointing out Gamergate's hypocrisy. If anything this is just blatant abuse of the tools to spite me because you wouldn't be blanket reverting everything I fucking did and inserting a version with shit grammar otherwise.—Ryulong (talk) 03:20, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

This has fuck all to do with spiting you.--"Paravant" ^{Talk & Contribs} 03:27, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

You're blindly reverting everything I do because you believe it says something which it doesn't anymore just like with the Brony shit. Nothing in that diff I pointed out comes even close to apologism for whatever Myers and Watson did. It just points out the misogynistic hypocrisy in going after Watson when Myers was responsible just like how no one fucking cares what Nathan Grayson does anymore but Zoe Quinn is constantly under fire (because he was simply a scapegoat to attack Quinn with). Stop disproportionately reacting to edits I make. You keep locking down these pages and not actually addressing anything I have to say about the content. So tell me what is wrong with this content:

The most obvious problem with Gamergate claiming this as harassment is that Sutton isn't, to our knowledge at least, a Gamergate supporter. The only remote connection to Gamergate is that Rebecca Watson is a feminist who was previously embroiled in an online controversy with the -gate suffix. On top of that, she was only linking to PZ Myers' blog entry where he had outed Sutton, so why aren't people viciously angry at him instead? Oh right. Rebecca Watson is an outspoken feminist.

It fixes a piped link I had previously introduced and connects this to Gamergate by showing that it's a completely out of proportion reaction to something a woman has been accused of doing when a man should be equally if not more to blame for the situation.—Ryulong (talk) 03:31, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

Deflecting criticism of her by going "but she only linked so why aren't you instead attacking him!" does not excuse that she still linked to doxing material. --"Paravant" ^{Talk & Contribs} 03:41, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

Gamergate is built on overreacting to something a woman did. How is the fact that Myers is the one who doxxed Sutton first and Watson only linked to Myers' post of it not relevant? It's attacking her because she's a feminist.—Ryulong (talk) 03:42, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

And I have AgingHippie breathing down my throat because I wrote an awkward sentence but your god awful typos don't get mentioned at all.—Ryulong (talk) 03:45, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

I blame this shitty pages formating for phone view.--"Paravant" ^{Talk & Contribs} 03:50, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

Complaint retracted. Mobile editing is shit on RW because no one's cribbed WMF's mobile view.—Ryulong (talk) 03:50, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

Sarah Nyberg's "tasteless jokes"[edit]

NOTE: You realise last time the RMF Board literally had to block someone from RW for six months by an actual board vote, it was for repeated "just discussing" of pedophilia claims on a talk page. Please don't do that, particularly at the behest of a JAQing gator. It's probably a terrible idea - David Gerard (talk) 23:11, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

"Don't listen to him, it's just a gator!" is terrible. It reveals a "us-vs-them" sort of thinking, which is never constructive and only serves to cloud people's judgement...

At any rate, the claims seems to be backed by a reasonable reference, which seems to be correct. Am I missing something? Because to me all of this seems like a horrible overreaction of the kind we only seem to have on anything Gamergate-related... (Not saying Mona couldn't have acted more ... restrained... by the way). Carpetsmoker (talk) 00:13, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

[EC] Why can we call TheAmazingAtheist and Warren Jeffs pedophiles? Should we revert all edits and ban the editors b/c it's a potentially libelous claim? Herr FuzzyKatzenPotato (talk/stalk) 00:18, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

Warren Jeffs is actually a convicted pedophile though, so not libel there.Petey Plane (talk) 15:21, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

There's a difference in going "this is what is in the chat logs that Gamergaters are using against her" and the fact that Warren Jeffs is a convicted pedophile. Not sure about TJ.—Ryulong (talk) 00:33, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

If it's factual, it's not legally problematic. Do you dispute the accuracy of those logs? Walker Walker Walker 00:39, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

So I think the examples I brought up illustrate a good point. We apparently think it's OK to call someone a pedophile if we've evidence for it. So is our evidence for TAA less than Ms. Nyberg? FuzzyCatPotato!™ (talk/stalk) 00:55, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

Well how about a different question; is it relevant to include someone's sexuality/kink at all unless the person is convicted of a sex crime and/or is an advocate for the repeal of laws against sex crimes (i.e. age of consent, rape, bestiality). If so then we may need to address our policy since we don't allow the activism of pedophilia but we do allow users who hold may have such an illnesses on our site.--Owlman (talk) 01:42, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

I shouldn't have to dispute the accuracy of anything PacWalker. There's nothing relevant in those chat logs to this page. There is no point in giving context to the false accusations. What more do we have to say other than "Gamergaters accuse Sarah Nyberg of being a pedophile based on IRC logs that they obtained from hacking her website"?—Ryulong (talk) 01:53, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

Let me ask again: are they accurate? If so, there is zero legal issue, your dispute is strictly editorial, and you should abide by the consensus attained here that you've conveniently revdel'd (and further undo said revdeling). If not, how does that jive with her admission that they are? Walker Walker Walker 02:02, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

Are you seriously arguing that we should include specific reasons why she's been called a pedophile simply because she's said that the chatlogs they hacked are legitimate?—Ryulong (talk) 02:22, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

IF you're going to address that GG claim (and you are), you can't really not discuss why it's made and what evidence there was. Walker Walker Walker 02:25, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

The text DID NOT call her a pedophile. It said only what she admitted to. Namely, that she had long ago claimed a bunch of shit about being a pedophile, as well as admiration for white supremacism. She did do all of that.---Mona- (talk) 02:28, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

It is not actionably defamatory to accurately quote what people have said about themselves. End of.---Mona- (talk) 02:30, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

Why go into further detail other than "Gamergate makes these claims because of a chatlog they hacked to find"? Why give any context into the attacks simply because they're things someone said 10 years ago? Is it seriously just because she admitted she said those things as extremely black humor?—Ryulong (talk) 02:33, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

That's an argument you were and are welcome to take up with Tallulah and the users that supported her edits -- on the relevant talk page. It is not your place to decree them illegal, hide them, all discussion of them, and have her blocked.---Mona- (talk) 02:38, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

The only purpose of Tallulah's edits was to add a link to the hitpiece and some context from that hitpiece. I thought it was libelous because of how it was introduced here. It's disingenuous at best, libelous at worst, and factually wrong in other ways.—Ryulong (talk) 02:47, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

Agree with Mona. Herr FuzzyKatzenPotato (talk/stalk) 02:53, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

What's the "disingenuous" part? Is the paraphrasing disagreeable in some way, i.e. was that in fact not the substance of her remarks? Walker Walker Walker 02:56, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

Fine. It's not fucking libel. But I still disagree that

Chat logs from an IRC room I was in nearly a decade ago were leaked to gamergate. To say the contents of those logs were not flattering would be putting it lightly. They are, in some ways, much what you’d expect from an early-2000’s chatroom of 4chan expats trying too hard to outdo each other for shock value. Even with that context, much of what I said was gross and disturbing, and I have no interest in defending it.

means it's fine for Tallulah to insist that we say what she means by that and cite Breitbart for the source? They didn't "uncover posts". They hacked her website and found chatlogs and pored through them for anything they could use against her despite what they found being exactly what they do on a daily basis.—Ryulong (talk) 03:00, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

Okay, a few things...

Who's the "JAQing gator" here? Me? Bit of an assumption, don't you think?
If accusations of paedophilia are too touchy for RW, then the only logical option would be to purge this article of all references to Sarah Nyberg. Accusations of paedophilia are the central topic where she's concerned.
How is it libellous to recap information published in the Breitbart article (or, more specifically, in screencaps of Nyberg's chatlogs that are reproduced in the Breitbart article)? Yes, I'm aware that Breitbart is a right-wing tabloid rag, and that Milo Yiannopoulos is a muckraking hack. But they are still subject to libel laws, and anything they publish will have been approved by their legal team. If they can say it, then from a legal point of view, we can repeat it.
Considering that the article specifically mentions the Breitbart piece, why shouldn't I link to it as a reference?

I notice that the current edit of the article has moved away from defending Nyberg and focuses more on criticising Gamergate's handling of the affair. I think that's fair enough. I'm not here to defend Gamergate or its tactics, I'm just bothered by attempts to portray Nyberg as an innocent victim. I've looked at her posts, I've formed my own opinion on her (with neither Milo Yiannopoulos nor Arthur Chu telling me what to believe), and I resent my viewpoint being dismissed as "myths and lies". Tallulah (talk) 11:14, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

To your points

You were accused JAQing off by insisting we add content that is touchy and only exists to sling mud at a person who is targetted by Gamergate.
The page can say that Sarah Nyberg was accused of pedophilia by Gamergaters. There's just no reason for RW to expound on the details of that accusations.
Because the page isn't about her. It's about what Gamergate has done to her because she points out the shit they do. Breitbart's bread and butter is taking things entirely out of context and cherrypicking the worst things anyone has said in order to completely destroy them. The fact that their legal team neutered his article over the course of a week means that it's the bare minimum of what Milo could use to attack her with and still get away with it. And just because they can publish it doesn't mean we should repeat it.
I'm fairly certain the article contains Ms. Nyberg's (male) birth name and other aspects of her being doxxed by Gamergaters, such as a photograph of her from before she transitioned. Yiannopoulos has done this with pretty much every Gamergate target that he can, such as with Zoe Quinn's (former?) legal name and Gamergate's mythology surrounding Brianna Wu's gender identity. Out of respect, and because Breitbart is a piece of shit tabloid, we shouldn't link to them.

Also, maybe if you didn't express the opinion that you don't think she's an innocent victim because the only thing she's guilty of is being a 4chan asshole when she was a deeply depressed teenager. If your only opinion of her is from the chatlogs (which were obtained illegally) then that's fucked up. Her blog, which is cited, clearly states she knows what she said was beyond the pale and cannot defend anything she said, but that's clearly not who she is now or has been in nearly a decade so deciding that the article now has to take an accusatory tone towards this person who isn't a subject outside of how Gamergate has attacked them is fucked up. As is your insistence that any sort of article needs to be made about her because of how she interacts with TERFs.—Ryulong (talk) 12:15, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

"insisting we add content that is touchy and only exists to sling mud"... no, what I objected to is the article taking Nyberg's defence as gospel truth. If you want to downplay the accusations altogether and just have a brief he-said/she-said summary that gives the reader room to decide for themselves, that's fine by me.

"just because they can publish it doesn't mean we should repeat it." My point was that, legally, we can repeat it. This was my response to the libel concerns. Whether or not we should is a separate issue, I acknowledge.

"Also, maybe if you didn't express the opinion that you don't think she's an innocent victim because the only thing she's guilty of is being a 4chan asshole when she was a deeply depressed teenager." That sentence doesn't even make coherent sense.

"your insistence that any sort of article needs to be made about her because of how she interacts with TERFs" - er, insistence? I suggested such an article, in a single post, and as nobody gave a positive response I did not push the suggestion any further. Tallulah (talk) 14:30, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

Maybe it's because you think defense of Sarah with regards to this particular attack conflates apologism for anything that she said which isn't the case. Defending her as a person against baseless attacks on her character isn't defending the flimsy justification for the attack.

We can quote Breitbart but we don't have to.

My apologies for my awkward phrasing there. I think it's bullshit that you've decided to judge her for shit she presently realizes was wrong by what appears to be mild victim blaming on your part simply because of the nature of what she said 10 years ago which she recognizes as bad taste humor she no longer indulges in.

And acknowledged.—Ryulong (talk) 14:49, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

Okay, you think I'm a bad person for being suspicious of Nyberg. You're entitled to that opinion. And trust me, coming to the conclusion I did was pretty painful. I struggled with whether or not I was being fair on her. I later cut off a swathe of Twitter contacts who still stood by her, including several people I was very fond of (despite what David Gerard seems to think, I'm not a Gamergate supporter). It wasn't easy for me. But I've looked at her posts, and I remain unconvinced that she was "trolling" or "edgelording". Her defence, to me, seems less like an honest expression of a desire to turn over a new leaf and more like an excuse to avoid facing up to her past. I don't expect the article to push this point of view, but I think it is reasonable for it to at least acknowledge - even implicitly - that this view exists and cannot be dismissed as mere "myths and lies". Tallulah (talk) 15:13, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

It's weird to claim that she's trying to avoid "facing up to her past" when that medium link reveals that she actually handed over the logs to the police who concluded that no crime was committed on her part. People grow up from their shitty teenage edgelord phase, except for Gamergators who are stuck in it forever. Typhoon (talk) 15:33, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

People have vomited up the red pill mid GG.—Ryulong (talk) 15:35, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

I'm leery about going any further into this discussion lest I face post deletion and banning, but did Nyberg get in touch with the police before or after Yiannopoulos had done the same? If it's the latter, then it's not a particularly brave move on her part. She couldn't have got into any more trouble than she already was. Tallulah (talk) 15:39, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

KAFKATRAP DETECTED. (Times 2!) Hipocrite (talk) 15:53, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

Okay, I have no idea what's going on now. I should probably bow out. Tallulah (talk) 15:55, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

Yes, she did contact the police and a lawyer while Milo's article went out in order to handle the false reports that were being made on her.—Ryulong (talk) 21:10, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

I don't really see how Sarah didn't own up to her past -- she admitted she did it, said she shouldn't have and that what she had said was terrible, said that she's endeavoring to be a different person now, and as far as I can tell, has not been re-offending. I'm not sure what other check boxes she would need to hit.

That being said, while several bits of her edgelording (like the paedophile stuff) is easily dismissable as fantasy merely by checking the claimed events against reality, stuff like white supremacy apologism isn't -- and I don't think it's fair to rely on her word alone that none of it was ever sincere, especially when that's a metric that we're judging much of GG on.

However, the key note is that, for all intents and purposes, she has strongly repudiated that behavior, and I think that's a much stronger message -- that GG is hypocritically going after someone for once doing what they do as often as they breathe, and yet this person was able to recognize that that behavior was wrong and rejected it. Liiiiiike...I dunno, if a cop who had once targeted minorities rejected that life and became a whistleblower, the cops being whistleblown tried to claim the moral high ground and said that cop should be imprisoned for what they did in the past, while beating up minorities, trying to hide that the whole reason they're attacking this person is that the first cop rejected that life. Hell, if there's not a name for that kind of fallacy already, there should be.

Also, we still need to remove that stuff from the TAA page.KrytenKoro (talk) 15:57, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

I did that yesterday.—Ryulong (talk) 21:10, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘" If they can say it, then from a legal point of view, we can repeat it." That's not a good way to put it. Some sites may commit libel because they don't give a shit, and/or their lawyers could suck, and/or they ignore their lawyers. My point is that Breitbart is not likely to totally not care if it opens itself to serious defamation damages, and moreover, they were not sued. But the critical point is: Because the woman actually did say what they claim, and she admits it, they are safe in publishing. As are we. (Technically, this is defamation -- It's just that an absolute defense to defamation is that the defamatory statements are true.) I do think the issue merits coverage because it is interesting information about the GG controversy, but I'd be sympathetic toward Sarah's explanation as to how long ago this was, and where her head was then.---Mona- (talk) 19:32, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

Useful somewhere[edit]

This writeup about the "Alison Prime" fiasco probably has use somewhere here.—Ryulong (talk)

Take a step back[edit]

Now that you can all see just how crazy Ryulong is, isn't it time to re-evaluate your stance on certain things? For anyone to believe what this wiki seems to about GamerGate, requires a Herculean level of cherry-picking and denial of common sense.

The very first claim, about Gjoni's 'rant', do you still believe all that? Christ, Gjoni is accused of physical assault in that article with NO proof provided, besides a very anecdotal second-hand account. How in the unholy fuck is that 'Rational' ?

This whole site needs to take a step back and re-evaluate what rationality really is.

Can you seriously not question the integrity of articles that were subject to thousands of edits by people with such obsessive compulsion? - ^{— Unsigned, by: 46.7.184.101 / talk / contribs}

Yeah, no. It turns out a pile of us were not in fact under a hypnotic Ryulong spell, actually read the sources and actually noticed which out of Gjoni and Quinn spent the sixteen months since the Zoe Post doing everything they could to keep harassing the other and which just continued not to want anything to do with the other. Assume we actually know the material - David Gerard (talk) 01:03, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

This article and you actually knowing the material are a contradiction in terms. Try again. 192.249.132.237 (talk) 10:11, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, Gjoni was put under a gag order, while Quinn set up alerts to monitor his online activity. What did Gjoni do that was harassment in those months? Quinn is not someone anyone should be backing , she's abusive as hell.

The whole page needs a rewrite. I mean for Chrissake, Joshua Goldberg is a textbook Gator? "He's a right-wing batshit libertarian free speech reactionary culture warrior who doesn't give a shit about video games"

The idea that GamerGate doesn't care about games is embarrassingly false. ^{— Unsigned, by: 46.7.184.101 / talk / contribs}

^{[citation needed]} αδελφός ΓυζζγςατΡοτατο (talk/stalk) 02:32, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

GG embraced Jack Thompson. It's impossible to say GG is about games at that point. Also, I wanna know your score as a real gamer - David Gerard (talk) 07:58, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

No, it didn't.

Please sign your posts with four sets of "~"'s, if you plan on sticking around. - Kitsunelaine ^{「Beware. The foxgirls are coming.」} 10:14, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

Second IP saying that this is basically a case of poorly done associations done to demonize an entire spectrum of people, specifically the type that's touted around by Right wing groups to discredit feminism (Via nutpicking) and socialism (Via nutpicking, again.). There's a difference between agreeing with somebody's statements in a specific encounter and all of them. It's why recruitment tactics from Neo-Nazi's don't involve saying a simple, possibly agreeable statement like "Trump is really popular because he's given up on trying to hide his racism." or "Obama's term in office shows he shouldn't have gotten the Nobel Peace Prize" and going "Gotcha, you agreed with me, a Neo-Nazi! You are now one of us!" 90.195.252.170 (talk) 01:10, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

UN Cyberfailure retread[edit]

Okay, Let's have a second look at the UN report now that both the event and aftermath are done, and clear up some alligator shaped strawmen that Draggin'Dragon and chums ended up making.

Claim --The UN report Cyber Violence Against Women & Girls: A Worldwide Wake-Up Call uses anti-gaming rhetoric and Anita Sarkeesian supported it! Rebuttal --Gamergate is getting its panties in a knot over a single citation in a single sentence in this 70 page report by the UN Broadband Commission. This one citation was written by Michele Steinberg, one of Lyndon LaRouche's cronies. This one citation used to source one sentence about the normalization of violence in video games, that is immediately followed by a statement that such discussion is related to but not within the scope of this one report, apparently automatically invalidates the whole of the report in Gamergate's eyes. The citation may be shit but at least everyone can recognize that. Gamergate is also only mentioned twice in the whole report, and that's in reference to both Zoë Quinn and Anita Sarkeesian being women who were attacked online. And Gamergate obsessing over this report on how to stop cyberviolence, and how it could allegedly be considered censorship of them, says more about them than it does about the report.

Counter-Rebuttal:

It's not just one citation. Ignoring obvious mistakes that show that the report was basically a first draft (The empty cites and c:// drive cite) and the fact that more than one report was used misleadingly (A localized report on harassment via WhatsApp) became this

"The use of WhatsApp instant messaging, for example, has become, according to some reports, the latest harassment tool of choice in countries like India and Malaysia, and increasingly around the world."

This is the infamous c:// drive report, by the way.

Another quote from articles: "the Pew report quoted in the paper conveniently ignores the research center's finding that men experience online harassment more often than women, although they are less likely to be sexually harassed or stalked."

https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20150927/13460532378/un-broadband-commission-releases-questionable-report-cyber-violence-against-women.shtml

http://nymag.com/scienceofus/2015/09/uns-cyberharassment-report-is-really-bad.html

Finally, the UN, Zoe Quinn and Randi Harper have disavowed, apologized and also participated in taking apart this report, as quoted in these motherboard articles:

http://motherboard.vice.com/read/united-nations-apologizes-for-fault-ridden-cyberviolence-report

http://motherboard.vice.com/read/im-disappointed-zoe-quinn-speaks-out-on-un-cyberviolence-report

Something Anita Sarkessian has at the very least not made a comment on so far, be it disapproval or not.

Claim Cyber-harassment/Cyber-violence isn't a thing, there's no real life consequences! Rebuttal In essence, the use of terms like "harassment" and "violence" are essentially elevated terms of "bullying", and on that note, considering the vast number of people who have been victims of cyberbullying (Amanda Todd and Tyler Clementi as the most prominent examples), it's downright silly to claim that there can never be real-life consequences, since it can force people into changes in their own personal life, such as having to employ security to take you to places (as is currently the case with Sarkeesian), fearing for your life when people dox you or turn up at your place of work threatening your life (the latter of which happened with Randi Harper) and of course can make you so miserable that you may feel compelled to suicide, as has happened to numerous cyberbullying victims.

Counter-Rebuttal:

"Cyber VAWG includes hate speech (publishing a blasphemous libel), hacking (intercepting private communications), identity theft, online stalking (criminal harassment) and uttering threats. It can entail convincing a target to end their lives (counselling suicide or advocating genocide). The Internet also facilitates other forms of violence against girls and women including trafficking and sex trade. " - Cyber Violence Against Women and Girls

http://www2.unwomen.org/~/media/headquarters/attachments/sections/library/publications/2015/cyber_violence_gender%20report.pdf?v=1&d=20150924T154259

"I worry that they’re talking about all these categories of things and putting it under the heading of violence against women." - Ken White.

There was more criticism of the fact that they created a "phrase that sounds like it's straight out of a 1990s episode of 60 Minutes" (Randi Harper quote) and used it to define not only threats but Human trafficking. People don't deny this happens, people deny the legitimacy of "cyberviolence".

Claim Sarkeesian is saying stuff like calling her a "liar and "she sucks" is harassment and wants to censor it!

Rebuttal While the phrasing was admittedly poor, when we consider that some of the examples of calling Anita Sarkeesian a "liar" includes mass-brigading her with baseless, long-debunked accusations of her being a "scam-artist" and a "fraud" as well as claiming that she's doxed herself and that she's faked threats against her, then hell yes that's an example of harassment. Similarly, the ways that members of Gamergate have used to tell Sarkeesian that she "sucks" have included pretty much every female gender-specific insult under the sun, as well as threats of assault, rape, and murder, not to mention attempting to hack her Kickstarter and YouTube accounts, doxing her to the point where she had to flee her home, and threatening places where she is due to speak with massacres unless she doesn't appear. This is the kind of so-called "freeze peach" that she and Zoë Quinn want to root out. Frankly the sorts of people who engage in such vile harassment absolutely deserve to face dire consequences for their actions, and the fact that these people want to protect that kind of free speech says a hell of a lot more about them than it does about the people they claim are "culural authoritarians".

Counter-rebuttal: Honestly, there isn't one. Zoe and Anita were not talking about singular events but the sheer masses of criticisms and more they got daily, with varying degrees of sincerity. It's no different than the stress Totalbiscuit and many famous streamers are under by how interactive you can be with your "fanbase" online.

Claim Why is the UN focusing on this when there's REAL violence going on in other parts of the world?! Rebuttal This is the fallacy of relative privation in action, a standby of MRAs. Humanity is capable of focusing on more than one problem at once, and since there are many real victims of cyber-harassment, that fact is compelling enough to treat it as a problem that should be resolved.

Counter-rebuttal: This is pretty much a "There's starving children in africa" deflect that doesn't work.

90.195.252.170 (talk) 16:59, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

cool story bro - Kitsunelaine ^{「Beware. The foxgirls are coming.」} 01:16, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

on a more serious note: Your first point is bad because it's known because the UN subcommittee took it down for further review, and doesn't have any actual bearing on Gamergate or cyberviolence.

Your second point is bad because you're attacking the authors of the report again rather than it's substance.

Your third point is bad because you're equating the harassment directed at Gamergate's targtets as "criticism".

Your fourth point is bad because going "There's starving children in africa" is the fallacy of relative position. - Kitsunelaine ^{「Beware. The foxgirls are coming.」} 01:22, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

Okay, anyone who's not this genius wanna take a bite?

First off, I was agreeing with the third and fourth points. Perhaps if you were reading a little more closely rather than typing with hulk rage at "de ebiny" you'd see that I was justifying the third rebuttal with more statements and agreeing with the core part of the fourth!

The first point is sound because both the first and second rebuttals are painfully obvious strawmen punching exercises put there back when we had a revdelling idiot out to remake his private Ideological Echo Chamber. It isn't just one Citation, I quoted that. The fact you don't want to even note that this report was essentially disowned by nearly everyone involved is nothing but pathetic points scoring, like everything GG did with Nyberg.

My second point is not attacking the authors like you just said, but quoting how the Report used a definition of "Cyber-violence" that practically everyone who dissected the thing hated and found "Troubling", "Lacking nuance" and "problematic". Finally, the "claim" used is pretty much the definition of a strawman, because nobody denies that "[...]hate speech (publishing a blasphemous libel), hacking (intercepting private communications), identity theft, online stalking (criminal harassment) and uttering threats. It can entail convincing a target to end their lives (counselling suicide or advocating genocide). [...] trafficking and sex trade." all don't exist.

tl;dr Actually read before you dismiss "De Ebiny".90.195.252.170 (talk) 01:59, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

Starting from the Top[edit]

This entire article is so laughably an exercise in arguing against strawmen to an echo chamber that it's actually kind of daunting. I guess it's like if somebody handed one of you an entire bible and said "Debunk it." So I guess I'll just start at the start.

"Eron Gjoni made a 9000-word rant designed to gather trolls willing to drive Quinn off the internet, and, preferably, to suicide."

Please provide any citation confirming that Eron Gjoni wrote this with intent the to create an internet hate mob, or failing that argue your case. I can provide editorials, including from the very far-left social-justice-sphere asserting that the Zoe Post is a harrowing tale from an emotionally abused and gaslighted victim ; I don't agree with this assessment anymore than the 'hateful revenge porn' one, but it should go to show that there's definitely room for interpretation and simply stating your opinion of the piece as unquestionable fact isn't good enough.

Anyways, following the hyperlink to the gamergate article proper, there are two citations presumably in support of this assertion. One is to a personal blog authored by Margarett Pless, a staunch anti-gamergater who I mainly remember for doxing a feminist charity and her hilarious attempts to crowdsource a swatting on a PUA pro-gamergate moron. This is not a person whose personal blog makes for a credible citation anywhere, let alone in a drama she's been up to her elbows in for the past year. The other citation is an interview with Zoe herself, quoting her as stating that Eron's purpose was to create an online hate mob. This is extremely disingenuous when the statement you're citing is, verbatim "His stated purpose was to appeal to trolls who had a history of hating Quinn, namely the 4chan and Reddit users who had been on her case for a year and a half." Yes, it was his stated purpose. Stated by Zoe Quinn. This is an incredibly obvious and transparent attempt to suggest that Eron Gjoni stated that he wrote the Zoe Post to raise an online lynch mob, when he stated nothing of the sort. Somebody's "alleged purpose" infers somebody else alleged it. Somebody's 'stated purpose' infers they themself stated it. I find it very difficult believe that the person responsible for this didn't do it knowingly and deliberately. Finally, unless I've somehow missed it, where is any mention of Gjoni attmpeting to drive Zoe 'preferably to suicide' ever mentioned, in either of those citations. Was the original author simply editorializing? Is it a Scientific Point of View to just announce opinions as fact and then to sneakily twist our words around to make it appear that he confessed to it? And hell, throw in a completely fabricated "also he wanted to drive her to suicide" for good measure? Seriously (talk) 06:45, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

Missing the point. That section needs to be removed as Eron Gjoni is not a member of Gamergate; any harm caused by the Zoepost is not harm caused by Gamergate. Eron's intentions and goals are entirely unrelated to ethics in video game journalism, and the post was written long before the movement came into being. Anything concerning Eron's actions is out of place here. 192.249.132.237 (talk) 09:39, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

COOL STORY BRO - Kitsunelaine ^{「Beware. The foxgirls are coming.」} 09:54, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

Also, socjus is actually cubical in nature - David Gerard (talk) 09:56, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

...Gamergate is based around that post. Narky Sawtooth

(BoN is paranoid!) 09:59, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

The historical revisionism that GGers are spouting in here is starting to get crazy. Typhoon (talk) 10:02, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

Certainly. But that post is not Gamergate. A group that comes into being because of an event is not itself responsible for an event, especially when their motivations, actions, and stated aims are completely different from eachother. Kindly stop circle-jerking about how horrible you imagine Gamergate to be and live up to your damn name. 192.249.132.237 (talk) 10:04, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

"But I thought this was supposed to be RATIONALWiki!" Drink! - Kitsunelaine ^{「Beware. The foxgirls are coming.」} 10:07, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

Forgive me for mistaking you for a place concerned with accuracy instead of propaganda. 192.249.132.237 (talk) 10:09, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

Eron is still tied to the origins of gamergate, therfore he stays, and so does Zoepost.Keter (talk) 10:13, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

No. Eron is not a member of Gamergate. He has never claimed to be. His actions are not Gamergate's actions. Things that occurred prior to the existence of the movement and group of people that identify as Gamergate cannot be used to justify the statement that 'Gamergate does harm'. This is elementary logic. To state that a group harms others, you must point to examples of people inside that group harming others, not people who are outside of the group and actions prior to the founding of the group. 192.249.132.237 (talk) 10:15, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

I thought Gamergate didn't have members - David Gerard (talk) 10:28, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

192, saying something over and over again doesn't make it true. Eron's stated purpose for the Zoepost, at the time and after the fact, was to raise up a hate mob against Quinn. It's documented. The fact that he's subsequently tried to keep that mob at arm's length is deniability that's only plausible to the terminally gullible. Although, I suppose, dishonest supporters of him and the hate mob he stirred up might also claim that it's plausible. Queex _{chthonic murmurings} 10:35, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

No, it wasn't. This is not documented. Your sources do not support this. 192.249.132.237 (talk) 10:36, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

Saying that doesn't make your argument for you. Put up or shut up. - Kitsunelaine ^{「Beware. The foxgirls are coming.」} 10:39, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

Do you understand how the burden of proof works? I am not the one making the assertion. How do you want me to 'put up' that something isn't documented? 192.249.132.237 (talk) 10:41, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

You're the one pretending our sources and documentation isn't there. You haven't gone to any lengths to prove that this is the case. Have you even read the article? - Kitsunelaine ^{「Beware. The foxgirls are coming.」} 10:42, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

I've debunked the whole damn pack of lies at length on other fora. But we need to start from the beginning, with baby steps. Your sources and documentation aren't there. I can't prove an absence. Prove a presence, or shut up. 192.249.132.237 (talk) 10:44, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

Put up or shut up, BoN. - Kitsunelaine ^{「Beware. The foxgirls are coming.」} 10:46, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

Learn how the burden of proof works, or shut up, Kitsunelaine. 192.249.132.237 (talk) 10:51, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

We do know. We have presented evidence. Now you need to point out specific flaws with it rather than try to handwave it away. Any chance you'll manage that? Queex _{chthonic murmurings} 10:56, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

(EC) 192, go and read that interview he gave. Seriously, go and do it. It's pretty obvious that malice was his primary motive and he flat out states that he expected his audience to lash out against her. Then read his participation in #burgersandfries and try to hand wave that away. See if you can come back here and proclaim that his actions were unrelated to gamergate. We could do with a good laugh. Queex _{chthonic murmurings} 10:47, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

'That interview'? So specific. It doesn't exist, and you know it. 'It's pretty obvious' doesn't mean it's a 'stated purpose'. You have clearly confirmed that you are willfully lying. 192.249.132.237 (talk) 10:49, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

here you go - Kitsunelaine ^{「Beware. The foxgirls are coming.」} 10:52, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

I've never heard of this 'Eron Gnoji' chap. Maybe spell the name right of the guy you're libeling next time? 192.249.132.237 (talk) 10:53, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

Maybe learn to make an actual argument. - Kitsunelaine ^{「Beware. The foxgirls are coming.」} 10:54, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

(EC) And in case you're too lazy to do that: the particular article in question. It's actually rather fair and portrays Eron about as sympathetically as he can be. Queex _{chthonic murmurings} 10:56, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

While I read this, I'm just going to go ahead and point out that I am not the editor that argued anything about Eron. You're confusing me with a different IP editor. While I happen to share his opinions, my argument is that the Zoe post is not relevant to this article because it predates Gamergate, and the specific context it is used in is 'Gamergate hasn't harmed anyone'. Gamergate is a consumer movement kicked off by events surrounding this post, but this post was not authored by Gamergate. Also, the link looks dead, but I'm goig to screw around with it after I hit submit. EDIT NEver mind, it wasn't dead, but it's this horrible hitpiece. You'll need to be more specific, because there's nothing here that's at all concrete. 192.249.132.237 (talk) 11:00, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

I think you should actually make a case against the article instead of just declaring it a hitpiece. - Kitsunelaine ^{「Beware. The foxgirls are coming.」} 11:03, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

I think you should actually point me to what in this giant 3-page diatribe is supposed to prove your point, if you want me to take you seriously. 192.249.132.237 (talk) 11:06, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

But you already know enough to declare it a hitpiece. Perhaps you should air your grievances instead of sidestepping when questioned on them? - Kitsunelaine ^{「Beware. The foxgirls are coming.」} 11:09, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

My grievances are off-topic. 192.249.132.237 (talk) 11:10, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

When you bring them up you make them on topic, honey. That's how conversation works. - Kitsunelaine ^{「Beware. The foxgirls are coming.」} 11:12, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

If you think that's a diatribe, you have clearly never read anything that GG has written. Or, you know, you're just not that bright. Queex _{chthonic murmurings} 11:07, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

(EC) How can a consumer movement be kicked off by an event that has nothing to do with consumer issues? The point is that Gamergate is just branding slapped onto a bunch of reactionary chucklefucks that have been active since way back when. The most ridiculous parts of GG are the feeble attempts to try and claim it's something to do with consumer issues, or journalistic ethics, or whatever pitiful lie the mob is trying to pitch this week. They were suckers, drawn in by Gjoni to act as his personal army because he was a bitter, needy and abusive person, and his target was the usual kind of target they went for. Queex _{chthonic murmurings} 11:07, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

The Flounce that Never Was[edit]

The Zoe post incidentally exposed consumer issues, such as corruption in the indie game developer scene. It's quite simple. I'm done with you people and your propaganda now, though. You aren't willing to listen to reason, and resort to personal attacks whenever your lack of evidence gets called out. Enjoy your awful delusions. 192.249.132.237 (talk) 11:09, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

No it didn't- because the central claim - 'slept with people for positive coverage' is demonstrably untrue. It's so indefensible that even most GGers don't even try to peddle it any more. You need to get with the programme your brethren are setting, otherwise you'll be really letting the side down. And please, stick the flounce this time. Queex _{chthonic murmurings} 11:11, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

Who said anything about journalism? I didn't. Zoe slept with her boss, Joshua Boggs. The journalism angle came in later. 192.249.132.237 (talk) 11:12, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

Eron admitted the Zoe post was mostly fabricated to stir the pot of internet drama. As we do not know how much of it is factual, please stop using it as a source. :) - Kitsunelaine ^{「Beware. The foxgirls are coming.」} 11:12, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

You're lying. Stop lying. 192.249.132.237 (talk) 11:13, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

Even if that allegation is true, it's still not a consumer issue. How can a consumer movement be kicked off by an event that has nothing to do with consumer issues? Queex _{chthonic murmurings} 11:17, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

That's like asking how a guy on holiday being shot can start a world war.Keter (talk) 11:21, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

Except he wasn't on holiday and wasn't a random guy. Top analogy there, skip. Queex _{chthonic murmurings} 11:34, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

bro did you even read the article we linked you

"As Gjoni began to craft “The Zoe Post,” his early drafts read like a “really boring, really depressing legal document,” he says. He didn’t want to merely prove his case; it had to read like a potboiler. So he deliberately punched up the narrative" - Kitsunelaine ^{「Beware. The foxgirls are coming.」} 11:19, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

Also see this where it's shown that he deliberately convenes among people as to how to attract as much hate as he possibly can to Zoe. The Zoe post is not a trustworthy source in any sense of the word. It's laughable to suggest as much, as it is an actual hitpiece, unlike the stuff you seem to think are hitpieces. - Kitsunelaine ^{「Beware. The foxgirls are coming.」} 11:24, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

This is correct. He also corroborated it with others incuding his own mother.Keter (talk) 11:21, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

Umm... the same mother that he admits told him that he shouldn't publish it? How can she corroborate anything, unless she was peeking in Quinn's window watching? Queex _{chthonic murmurings} 11:25, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

If she told him not to publish, she must have logically had an unpublished draft of it.Keter (talk) 11:29, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

Which is only evidence that a draft existed, and nothing else. We already know he was writing a dishonest screed to sic a hate mob on his ex. What's even your point? Queex _{chthonic murmurings} 11:34, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

@Queex: People using sex to get ahead in an industry is a consumer issue. But even putting that completely aside, let's focus on the Grayson/Quinn thing: Yes, this was proven mostly false. So what? There was reason enough to believe it wasn't, before more information came to light. It got people concerned about the overall issue of corruption in games journalism, and many other examples that weren't disproven came to light very, very quickly. It doesn't take accurate information to start a movement. Why would it?

@Kitsunelaine: Yes, the language used in the post, not the facts. Everything in the Zoe post is true^{[citation needed]}. The tone, however, was workshopped extensively. Eron has said this repeatedly and at length. Stop lying. You can't wish the facts of the Zoe post out of existence because you don't like it. Pless's article is full of lies and her sources do not even support her claims.

@Keter: You've proved my point for me. Franz Ferdinand was not shot by anyone participating in World War 1. The Zoe Post was not written by anyone participating in Gamergate, it is not a valid example of how Gamergate harms people. 192.249.132.237 (talk) 11:26, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

Except that there is no reliable evidence that 'sex to get ahead' ever happened. And even if it did, it is not a consumer issue. It would be a professional conduct issue, but it impacts consumers zilch. Price fixing is a consumer issue. Publishers blacklisting reviewers is a consumer issue. Review sites firing reviewers for giving an advertiser's game a bad review is a consumer issue. Day 1 patches for game-breaking bugs is a consumer issue. These are all consumer issues that GG has never given a shit about, however much they claim to when their ridiculous inconsistency is pointed out. Eron Gjoni participated in GG from the very start, continued to participate, and continues to participate. You're doing nothing but embarrassing yourself by making such wildly counterfactual claims. Queex _{chthonic murmurings} 11:32, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

Wait. Didn't she have sex with the guy weeks after he gave her a "meh" review for her free-to-play game? Or am I thinking of someone else, because it sounds pretty boring and irrelevant to ethics if so.-- Forerunner (talk) 11:36, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

Wow this got silly. Okay, I think "Gjoni isn't part of gamergate" is a silly enough claim not to bother addressing, since he's definitely spent enough time there to be considered part of it now, even if the ZoePost technically predated it. That doesn't change the fact that your citing is absolute garbage. You've still claimed 'Gjoni's stated purpose for X was Y' and cited an interview with somebody else stating his purpose. That's wilfully, shamefully, egregiously misleading and you know it. I came here to check over your citing, top to bottom. The very first claim I look into and you're claiming what Eron Gjoni's stated goal is by citing what Zoe Quinn stated his goal is. How is that not intellectual dishonesty, verging on the level of outright lying? If this is your standards for SPOV this doesn't bode well for the rest of your page. Seriously (talk) 13:38, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

That's the world of first and third person writing. It's what can make interviews engrossing to read, and is a useful writing tactic. It can be reasonably assumed that they are paraphrasing what Gjoni said to them in a way that makes it a well written interview. We don't have any reason to assume a reliable reporting site is being intentionally untruthful. - Kitsunelaine ^{「Beware. The foxgirls are coming.」} 13:42, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

It wasn't paraphrasing what Gjoni said. Your citations were an interview with Zoe Quinn and the blog post of a known troll. You've made claims on what Eron Gjoni's stated goal was, and cited Zoe Quinn stating that she thought his goal was to raise a lynch-mob to harass her. That's insanely disingenuous. I'm not calling The Guardian intentionally untruthful. I'm not calling Zoe Quinn intentionally untruthful. I'm laying that charge at the feet of the person who decided "Eron Gjoni's stated goal was to bully Zoe Quinn [source : Zoe Quinn]" was acceptable. That person was being intentionally untruthful. Seriously (talk) 13:51, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

...So you haven't actually read the interview article. Queex _{chthonic murmurings} 13:53, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

Apologies, I made a mistake. For some reason I thought the Guardian interview with Zoe Quinn was cited. Instead it's [| idledilettante's blog post] and [| We Hunted the Mammoth's summary] of the same blog post, focusing on comments made by one 'Rachel M' regarding Eron's goals in making the Zoe Post. I retract what I said about the assertion being disingenuous. It's actually directly contradicted by the source you've cited. Is the entire article going to be like this? Seriously (talk) 14:18, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

This is the link to the article that was earlier. Please actually read it. Queex _{chthonic murmurings} 15:04, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

I read it. Putting aside that it's not the citation for the statement I'm contesting, at no point does it suggest that the Zoe Post was designed to drive Zoe Quinn to suicide, as asserted. At no point does it recount Gjoni stating his goals except to damage Zoe Quinn's reputation (or warn people about her, if we're being charitable). His purported goals of raising a troll army is not even stated, just inferred by the author of the interview by the assertion that Eron workshopped his post to 'find an audience'. That's why 'Eron's stated goal' is so disingenuous. Alleged goal, fine. Purported goal, fine. Even just outright stating 'his goal was to...' is fine. It's still presenting opinion as fact, and it's still not entirely backed by the source, but we can fairly honestly interpret that as being the gist of the source. However, saying 'his stated goal was to...' is outright intellectual dishonesty. I don't think anybody can read that and take it to mean anything but 'Eron himself stated this was his goal', and the sources provided simply do not back this to any degree. Jason's description of the process by which Eron gathered information on Zoe is chilling, and definitely bears mention. You could definitely do something with that. However, alleging that he was attempting to drive her to suicide, is outright speculation completely unsupported by this source or either of the other two cited sources. I'm not trying to defend Eron. I think he's a whining, vindictive shit of a person. But your sourcing is complete garbage and does not even touch on allegations you're making about him, let alone support them. Seriously (talk) 15:56, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

If you can read his own words, his own account of what he did and his justifications for that, and not put two and two together that his purpose was harrassment to get back at someone he felt wronged by, then there's no helping you. It's archetypical stalker behaviour. It's a valid cite because it makes his purposes crystal clear to anyone not blinded by their wish to deny the origins of GG or their own messed-up attitude to relationships. Queex _{chthonic murmurings} 21:19, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

a brief note on gamers are dead debunking[edit]

http://kotaku.com/we-might-be-witnessing-the-death-of-an-identity-1628203079

the debunking reads":Gamergaters claimed that they were outraged that these websites were perpetuating a harmful stereotype that gamers were all single straight white guys. Except each and every article said the exact opposite: that video game players are from all walks of life, so the "gamer" stereotype should be shelved."

this clearly isn't the claim. rather the claim is they were being insulted/attacked/bullied ("ironic bring back bullying tweet" really gets to the heart of the matter). rather the referenced kotaku piece already shows this

"'Gamer' isn't just a dated demographic label that most people increasingly prefer not to use", she writes. "Gamers are over. That's why they're so mad.""These obtuse shitslingers, these wailing hyper-consumers, these childish internet-arguers — they are not my audience. They don't have to be yours. There is no 'side' to be on, there is no 'debate' to be had."Note they're not talking about everyone who plays games, or who self-identifies as a "gamer", as being the worst. It's being used in these cases as short-hand, a catch-all term for the type of reactionary holdouts that feel so threatened by gaming's widening horizons. If you call yourself a "gamer" and are a cool person, keep on being a cool person."

that should be your rebutal not what you have which doesn't even address the claims. the counter rebutal would be that the group the journalists attack as backward shitsippers was much broader and less objectionable. aka who is a "cool person" and who is a bad person who should be ignored or shunned?

Baaliscoming (talk) 14:56, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

The bad people are the ones engaging in bad behavior. Like getting nuclear mad because one critic thinks video games should not reproduce tired stereotypes about women.191.190.225.192 (talk) 21:49, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

Elaboration on the Brazilian Journalist[edit]

I'm bringing this up because of the one discussed in the list of claims article, of the Brazilian Journalist that was harassing Anita Sarkeesian - the guy actually existed, and was discussed by multiple sites, including Kotaku. This "journalist" is one Mateus Prado Sousa, and he works for Brazilian clickbait site Celebrinando.

He has been reported multiple times to authorities for sending Anita death threats by both sides of the conversation, though the overpowering majority of the investigative work that exposed him came from Gamergate supporters.

Sousa has demonstrably been attacking Anita Sarkeesian since before Gamergate even happened, and indeed is responsible for both massive amounts of spam directed towards Anita to try to lure people towards Celebrinando (most of his tweets about it are in Portugese), and for sending her legitimate death threats - critically, he was the one who said he would "Kill Anita Sarkeesian at GGC14" (Geek Girl Con 2014) on Twitter. He did so through a sockpuppet account, @AnitaOfJesus, with other threats coming from other socks of his, including @AnitaofDevil. All of this nonsense was centered around trying to get people to check out his battery of Anti-Anita articles on Celebrinando.

Sousa denied involvement - claiming that these attacking accounts were done by troll fans of his - but he was caught in the act later by both Gamergate opponents and proponents alike; IP traces conducted by the Gamergate supporters proved that the harassment that Sousa denied being behind was, in fact, his, and Gamergate opponents helped get these attacking accounts be mass-reported thereafter.

In response to his accounts being reported en masse by both Gamergate supporters and opponents, he started sending death and rape threats to both sides as well. Video evidence of him being caught in the act and essentially admitting to his threats on Twitter was posted on Youtube, but Sousa DMCA'd it and had the video taken down almost immediately (though Gamergate community KotakuInaction apparently still has the thread on the subject).

It is very clear that Gamergate supporters wanted this degenerate gone (and power to them for this; Sousa is a despicable human being) - they quickly dug up which accounts on Twitter were his using the same IP tracing they used to determine earlier that the death threat came from Sousa. There was multiple attempts to report Sousa to the FBI, but the response by authorities was that Feminist Frequency had to report Sousa themselves if prosecution was to happen (in accordance with Brazilian law). Feminist Frequency ultimately did not take direct action against Sousa, but ultimately, didn't really have to - repeated reporting by hundreds of people on both sides led to his various sockpuppet accounts being suspended.

In the weeks to follow, Sousa would admit that he was the threatener and that the threats were done to guide traffic to Celebrinando; his earlier conversation would be confirmed as he actually tried to post the video discussed in the above conversation on his channel. His channel was mass-reported (again, by Gamergate supporters and opponents alike) and taken down, but an archive file of the channel with the video mentioned exists. A screenshot of him shilling his own Anti-Anita article in the very youtube video condemning him exists as well.

Overall, the Sousa case is a bizarre one - but is notable for being a rare case of Gamergate supporters legitimately being involved with attempts to get a particularly reprehensible harasser shut down. Though Gamergate has been responsible for volumes of its own harassment (a natural occurrence of its own leaderless nature as much as anything else), this incident is a testament to the fact that many in the movement were not okay with this, and the fact that they were the ones who ultimately exposed Sousa and his one-man campaign of terror is certainly something worthy of respect. -- SupremeLogician, December 11th, 2015, 11:28AM (EST)

The only reason they did this was to make him a scapegoat for all the harassment Anita has received ever.191.190.225.192 (talk) 21:07, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

That seems hyperbolic. Are there any instances of GG blaming him for all harassment Anita has ever gotten? And if so, how widespread is the belief?64.38.194.13 (talk) 22:30, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

I'm not going to track last year's Gator tweets and make a statistical breakdown just for you, but the gist of the Gator discourse was "We caught Anita's harasser", often with a statement that proclaimed anyone else to be innocent.

[Censorship] A buncha links[edit]

Skimmed a few, some decent points, some BS. If anyone needs work to do... FuzzyCatPotato!™ (talk/stalk) 03:48, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

Not done yet FCP, plan to cover it all by tomorrow, more part to come (I excised the gamergate wiki section from analysis since most to all of the links are down and giving it a fair shake under the circumstances would be difficult). Also, if you found some or even all of what I wrote BS, fine, everyone is entitled to their opinions, I'm just using RW's own article and the sources it provides, holding up a mirror based on RW own standards, and seeing if reality is adequately reflected. As for the censorship tag added to my posts of it on Reddit, that's because of all the accusations it's a one sided shit show that silences all points that disagree with it's conclusions, so I'm seeing how much truth is to those claims. I'll reserve more detailed judgment for the article themselves, but compared to the frankly well written article debunking homeopathy (that article has to be one of the best written things ever on RW, and manages to actually debunk it's subject without making an ideological clusterfuck out of the topic), the article I'm still in the process of debunking is frankly embarrassingly bad by RW's own standards IMO. Arcane (talk)

Reading these, they have pointed out a lot of the claims have been Debunked at the time and then left, even as the situation changes. Fad editing at it's finest.Keter (talk) 04:22, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

I concur, even cover some of those in my still in progress Part 5. Also, Part 5 actually comes off with RW looking pretty good so far, some of the debunking is actually of decent if not outstanding quality as opposed to some of the earlier parts. Arcane (talk) 04:49, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

https://medium.com/@infiltrator7n/a-point-by-point-analysis-of-rational-wiki-s-list-of-gamergate-s-claims-part-5-5dcd3a971ef#.qkdzavqp2 - Part 6 should be last part, this is a very long article, will finish it tomorrow, as I had to do a ton of research so far. Arcane (talk) 06:47, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

You know, I can't leave well enough alone, and I've done my absolute best to stay away for a whole week, but Arcane, I must say, you've done a really terrible job of trying to do anything resembling a proper counter-claim to the statements made on this list. So I'm going to address them because your Gamergate evangelism is frankly offensive. And I apologize in advance if this looks like a gish gallop, but Arcane, you're the one posting these things in spurts on Medium.com and I shouldn't have to use another website to post rebuttals your claims.

To start with, here's one thing that really busts most of your complaints out of the water: the existence of a bias in reporting does not automatically imply that the reporting itself is factually wrong. So many of your complaints in your 5 (and counting) blog entries on this are simply "this person is biased" and that doesn't say anything to prove any point you may have. You and everyone else in Gamergate really need to realize that 100% neutral reporting is actually bad. People shouldn't present both sides of an issue as having equal footing when one side is inherently and objectively wrong. This is what makes Gamergate comparable to every other reactionary group out there. You demand 50/50 treatment to your claims without criticism just like the anti-vaxxers, the anti-science organic-only gluten-free crunchy hippies, global warming deniers, etc. You all claim some big entity is out to get you because there's nothing factually and objectively true about anything you peddle. Margaret Pless, David Futrelle, or Sam Biddle reporting on Gamergate activity directly, without ever distorting the facts, is objective reporting. Just because it's not neutral doesn't mean it's not objective and doesn't mean it's not correct.
And another one of your constant complaints is that RationalWiki does not directly cite various websites where people have had their dox posted. That is because we are trying to prevent furthering any actual harm to come to these people by not posting links to The Ralph Retort or Lolcow.Wiki as you seem so wanton to refer to. So with those out of the way, let's see what minor quibbles you've managed to find by going through half of this page (as of my writing this).
"[Eron Gjoni] never posted this to 4chan" is dubious at best. It made its way there somehow and it certainly wasn't because he was advertising his post on SA or PA because those were both taken down. And as Margaret Pless points out, an early draft/post/whatever on his blog actively welcomed people from /pol/ and /r9k/.
We are not claiming that the risque photoshoot that Zoe posed for was exposed in a hack because we've already had to deal with someone on RW saying that the photos were discovered in such a way was inaccurate. The fact still stands that these photos would not have been discovered had Eron not been actively participating in #burgersandfries and giving out her old screennames and password hints.
You've demanding a citation for the threats Quinn and Lifschitz received as a result of Gamergate's early formation? Or that Gamergate began distributing their old home address? Or are you demanding a citation that Quinn fled her home? Either way, this article on The Guardian mentions that she fled her home. That's all that needs to be said here.
Even if Zoe's relationship with Nathan Grayson was anything resembling an ethical violation, the blame should not rest at all on Zoe's shoulders. It would be Grayson's fault for not disclosing this. But again, there was never any ethical violation here.
With regards to your Phil Fish rebuttals, you're bringing up the content of Allistar Pinsof's interview with Techraptor, in which he alleged that Fish had illegally used a friend's game assets. If you were to read deeper into the list we've provided here, namely the section List of Gamergate claims#GameJournoPros, you would see that people have actively debunked pretty much everything Pinsof said in his interview. Even the person he namedropped as having had content stolen from him came forward and said that Pinsof was lying. So before you continue to try to debunk these things, keep this in mind: Pinsoff is a liar and has gone back on everything he said to TechRaptor.
Elizabeth Sampat's blog entry definitely describes people destroying gaming projects they had worked on and just quitting the industry so I don't know why you've not bothered to properly address that in your counter-rebuttal.
You're framing your dislike of Anita Sarkeesian in this very thoroughly. She's not saying "Gamers are bad". She's saying "These video games use storytelling elements that perpetuate sexist feelings towards real women".
Just because the shooting threat was not credible to authorities or the school does not mean it did not have an impact. That is why it is a threat. It is meant to scare.
Anita Sarkeesian is still not a video game journalist.
Brianna Wu has indeed cut her teeth in the field of video game reviewing and such, but she is still by trade a game developer who has released one title so far, and AFAIK she is working on a PC port of it. I also see you like to use the term "transsexual" which no one really uses anymore. Just a red flag. I'll get back to this later.
Oh Lorde. lolcow.wiki? Really? And basing it off of the stalking Fart and Ralph did on her because of timestamps and shadows and such? No we're not touching this with a 39 and a half foot pole.
As I said above, we're not citing the actual doxing.
The point of the Jenn Frank section is to show that The Guardian decided not to include the disclosure she had originally put in her article because they felt it was trivial. Mind you, the only reason it was ever reinstated was because she had demanded that they do while Gamergaters were hounding her for having not made the disclosure.
Since I last checked, there was no statement from Mattie Brice herself that concerned her quitting the industry in the form of her own blog or whatever. Futrelle posting the tweets is fine as a source. But again you fall back on your complaints of "bias" which just shows how very little you actually know about journalism and what constitutes a proper and dangerous bias.
And now that you're up to Dan Olson, I can mention another overarching fact that destroys your various counter rebuttals concerning him, because I'm sure he is going to come up over and over. Yes, he went into 8chan's pedo boards to find material for his expose. Yes, seeking out child pornography is illegal under Canadian law. However, the important fact here is that all the charges against him were dropped as unfounded as he reveals here. It is perhaps a mistake to omit this fact in the article, but that can be fixed.
Jennifer Allaway was not out looking for sexism as you're claiming. Her survey was "have you experienced anything that you consider sexism". This entry feels victim blame-y to me, particularly how you're dropping in "trigger" for "top kek" as people might say. If you actually read what she said, it doesn't look like her response matches your description.
Just because DIGRA works with feminists doesn't mean anything.
Pointing out Gawker is morally wrong with what they did to that CEO(?) and Hulk Hogan doesn't help your case. Everyone recognizes that was shit. This is actually touched upon in List of Gamergate claims#Gawker. Also, all of the advertising on Kotaku and Gamasutra was restored once they realized what they had done with regards to Gamergate. Alexander's editorial to game developers that the "bro gamer" demographic that overlaps with Gamergate isn't one that needs pandering anymore shouldn't have been a reason that her website's source of income was to be attacked.
You drop in "bias" again with regards to Natalie Zed so this argument isn't worth anything. Just because someone holds a negative opinion of Gamergate does not mean that they cannot write about it. She makes no money out of her doctoral dissertation being about Gamergate while disliking Gamergate so your analogy here is irrelevant. There's no conflict of interest. Gamergate is just giving her a free background check.
You've mentioned the Patricia Hernandez stuff once (or someone else did prior) before. The Max Temkin editorial was dealt with long before Gamergate happened. And here we go again with your (and I assume Gamergate's) complete and utter lack of understanding as to what constitutes a conflict of interest. Hernandez wasn't paid anything by Anna Anthropy, Christine Love, or Zoe Quinn to say anything about their video games. She does not benefit from her friends by saying good things about their games. The threshhold of "positive coverage" or "good press" held by Gamergaters is utterly and incredibly wrong.
Like Dan Olson, Sarah Nyberg has not been arrested for anything she said in the chatlogs 10 years ago because she didn't actually do what is said in them. She has gone on record as saying (and I'm paraphrasing here) "I was a 4channer idiot who used black humor to try to out-shock my friends and I recognize what I said back then is completely indefensible but I've grown from that behavior". Roph's apparent counterrebuttal has no teeth because he's a Gamergater out to destroy her reputation and just happens to have a bit more ability to do so because he can claim otherwise as being a former (and that's an important factor here) friend of hers.
Peter Coffin's wife is real and so is his kid. Gamergate's insistence that neither person exists despite having doxxed her to find what hospital she was staying at while undergoing jaw surgery is incredibly disingenuous. The fact you don't bother to include that in your counterrebuttal is equally as disingenuous. Also, Coffin was one of the people who reported 8chan to cloudflare and his dox was included in Brennan's Twitter, which is again something we're not linking to.
And while we're at it, you mention Jace Connors here. Just because Rankowski came out and said Jace Connors was a persona he made up does not change the fact that he terrified Brianna Wu with the threats the "persona" made.
Now in part 2, you're still completely disingenuous here when you insist that you personally are not a misogynist so therefore all of Gamergate is absolved of the incredibly misogynistic behavior it has done towards any one woman online (when in fact you seem to be guilty of stalking Brianna Wu). Again the point here is that Gamergate is actively hostile towards women because it descended from the 4chan "tits or gtfo" mindset. Women who are obviously good at making video games should be allowed to make video games however they please. Here we get to another blanket thing I can lay out: you seriously think that we should vet and prove 4chan posts are legitimate? And also the point of using your quote is that your statement is mostly representative of how Gamergate as a whole tries to defend itself from accusations of misogyny. Your post on RationalWiki was just a convenient example.
"Bias" again. Boring. And the fact is that Gamergaters do go to Five Guys restaurants to meet up and laugh at the fact they're there solely because Eron used it in his blog. It's part of a long list of evidence that Gamergate (as a whole) is all about Zoe and supportive of Eron. Beyond the money Gamergaters on KIA have given him.
You're complaining about the wording of a picture caption here. And picture itself is the exact opposite of your counterclaim that people can do anything in a hashtag when it is to show people in Gamergate who harass others don't use the hashtag at the same time.
Yeah, Eron Gjoni was an evil asshole from the start. He's said that he tried to go on another date with her just to gather more material for TheZoePost and on that date he apparently physically assaulted her. That's covered here.
Bias again.
Also your "monolithic" quip is only really proving what we've said about how Gamergaters see accusations that Gamergate is responsible for harassment.
Your next complaint is that we don't cite the studies right before we actually do so let's go onto your counter claims about the studies.
Complaining that the data isn't conclusive because the study in question is old doesn't really do much for your case and we actually do explain why the inconclusive nature of the "neutral" results in detail so another failure for you there.
Yes, WAM!'s sample size was small we get it. They did the best they could with the minimal data. The small sample size is still damning for Gamergate regardless. Also I see you don't bother to try to debunk Gamergate's bad statistical rebuttal with the 0.66% thing so good on you for that.
The point about the rebuttal of "false flag" claims against Quinn and Fish is that they're garbage and we shouldn't really need to try to explain why. You're demanding evidence of absence here. Also the explanation of the tumblr post by email feature (which references Zennistrad's tumblr post so stop throwing out the source based on that feature alone) is the best we can do to give a counter claim that goes "it's really stupid to insist that they faked the hack because her tumblr was still secure when the hacks included her email address book".
We're not citing Roosh V's shitty blog that attacks Sarkeesian because AFAIK it contains dox material. Also, the claims that follow in this section are rebuttals of the various claims made by Gamergaters to insist that Anita Sarkeesian somehow faked all the attack tweets. Most of these statements were made by Zennistrad who did his own investigation into how the Twitter search feature worked to give these results. And his rebuttal of one person's really weird assumptions of her sexual fantasies. The fact it's sourced to his tumblr isn't reason to throw it out.
The section on game developers is pretty much there to show that all the people who came out in support of Gamergate and call themselves game developers are assholes or have axes to grind and Gamergate was the perfect army to dictate. With several of these people, there's not going to be news exposes on them because they are nobodies in the industry (like Villena and Desborough who isn't a video game dev to begin with). Your complaints that Tumblr and Storify are cited are baseless. As is the complaint that we got Huniepop's game mechanics wrong. Also you continue to drop "bias this" and "bias that". Chmielarz's opinions are garbage. I don't know why Nichegamer isn't linked. Perhaps when I wrote that up months ago I didn't bother because anyone can find the article in question fairly easily. But the interview itself isn't being cited. It's just being mentioned so I don't personally think a citation is needed there. Yes, we're linking to Quinn's Twitter post of Brad Wardell asking someone who drew the comic to work for him because the comic itself is gone AFAIK. This tweet still exists though. The point about mentioning both Michael Lawson and Jason Truman's political leanings is that it's telling of Gamergate as a whole, and also it's bullshit for them to talk about an industry they personally haven't been involved in in several years. And, as I said at the beginning of this, the fact is that all these people have had critically panned games or they're assholes or they're reactionaries. Which is why they're supporting Gamergate.
And your complaints that "not all anti-GG are angels" are really pointless.
To finish out part 2 (apparently) changes to SkullGirls and Street Fighter V are not censorship. There was no outside pressure on either Lab Zero or Capcom to make these changes. They decided on these things internally. That's not censorship. Even if the developers decided to do this based on reviews of the games that mentioned these things, it's still not censorship. It's their own creative decision.
Now onto part 3, you start off with multiple demands for citations in the middle of a quotation that makes up the "claim" part of an entry. Not exactly a good counter claim.
So it's "minimize harm" and not "do no harm", a simple mistake. It's still ethical for Kotaku et al. to not have reported on The Zoe Post because it's an unfair invasion of the privacy of two people, one of whom decided to go public in order to attack the other.
"Bias" again.
We're extrapolating here to point out the fact that the New York Times and the BBC are not part of an SJW conspiracy against Gamergate. And Gjoni is 100% wrong and Quinn is 100% right. He's still trying to go after her a year and a half later. She's trying to get away from him. Now who's the abuser here?
The PoliticalCompass tests are biased in favor of giving a particular result. Your complaints that we link to /r/BadSocialScience are baseless, considering you've linked to lolcow.wiki earlier. Further points on this are Gamergate's perception of what constitutes "authoritarianism" is hypocritical of their own behavior to impose their personal politics on others by trying to silence anyone lse that has a differing opinion. The fact they think "SJWs" are doing this to them is indeed projection. And your complaints that people who have tried to investigate Gamergate did not find anything counter to the claims as not being "the whole picture" are disingenuous at best. The fact is that Gamergate overall has rightwing and particularly reactionary tendencies. You (and Aneris and Husky Harlot) can claim anything about your own personal political stances, but that doesn't respresent the general behavior of Gamergate as a whole. Gamergate (and their ilk) is why "cuckservative" has come into play after all.
Anti-feminism is a ridiculous stance to take because it never takes the form of any actual criticisms of feminism but rather makes strawmen attacks on it as a whole. This is why we have Aneris constantly parroting "regressive left". Also, there's no need to cite that CHS is a paid speaker for AEI on this page when it's covered on others; same for Cathy Young and Reason. "Bias" again.
I like how you go on and on about how Joshua Goldberg played both sides which is exactly what the rebuttal goes into detail of how that's factually wrong. He made up the "Tanya Cohen" persona to attack feminism and anti-hate speech ideologies. It was intentionally divisive to be yet another thing to bolster his own personal politics (anti-feminism, free speech absolutism). And Brianna Wu wasn't fooled by him. So many of the entries you want sources for are covered elsewhere. There is no requirement that every sentence have a citation when paragraphs as a whole are cited. Also, just because he was found incompetent doesn't mean he's not guilty. Popehat Ken pointed out that it just means he's going to undergo psychiatric care until he's fit to stand trial.
"Anti-Gamergate" is a bogeyman made up by Gamergate to enforce their persecution complex (like a cult would) and apply the balance fallacy in their favor. As much as you claim that this page makes Gamergate as a monolithic entity when it isn't, you and everyone else in Gamergate makes this exact same fallacious claim about their ideological opponents. /r/GamerGhazi existing is not evidence of anything either. There is no organization within opposition to Gamergate to the same extent that there is organization within Gamergate, which are again all things laid out in the sections you haven't covered yet, namely List of Gamergate claims#Anti-Gamergate is a unified counter-movement.
There's no point in Gamergaters repeating Zoe Quinn's legal name in court documents when they know she's Zoe Quinn. They can just use "Zoe Quinn". They found her real name without the court's help though. It's therefore completely bullshit behavior and just going "haha I know your real name" to repeat it ad infinitum.
Part 4 now. Good thing you're agreeing with us that Gamergate's indulgence behavior with charities is bullshit.
We're not linking to Breitbart because they're factually wrong on so many things (and disingenuous about it at that) and also so many of their articles include dox on people.
TFYC itself is not a charity, but Gamergaters claim they are. That's the point there. To your complaints about screencaps etc., we are providing primary sources here. Half the time you complain that the primary sources aren't provided. Make up your mind. But now we're back to "bias" because it's a storify by Zoe Quinn. The sales figures on Afterlife Empire are elsewhere on RationalWiki, as this is cited elsewhere. No one bought the game. No one owns the game outside of the indiegogo backers. No one plays the game.
Onto the Vivian James section, you're complaining that we open up with a joke quote from /r/GamerGhazi. This is a strawman on your part.
It's not our fault the Gamergate Wiki got taken down. Next. More complaints about using primary sources. Next. "Biased". Next. Gamergaters have spent years harassing Sarkeesian and Quinn, long before they were ever called "Gamergaters" (the hatred towards Sarkeesian and Quinn didn't pop out of nowhere). Next. "Biased" again. Next. "Rule 34". Next.
Now you're up to #NotYourShield, which is just mostly defense of /pol/, the place where people pretend to be neo-Nazis and where real neo-Nazis pretend to be not actually neo-Nazis to recruit the people claiming they are. This isn't trolling. Nor is participation in #BaltimoreLootCrew. It's lying about your own personal beliefs in order to feel better about others getting offended at what you say. "It's just a joke" is a poor excuse for being racist.
Your demand for a claim that the media assumed Gamergate skewed straight white male is specious.
The point is that #NotYourShield is an attempt at nullifying other people's personal opinions. We don't have to cite our own interpretation but it is somewhat based on what Bogleech has said about it all. I simply forgot to add this, but because it's Tumblr and he's "biased" you'll dismiss it like everything else that matches those definitions.
Christina Hoff Sommers isn't a feminist. She's a female men's rights activist who says she's a feminist when all of her academic literature has been widely recognized as highly anti-feminist. She's the feminism equivalent of your racist grandma except she gets paid for it.
I couldn't figure out how to properly cite a comment on this article because the software doesn't allow it for some reason. Also it's a dick move to actually link to that comment in the article itself because it features that person's name.
Gamergate has nothing to do with the events at GAME_JAM and I only really included this entry as a dig against Wikipedia user Wnt who kept insisting this was something both Wikipedia and RationalWiki omitted in their coverage of Gamergate.
We're back at Dan Olson again. I will refer you to my earlier blanket statements that the charges against him were dropped so he was never in the wrong despite your claims, and those of Gamergaters who reported him to the RCMP.
Now in Part 5 you open up with complaints that we imply Breitbart is a reactionary tabloid rag that has many documented ethical breaches that we couldn't possibly get into any detail on this page without it being a copy of Breitbart.
Forcing people to disclose meager Kickstarter donations is not ethics.
You're complaining reviewers should say they're doing social critique. However, reviewers review a product on their own terms. If a reviewer feels it's important to point out something the game does wrong that isn't related to game mechanics, and refuses to point it out in the review due to outside pressure, they aren't doing their job very well. Likewise, if you wish for a review to focus on mechanics only, you can find a reviewer that does so instead of forcing your politics onto other people.
Leigh Alexander's "Gamers are over" article wasn't for Gamers as a review. Kotaku is free to say whatever they want about Quiet's design and the excuse for it. Just because you think they should just stick to game mechanics doesn't mean they want to.
The setting of The Witcher is not historical. It is a fantasy world that borrows from Polish/Slavic folklore. And in the setting there is a group that could at best represent Africa or the Middle East and as covered in List of Gamergate claims#Objectivity, we point out that the development team took the criticisms on Polygon to heart and released an expansion that included the non-white fantasy world humans that existed in the source material (look up Zerrikania).
Depression Quest is still free and Nathan Grayson wasn't dating Zoe Quinn when he namedropped it at any point in his career. Therefore there was no conflict of interest.
I can see a lot of part 5 is going to cover why you think people should disclose these things when we and everyone else outside of Gamergate realizes the futility and lack of any benefit in it.
At the time of writing, hipsterwelfare.com was a redirect to patreon.com.
It's now several months since the "as of going to press" thing was written. Last I checked, Lynn Walsh, president elect of the SPJ, is sitting on that "we're totally not Gamergate" panel at SXSW.
We're back to the Jenn Frank thing. Yes, the disclosure was restored, because Frank asked the editors to put it back in because Gamergate was going for her head.
Kotaku and Polygon making their ethics policies public isn't something Gamergate can claim seeing as Gamergate as a whole has written off both websites entirely because they don't cover Gamergate the way Gamergate wants.
Gamergate giving people free background checks is wrong. The statements made on this article that concern Gamergaters' behavior is different.
Again, we're sorry someone took down the Gamergate Wiki. But this is still just a quote and not important overall.
William Usher isn't a whistleblower because there was nothing to blow the whistle on. RationalWiki's mocking of Conservapedia is a fine point to make, but this is ad hominem at the moment from you.
That thing about the Forbes link is something we should look into.
Your complaints about independent verification are really hypocritical. Kotaku were the ones independently verifying Pinsof's interview statements. So now you want infinitely recursive verification? This just seems like more of the whole anti-Kotaku slant GG has, particularly because you say "bias" again.
Chloe Sagal did nothing criminal. As far as we're aware, someone else made a fradulent donation to her project, which led to its shut down and her suicide attempt. Pinsof should have never outed Sagal. Period. Your insistence that he was right is more telling of your own personal politics than trying to ensure that he followed SPJ's "Minimize Harm" tenet.
Stop complaining about Tumblrs used as sources.
The point of the "Objectivity" section is that Gamergate does not represent "most gamers". Just because Gamergaters want reviews to be devoid of social commentary doesn't mean they're right. And once more, Street Fighter V has not been subject to censorship of any kind. Capcom made a decision on their own. They were not forced by any external entity to act.
Now we get to the meat of your partcipation in Gamergate and that's because you're anti-censorship and a video game developer who doesn't want to listen to social critique. It would have been better if you said this to start with because it does color a lot of your counter claims. People are going to criticize your game socially whether you want them to or not. Your reaction to this criticism will be how you grow as a developer and an artist (even if you don't consider your game a work of art to be critiqued).
You're complaining about Kotaku and bias again after this.
Tecmo Koei decided in August 2015 that they weren't planning on localizing DOAX3 for North America and Europe because of how poorly DOAX2 sold overall. Also it might have to do with the fact that Marie Rose is pedobait and they realized that that kind of content won't fly overseas. Mind you, that in your claim here, you completely ignore the fact that Tecmo called out their Facebook rep for saying something the company as a whole did not agree with. And a final thought here is that no one was ever talking about DOAX3 to scare Tecmo into not selling their game outside of Asia.
You called Leigh Alexander a fascist. Nice. She wrote an editorial. A lot of the rest of your argument in this paragraph is a strawman because it doesn't bother to address the claims made about objectivity in journalism being about "finding the objective truth" and not "play out a balance fallacy".
We can internally link to other pages that have citations so we don't have to repeat them. Intel's covered in further detail on the main Gamergate page.
You're strawmanning again because Wilde's criticisms of the term "PC Master Race" having Nazi connotations has nothing to do with your defense of PC vs. console.
Stop complaining that we're colluding with "the enemy". It's bad form. Really.
We're not citing an instance of dogpiling.
The FTC content is true but the sourcing needs work. I personally didn't write the entry though.
Kotaku hasn't made any ethical breaches sorry.
And now we're in argumentum ad Hitlerum territory.
Gawker being unethical has no bearing on the ethics of Kotaku. Simply because both are owned by the same company doesn't mean both share the blame of one's horrible behavior considering the editor teams are different. Gamergate weaponizing hatred of Gawker to their advantage is disingenuous.
You complain of a dead link which is because no one bothered to update the internal link from "Three right-wings don't make a left" to "The red pill rabbit hole" on Gamergate. This obviously needs to be fixed and it's a simple one. Also this is a direct reference to Gamergate's outlandish conspiracy theories that Brianna Wu is a trans woman as if it would even matter to what she has done. A conspiracy theory I discovered you're personally very fond of, Geth_N7.
Anti-Gamergate isn't a thing. But I see you're going to spend looking at the rest of the section List of Gamergate claims#Anti-Gamergate is mean in your upcoming Part 6 and possibly 7.

I think that covers all of your complaints. I'll surely enjoy reading the next parts to tell you how blatantly wrong you are about them, as well. So let it be known that the reports of my death have been greatly exaggerated.—Ryulong (talk) 09:32, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

- David Gerard (talk) 09:38, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

Hey Ryulong, nice to have you back (not that I thought, that you LANCB here was anything but a short break) and thank you for adding me to your pre-LANCB villain list, I really appreciate it.--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ ∈)☼(∋ 09:45, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

I think the easiest counter rebuttal it so point out Ryulong posted this, but that's just dismissing content for who is posting it. I'm not really going to bother going into it since a lot of this goes into subjectivity of how serious things are, like how Jenn Frank thought a part of her article was trivial and Gamergate didn't.

You're right on Brianna. At the time, she wasn't a games journalist, and I don't recall an article on her name. That has changed, so I edited it.
Anita is more of a speaker than anything, but she didn't do game reviews. Her old videos include a breakdown of Monster(Music Video), Glee(TV show) and Veronica Mars(TV show). It's more apt to say she was a feminist reviewer who did a series on video games in general.
Sadly, a lot of FemFreq's arguments and fans fall firmly into arguing with Equivocation, some notable examples being the defence of the DOOM 4 tweet to be "Not like that" and the interchangeability of the words "Reinforces" and "Causes" her more diehard fans frequently use. This is irrelevant, though. Most of Anita's critisisms weren't over that, but over her ovaries.

You're sort of right, but I just don't trust anything you say.Keter (talk) 10:45, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

A few points:

I did not say Jenn Frank thought the part of her article was trivial and Gamergate didn't. I'm saying that her editors at The Guardian did.
Anita Sarkeesian is reviewing games now which is all that matters. She used to review other things but now she's reviewing new things.
She doesn't like Doom 4. That's all there is to that tweet.

And frankly that last bit is just a personal problem of yours which doesn't at all have anything to do with anything I said, much like your complaints about Anita Sarkeesian and her organization.—Ryulong (talk) 10:59, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

That reading of the DOOM 4 tweets is exactly the thing I'm talking about. "It's really troubling(and depressing) that the #E3 Audience is enthusiastically cheering for bodies being ripped apart." Is clearly alluding to the people who like DOOM4, and you've moved it to "Doesn't like that game." Jonothan also did this. Keter (talk) 11:40, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

Anita doesn't personally like hyper violent video games like Doom and she was expressing her distaste at how people around her were reveling in the graphic fantasy violence because something about toxic masculinity I don't remember. It's just really inane to read any further into that to think she somehow considers herself morally superior to them and therefore all gamers who like Doom. Also these captchas are garbage. Why does vandalbinning include that when I should be autoconfirmed?—Ryulong (talk) 12:13, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

Ryulong, glad to see you again, hope you have a happy holidays, BTW. Also, feel free to disagree with what I say, but from what I gleaned from your own analysis, even you admit some problems are present, glad we agree. Currently working on the sixth and final part of my analysis, which will include a conclusion on the whole thing including the strength of it's arguments on a technical level and recommendations for how it can serve as a better debunking, as, while I'm pro-GG and my bias is not hidden, this might surprise you: I WELCOME YOU attacking the GamerGater argument and trying to debunk it, as based on my own reading, you guys DID point out some legitimate things in need of debunking, my thanks. Unfortunately, unlike the one done for homeopathy, which I still consider one of the best things RW has ever written, this is downright disgraceful, and so I'm mostly pointing out where you guys can fill in some holes to make your argument better, as I'm no shill, and RW has pointed out some legit holes in the GG position, I just think RW can do a lot better than what they have now. Anyway, the final part will be reading in an few hours and will be posted here as well. Arcane (talk) 14:36, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

The only real problems are dead links and such, because a lot of your criticisms come from the idea of a "bias" being something intractibly wrong about many things as well as your beliefs in various Gamergate conspiracy theories, despite so many of the being debunked throughout the rest of the page.—Ryulong (talk) 00:14, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

The last, final part.

A reply to your list of objections[edit]

For Part 6[edit]

So here's for part 6:

Gamergate's a hate mob.
Gamergate is still not held in any high opinion by any entity. There's no serious news organization that has said "Gamergate was right". It's always the reactionaries.
This was a dig against Brad Glasgow for being a little baby about his ban from /r/GamerGhazi. It could use work.
You're demanding secondary verification from primary sources where no one else has really cared so much to follow through with these things so that covers from King of pol through Milo's syringe.
This also seems to cover the Claire Schumann bit because you want secondary verification on primary sources about that whole debacle. Again, no one in the media cares about these minor quibbles within Gamergate to investigate these things. That's why these conspiracy theories stay within Gamergate for so long and why this page does its best to debunk them.
This same thing can be applied to your criticisms of the sourcing on the #GGinDC and Airplay bomb threats. Primary sources are as best as we can do here, and even if these were known at the time, it'd just be on Kotaku or We Hunted the Mammoth or Idle Dilletante.
Outside verification over and over and over. Primary sources like showing a thread of people going "Wow we have proof of the enemy" isn't going to be verified.
More complaints of bias.
More complaints of directly quoting someone.
More complaints of lack of verification. I'm sensing a pattern.
The Eliza Sutton entry is included because Gamergaters went after Watson for doing this and constantly cite it as evidence that "anti-GG doxes".
We're not linking to dox. Period. The Wizardchan shit against Quinn is already specious at best so we may as well say why that is.
I'm not well versed in Something Awful culture because I don't have $10 to blow on an account.
The point is that Zoe Quinn did not dox Mike Cernovich on Something Awful's Hell Dump board because the Hell Dump board has not existed in 6 years but yet they keep repeating this lie.
Stop demanding verification on primary sources.
Still not our fault that the gamergate.me wiki is dead.
We're not defining media cycle for you.
You're demanding a cite for a claim despite it having been already included higher up. This could be fixed but again it's primary sources so you'd demand outside verification.
More demands for verification.
More complaints of bias.
More demands for verification.
Anita Sarkeesian does not want to censor video games ever.
Valve is allowed to sell or not sell whatever it wants on Steam.
There are sources on the fact the dev team supports white supremacist organizations elsewhere. It is wrong that they're missing here but they're likely on Gamergate (or its history when the Hated section was on it) and Timeline of Gamergate.
Demands for more verification.
These statements are repeated elsewhere in the page as it is.
Again these demands for sources on something like this are really por choices.
There's no such thing as "neutral" in Gamergate. There's outright ignorance but that's not "neutrality". Cheong went full Gator.
More demands for independent verication.
More demands for repeating sources.
We shouldn't have to source refuting complete bullshit.
I don't know why the SRS thing is listed here TBH. Someone else added it.
What is it with you and jokes? Do you not recognize sarcasm or something? And your comrades on /r/WikiInAction say I'm the one who misses social cues.

In general, your demands for better sourcing are unattenable in a majority of cases and your demands for "unbiased" sourcing are also unattenable. The sources aren't included because they're "mean" it's because they include the actual dox. The rest of this is just you railing against SJWs like every other Gamergater does. Your "Fucking Cowards" line is also nice.

Have a Merry Holidays.—Ryulong (talk) 00:14, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

Just out of curiosity what is considered 'dox' in your eyes? Is full names enough to quality? Lists of alternate internet handles? Addresses and other contact information? Social security numbers etc.? I'm finding it really hard to believe that Breitbart has ever posted anti-gamergate dox, let alone posted it in every single article Arcade is proposing you reference, so I figured maybe you had a different definition of dox than me. What level of information would you consider to be dox? Seriously (talk) 00:31, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

Breitbart has Zoe Quinn's legal name, Sarah Nyberg's pre-transition name or "deadname", as well as allegedly outing Brianna Wu as transgender. Those are dox. Tech Raptor has Zoe Quinn's father's phone number (or did at one point, I'm actually not 100% sure on this). The Ralph Retort posted similar content, particularly with regards to Brianna Wu. We are doing our best to avoid linking to anything that's potentially private information. Hell, the links Arcane added to lolcow.wiki at Talk:Gamergate probably need to be scrubbed. It's better to err on the side of caution and google's always a tab away.—Ryulong (talk) 00:52, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

"This was a dig against Brad Glasgow for being a little baby about his ban from /r/GamerGhazi. It could use work." -- GamerGhazi is a shithole that reasonable critics of GG don't like. It's the Greenpeace to Animal rights and the Stormfront to old people who double check their change when served by a sufficiently foreign looking cashier.
"There's no such thing as "neutral" in Gamergate. There's outright ignorance but that's not "neutrality"." -- No, I can hate people who profess the stuff you do just as equally as the idiots in /r/KiA who do the same. Anyone who has a "With us or against us" mentaility is unfit to rear a child let alone write on any form of wiki.

You want to know a place that does decent debunking of GG's bullshit? https://www.reddit.com/r/AgainstGamerGate/. The place was built as a debating sub, forcing a strict policy on Pro, neutral and Anti GG mods, like one user who is a mod from /r/GamerGhazi and had a troll account made and so on. Also, it's a much better source for a list of claims by people who are Pro. Also, due to the fact it has a mix of people aruing, the level of debunking is higher, mainly because arguments aren't just "Bye, Gator" and a block.Keter (talk) 01:07, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

Citation needed on ghazi, because most people who dislike it have been banned and there's actual criticism to be had but it's not "They're the Sea Shepherds of ethics in video game journalism". Sitting on the fence when all Gamergaters do is harass people on the Internet is disingenuous. Either you're for harassment (which is bad) or you're against it, because we all know it's never been about ethics. /r/AgainstGamerGate is where a lot of my research for this page was done on claims that still needed to be addressed because they kept Netscape9 and some other guy whose name escapes me around for so long. The sub just allows for mostly unfettered JAQing off and sealioning without any semblance of "neutrality". That is why it splintered off into /r/GGDiscussion after all. Your complaints are specious too.—Ryulong (talk) 01:23, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

"Either you're for harassment (which is bad) or you're against it" I don't need to agree with people like you to dislike harassment, much like how feminists like Rebecca Watson and Greer Don't need to agree with each other or Andrea Dworkin to be called Feminists.Keter (talk) 01:38, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

Gamergate isn't about ethics in video game journalism and there's no neutral stance on harassment so neither you nor Ian Cheong can claim intellectual superiority for being in the middle.—Ryulong (talk) 01:56, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

I'm not talking about Video Games Journalism, I'm pointing out how you're instantly putting everyone who "disagrees with you" into the "supports harassment" camp.Keter (talk) 02:05, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

The issue is that you can't be "neutral" when it comes to online harassment which is what Gamergate is. Not that you can be "neutral" when it comes to ethics in video game journalism or whether or not video game reviewers should be allowed to make social critiques. The point is that trying to claim "neutrality" here is creating a South Park-esque moral high ground in the middle where it doesn't exist. There is no "neutrality" on Gamergate. You're for harassment or against it. Supporting Gamergate is inherently supporting harassment because Gamergate is inherently about harassment and not at all about ethics in video game journalism. Ethics good (when there are actual ethical issues). Social critique good. Harassment bad. There's no gray area in any of these. Hell, if I wasn't being tethered down by this vandal bin throttle I'd be working on a section on this page to show how hypocritical Gamergate is when it comes to an actual ethical issue because it happens to be affecting their ideological enemies (Bethesda and Ubisoft blacklisting Kotaku and Polygon).—Ryulong (talk) 02:29, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

I don't need to agree with you to be against harassment. it's not that hard to understand.Keter (talk) 02:38, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

So what don't you agree on exactly? That there is no neutral position concerning Gamergate? Because that's a textbook definition of the balance fallacy. You can sit there till you're blue in the face telling me you're against harassment but you have decided not to take a stance against Gamergate or you support Gamergate when all of the evidence out there shows that Gamergate is nothing more than an online harassment campaign. So therefore if you are against online harassment, you can't be in support of Gamergate or claim you're not taking a side for or against Gamergate. Gamergate is no better than every other group of online conspiracy theory nutters that RationalWiki dutifully calls bullshit on. The United States put astronauts on the moon. The MMR vaccine does not cause autism. Anthropogenic global warming is changing the environment. Genetically-modified foods are completely safe to consume. Islamist militants part of al-Qaeda orchestrated several plane hijackings on September 11, 2001, to destroy the World Trade Center and part of the Pentagon. Adam Lanza murdered 20 children and 6 adults at Sandy Hook elementary. No intelligent being dictated or directed the vast proliferation of life forms on the planet Earth but instead it has been the result of billions of years of genetic mutation, genetic recombination, and natural selection to result in the vast diversity of forms of life that we see around us. Gamergate is a reactionary hate mob focused on Zoe Quinn, Anita Sarkeesian, and anyone else with a pair of tits that upsets them. Declaring that you're "neutral" is absolute bullshit because there is an objective truth behind all of these things which completely negates the idea of a "middle ground" and only serves for you to declare some sort of holier-than-thou status that you haven't allegedly chosen which side you actually agree with. Because let's put things into perspective, Keter. You, User:Seriously, SupremeLogician, Heliades, Baaliscoming, IBelieveInNPOV, Izkata, and Dwarvenhobble have only joined RationalWiki (and I'm only counting people who joined in the past week) for the sole purpose of trying to revise history in Gamergate's favor because FuzzyCatPotato and Carpetsmoker unwittingly opened up this website to brainwashed cultists and armchair psychologists who have sought to demonize and pathologize me for the simple reason that I don't believe any of the woo that they peddle because I had the temerity to not want to back down from obvious bad faith trolling which was behind a facade of innocence and so-called neutrality.—Ryulong (talk) 03:22, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

I am not trying to revise history, Ryulong. I was merely disagreeing with a few people on talk pages. And you can say as often as you want until you are blue in the face that Gamergate is not about ethics in journalism but that doesn't make it any more correct.

I'm not sure why I'm even bothering. Adrian Chmielarz says it much better than I ever could.--Heliades (talk) 04:46, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

It's never been about ethics in video game journalism. There has been no actual headway in whistleblowing on anything or anyone. Gamergate's first "ethical" breach was asking why no one was repeating TheZoePost's allegations verbatim when Eron Gjoni didn't get his own timeline right. Since then, Gamergate has done nothing to show that there are any conflicts of interest coming from indie game developers and have outright ignored and in some cases cheered on the unethical actions of major multi-million dollar companies because it spites their idealogical enemies (again, Bethesda and Ubisoft blacklisting Kotaku and Polygon on review copies of Fallout 4 and Assassin's Creed [insert number/subtitle here]). And then "ethics in video game journalism" became a code word for "I don't like liberal politics in my vidya". Chmielarz's opinions are pointless here. He says he supports Gamergate because he doesn't like how "the other side" has painted them as a harassment mob because he equates that with how he experienced how Soviet-backed regime shut down free thought in Poland. That's just complete hogwash. If anyone's going to be compared to a strict communist regime it would be Gamergate, unlike the so-called "cultural Marxists" they see in their opponents because of the completely insane NRX conspiracy theories that /pol/ exiles and the MRA crowd have added into the mix. The people shutting down free speech and free thought are the Gamergaters constantly attacking anyone and anything that is remotely progressive and then making martyrs out of complete garbage games because they think some "SJW" cabal led to its "censoring" or "banning" (SFV, DOAX3) when it's the actions of private companies doing whatever they want with their own products. Gamergate is and has always been a reactionary hate mob and a backlash against the idea that people should be able to give social critique about video games or even make artsy video games that aren't about shooting but are instead about being gay or being depressed. Then it became about "ethics" because Eron Gjoni lied about when Zoe Quinn allegedly cheated on him. Then these people tried and failed to use what they thought was "identity politics" against their perceived "SJW" enemies because they've been conditioned into thinking that their idealogical "SJW" opponents are trying to aggrandize themselves rather than sincerely being concerned with issues of gender, sex, and race. And then they got noticed by Breitbart-senpai and it all kept going down hill from there. The only lack of ethics Gamergaters have ever highlighted is when people watching them from the outside recognized how many completely unethical journalists and tabloids began whistling their tune.—Ryulong (talk) 06:12, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

I swear Ryulong, your main defense of criticism is by flinging out enormous walls of text that take significantly too much effort to parse.

"It's never been about ethics in video game journalism." So says you. I know you constantly invalidate the things Gamergate does as "laughable" and "pathetic" because you don't personally agree with them but that does not invalidate them as a whole. I have a day job, so I really don't have the kind of time you do to write these diatribes and debunk everything you say in kind. I'll just address a few:

"That's just complete hogwash." Yeah, sure, as if you know more about his experiences then he does. I think Chmielarz had more authority here than you do to point out the similarities of his experiences to what he is experienced now. I won't even bother with what you mention after that as it has no baring on what Chmielarz was saying.

"it's the actions of private companies doing whatever they want with their own products" Yes, that is correct. But they are censoring their own products and/or not bringing them to the west because of what they perceive as a country of prudes that would just yell about how offended they are by their product. They are self-censoring because of those people. Whether or not it was the intention of those ideologues to cause something like this, it did happen and it was because of them.

"Then it became about "ethics" because Eron Gjoni lied about when Zoe Quinn allegedly cheated on him." It became about ethics because of the mentions of Quinn in relationships with people who cover video games which happened to be around the same time her game was getting positive coverage on those sites. Whether or not those coincidences actually ended up being true ethics breaches is irrelevant because they were possible ethics breaches that should have been investigated regardless of the content around them. The event that intially got me interested in GG was /r/gaming's removal of TB's video on the controversy which primarily discussed the cronyism of the games press. I know you're just going to counter this with "nah, it was always about harassing Quinn" but I suppose that's just where we're going to have to disagree.

"Breitbart-senpai" Fuck Breitbart. I've honestly never liked them much and I personally think them throwing their hat in with GG has made this whole thing an even worse upward battle. I'm not going to bother defending them because I don't really want to.

That's all I really have time for. I look forward to struggling to read your response.--Heliades (talk) 17:04, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

It's not about ethics in video game journalism. It never has been. It never will be. "Ethics" was made up as an excuse by /pol/ to go after her and have a shield from being called out as a 4chan raid.

Chmielarz's analogy is backwards and I pointed out why. That's why it's hogwash. Gamergate is the "Soviet regime" silencing the free speech and free expression of the people they call "SJWs".

It's not censorship if it's an internal decision. "Self-censorship" isn't a thing. There's nothing that stopped Tecmo from releasing a ton of other fan service anime tiddie games throughout 2015. And you Gamergaters need to stop praising that tweet when they posted official statement a week later.

Gamergate is not Kotaku's ombudsman or editorial staf so they have no right to say "oh these are conflicts of interest I told you so" after Gamergate was using "ethics" as a justification for their raiding of Zoe Quinn. TotalBiscuit's hamfisted "I'm better because I'm a YouTuber" rants are irrelevant.

Then tell the rest of Gamergate to stop worshiping that blond self-hating idiot.

All of Gamergate is based on lies, conspiracies, and complete bullshit. Your half-assed attempts to distance yourself from that bullshit are not helping you out.—Ryulong (talk) 23:47, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

"Self-censorship" isn't a thing- Ryulong You claim, that "self-censorship" doesn't exist? Are you fucking retarded???--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ ∈)☼(∋ 23:54, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

"Because that's a textbook definition of the balance fallacy." Don't list fallacies you don't understand. You can be against animal abuse without participating in pointless raids of petshops and vandalisms of restaurants, you can be nationalist without supporting Far-Right political parties and you can be against harrassment without joining up with myopic, tribalist idiots who only want to count coop.Keter (talk) 09:03, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

Gamergate as a whole is kind of the definition of tribalism, dude. - Kitsunelaine ^{「Beware. The foxgirls are coming.」} 09:51, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

Implying there is a neutral ground to take between "I want to harass women on the Internet because they don't agree with my personal politics and how they apply to video games" and "Harassment is wrong don't fucking do it" is a balance fallacy. The only true neutral position on Gamergate is complete and utter blissful ignorance.—Ryulong (talk) 09:59, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

Implying that there are only two sides in GG consisting of 100% the people you claim. A black-and-white world is so nice.--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ ∈)☼(∋ 10:23, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

It's a failure of imagination to say that no issues can ever be black and white. Much like how the fact that vaccines do not cause autism is an absolute truth, Gamergate being about harassment is an absolute truth. - Kitsunelaine ^{「Beware. The foxgirls are coming.」} 10:26, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

I think you misunderstood. I just rejected the claim, that GG is 100% harassment and anti-GG is 100% valiant heroes of the net as Ryulong claimed.--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ ∈)☼(∋ 10:34, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

You're right. It's also about making up excuses for harassment (and sometimes trying to change the definition of harassment, something of which you are well versed in in particular), excuses that only have to convince one side of the party so that they can convince themselves that they aren't detestable human beings because of what they're doing. - Kitsunelaine ^{「Beware. The foxgirls are coming.」} 10:38, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

What the devil are you talking about??--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ ∈)☼(∋ 10:40, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

The type of people who believe what they're doing doesn't count as harassment as a means of handwaving it away, despite their beliefs disagreeing with the definition of the word, as well as the type of people who's only reasons for further digging are to try and find some excuse to say "But they deserved it". Both of these things are things that happen incredibly often. - Kitsunelaine ^{「Beware. The foxgirls are coming.」} 10:52, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

If they sincerely believe that their actions don't constitute harassment, then doesn't that act as a notch against the assertion that they believe in harassment? This might just boil down to a difference of personal definitions. There's a large difference between repeatedly sending unsolicited messages to someone, and posting unflattering information or opinions on a third-party website. Additionally, I don't know of any instances of anyone in GamerGate instructing people to contact the personal accounts of Zoe Quinn or Sarkeesian. 64.38.194.13 (talk) 19:45, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

"Additionally, I don't know of any instances of anyone in GamerGate instructing people to contact the personal accounts of Zoe Quinn or Sarkeesian." BAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA - Kitsunelaine ^{「Beware. The foxgirls are coming.」} 22:58, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

As I told FuzzyCatPotato, I largely plan to leave this debate to everyone else, but if you have proof this is true, a few citations for it verified via multiple sources proving it was GGers responsible could hammer a rather decisive nail through the GG argument they don't harass these parties. I haven't heard of anything either, but if you can cite multiple sources proving it, that would strengthen the rebuttals considerably. Arcane (talk) 23:09, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

RTFA. - Kitsunelaine ^{「Beware. The foxgirls are coming.」} 23:11, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

I did, remember, I critiqued the whole thing, and while I found a lot of sources ACCUSING GamerGaters, I saw nothing that proved any specific group or party was ever confirmably proven or charged with harassment. You want to make this case airtight to the point no one can deny it without looking utterly dishonest, you're going to need proof you can take into a court of law and win with, and multiple sources on even one party being confirmed guilty will remove a great deal of doubt. Arcane (talk) 23:18, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

Clearly you need to RTFA (Fun fact: We have more than one article on Gamergate! And your debunks were critically flawed). If you believe harassment isn't encouraged by gamergate, what fucking world are you living in?- Kitsunelaine ^{「Beware. The foxgirls are coming.」} 23:49, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

If you can cite sources and quotes that present dead to rights evidence I'm wrong, I will take your rebuke appropriately and admit my fault, otherwise you have presented no evidence to disprove me. As for my critiques, we stand on opposite sides of the issue for the most part, so I'm afraid we'll have to disagree, especially since I still haven't seen enough proof to prove your point aside from a bunch of sources telling me to listen and believe their claims it happened. I want names and faces of known harassers with evidence you could take into a courtroom and win with, that's what I asking for. Arcane (talk) 00:00, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

We have almost three fucking hundred cites on the main article, take your fucking pick. - Kitsunelaine ^{「Beware. The foxgirls are coming.」} 00:02, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

I checked out the first ten citations, none of them mention GamerGate. This might take a while, do you have a link to an example of a GG member instructing people to contact Zoe or Anita? This is a harassment campaign after all, so we should be able to find members campaigning for harassment. 64.38.194.13 (talk) 00:18, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

You picked the citations that cover the section detailing the background of what Gamergate was to become. Good job there. Also, why do you feel the need to edit RationalWiki from behind a proxy? Just make an account like everyone else.—Ryulong (talk) 00:48, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

I was told to "take your fucking pick", so I went in numerical order, as I didn't get any hints on where to start. If you could simply pick out which of the citations includes an example of GG instructing people to harass Zoe or Anita, that'd be awesome. Basically, something like a harassment campaign. Here are some good examples: [1][2]. These are some wikis revolving around specific individuals, including instructions on how to best antagonize them for laughs. As you can see, there's an entire community based around these individuals, dedicated to sharing techniques and propagating videos of themselves acting as 'troll terrorists' Also, I don't use a proxy. This is my IP from work, which is also a hosting provider, which is where you might have gotten the impression. We have several hundred employees. Sorry, didn't mean to spook anyone! 64.38.194.13 (talk) 00:53, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

The #BurgersAndFries chat logs are a good place to start. And I'm pretty sure there's entries on everyone on that lolcow wiki people like to bring up. And I hope your bosses are paying you overtime to argue on RW considering the working day is over in Tempe.—Ryulong (talk) 01:15, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

At least s/he has bosses to worry about. But then again you're the expert on what happens when you obsessively edit a wiki during the workday amirite? -73.8.26.224 (talk) 03:40, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

Read them all. Lots of accusations and fingerpointing, but nothing proving criminal charges of harassment were the responsibility of any specific group or entity associated with GamerGaters against the parties alleging the crimes in the question were done by GamerGaters. Arcane (talk) 00:14, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ Don't you think if Zoe Quinn, Anita Sarkeesian, Brianna Wu, Randi Harper, and so on had the real names of the people who sent them death threats so heinous that they felt the need to go into hiding and the American justice system had any clue as to how to properly handle online threats of violence there would have been far more arrests than Joshua "I'm going to pretend to be a jihadist for the kekz" Goldberg? For fucks sake, Sarkeesian posts reams of evidence on her blog of the hate she gets on a daily basis. Just because there's no arrest on file doesn't mean shit. Drop this disingenuous bullshit.—Ryulong (talk) 00:17, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

It proves she's the target of hate, but it doesn't prove in any legal way GamerGaters did it, and Goldberg was denounced by large sections of the GG community, myself included, and we still have no idea what Goldberg's true end goal was because he's still not fit to stand trial so we can find out, so Goldberg cannot be considered an open-shut case of being a GG who is guilty of criminal harassment until a court can determine that. Still, by your own admission, there is no proof one can take into a court of law any GGer has committed a criminal act of harassment and that they support such a thing on such a wide scale they have no legitimacy whatsoever. Arcane (talk) 00:22, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

Anita's been getting hate for 2 years without it having the name Gamergate attached to it. And Goldberg has only been denounced because he was caught. First rule of 4chan is "don't get caught". And that's on top of the fact that Gamergaters like you think his Tanya Cohen persona means he was also an SJW despite the fact no one else thought it was real. And I think the fact that you got suspended from Twitter for stalking Brianna Wu is proof enough that someone thinks what you guys are doing is at least against some codified set of rules (Twitter's ToS). Gamergate harasses. Gamergate only looks for ethical breaches after someone calls them out on harassment. Gamergate formed as an excuse to justify /r9k/ and /pol/'s raid of Zoe Quinn. Yelling loudly that Patreon and Kickstarter funding needs a disclosure is weaksauce compared to how many of these same websites don't bother todiscl ose thefac t that the big AAA companies send them review copies weeks in advance of release and have them under an NDA to not post their reviews until the day before release in order to improve their own profit margin and the one time any website broke these NDAs to reveal information that people might actually want ahead of time, Gamergate applauded the companies for what is probably a horribly unethical and certainly not transparent practice because the website that broke the news was Kotaku.—Ryulong (talk) 00:48, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

The Twitter incident was never confirmed, and I tried to get confirmation why I was suspended more than once, still haven't got any to this day, so until you have information I still don't, I can't confirm that, and even Wu brought nothing more than allegations. In fact, our last public exchanges are public in more than one place. I understand you are Twitter friends with Wu, you can ask Wu if the recorded conversations (which Wu did not object to) are accurate. Also, you continue to make allegations, but you still cannot PROVE them. Arcane (talk) 00:53, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

Read the #BurgersAndFries logs buddy.—Ryulong (talk)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ Did you just have an epiphany?Keter (talk) 12:29, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

Response to For Part 6[edit]

Thanks for taking me up on my offer for further rebuttal, Ryulong, here's goes.

In conclusion, I again repeat my message of good will and a happy holidays for you and all of RW, and will not trouble you further unless you wish to engage me further, and I merely hope for the best for you all in whatever lies ahead. Arcane (talk) 01:31, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

I have to take issue with a specific part of your Part 6, namely the section on the UN, 3 parts of which I wrote. Do you really need sources about what victims of cyberbullying (say Amanda Todd for instance) have been through, or for that matter the very real abuse that Anita Sarkeesian has been subject to? It's easily findable, Anita has documented multiple times what a week's worth of harassment looks like, and you need only visit any sort of discussion about Anita on KiA, or any similarly toxic anti-Anita environment like GameFAQS's forums, to see exactly the kinds of accusations against Anita that are mentioned in that section. Anita has also mentioned, on ABC no less, her need for security to escort her to places. and the instance of a guy showing up outside Randi Harper's workplace is also well documented. Jon91919 (talk) 16:08, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

Sources with Dox[edit]

"Breitbart has Zoe Quinn's legal name, Sarah Nyberg's pre-transition name or "deadname", as well as allegedly outing Brianna Wu as transgender. Those are dox" ; Ryulong, if using somebody's legal name when they'd prefer to be identified by another is 'dox' in your view, and dox so severe we must avoid linking to any page on a website that contains such information anywhere on it, maybe you'd like to explain why rationalwiki itself has no problem posting dox of people it doesn't like? Vordrak showed up here and said, in his own words "I am open that I am Vordrak / Sam Smith / Matthew Hopkins. However I tend not to put my middle name C_________d online to avoid identity theft. This has been obtained by non-casual record search and I ask you to remove and (oversight) it."

When he made this request he was told "No, you're not getting your way, Collingwood." and then immediately banned. His dox remains posted on the Timeline of Gamergate page.

Doesn't this mean that using the part of his legal name that he objects to, and does not generally use for internet business, is doxing him? It appears this way to me. I really don't understand how it's any different from using Zoe Quinn or Sarah Nyberg's real names, and I find it incredibly difficult to understand how we can consider that a crime so heinous we have to avoid linking to any publication that's done it, while we're perfectly happy to not just host the information ourselves but mock the victim for asking us to remove it if we don't like him. Seriously (talk) 11:12, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

Cause on RW, dox is kosher against people they don't like?--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ ∈)☼(∋ 11:26, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

Filling in someone's middle name is not dox. His given reason for not using it somewhat paranoid and silly, too. Queex _{chthonic murmurings} 11:40, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

Perhaps ... But still, the person objects. Can't we be fair and remove the middle name from our page? It doesn't really add anything... You can find my real name quite easily, but not all my Christian names (I have 3), and would not be particularly pleased if someone were to post for no particular reason... Carpetsmoker (talk) 13:22, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

Sam Smith's middle name was found on the Gamergate Wikia, so I considered that fair game as being a "neutral" zone that doesn't host dox (I've found the Gamergate Wikia presently doesn't list Zoe's name at all) and because they mostly adore him. I've also done this for Sargon (his name is in the caption of his interview with David Pakman) and Izcer (her name is in a puff piece on Breitbart and she uses it on Twitter now anyway). This is vastly different from let's say Breitbart (or Ralph's website your pick) listing Zoe Quinn's (former?) legal name, Sarah Nyberg's deadname, or Gamergate's conspiracy theories about Brianna Wu's gender identity.—Ryulong (talk) 11:47, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

How? If Sam Smith doesn't routinely associate his middle name with his online activities and has specifically asked us to remove it, how is it any different to using Sarah Nyburg's given name? He's specifically stated that he considers it dox. He's politely asked us to remove it. There is no reason to use it (like say, to source a shaky claim we've made) but we're using it anyway, presumably just to piss him off. We are so anti-doxxing that we'll refuse to cite our own claims by linking to a publication that may or may not host somebody's former given name elsewhere on site, but at the same time we are literally doxing a person we don't like, presumably just to be cunts. How is this justifiable in any way? Seriously (talk) 11:55, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

"Sam Smith" is a fairly common name, so having the middle name does mean it's a lot easier to find things about this person. "I tend not to put my middle name C_________d online to avoid identity theft" sounds quite reasonable to me. I'm not sure which source we're talking about here, but surly we can work around it? It sounds like little trouble and it's only fair. Carpetsmoker (talk) 12:35, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

It's not even attached to any source, we just refer to him by his full name in http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Timeline_of_Gamergate presumably to piss him off. We are not 'linking to a source with dox' in this instance we are outright doxing somebody ourselves because we don't like him (apparently it was Ryulong who researched his full name and chose to do this). Seriously (talk) 12:46, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

Smith was complaining that the inclusion of his middle name on Timeline of Gamergate was considered doxing because he doesn't use it professionally as whatever it is he calls himself. He formerly held public office in the UK as a councillor so his identity is more of a public record than say Quinn's or Nyberg's. Also mind you he was banned from the whole site under the name Vordrak because he's a dangerous crank and also because he threatened David with legal action. You can read about that here. HOwever, I've found that the entry on the Gamergate Wikia was posted by someone who put up the same page on Wikipedia to have it deleted as an attack page so perhaps I made a mistake in judgement because I never bothered to see who put that page up. Most of his other complaints on Talk:Timeline of Gamergate#Disputed Facts - Vordrak are mostly unattenable (the one dead link he complains about [3] can be replaced with this archive [4]) and he's trying to use his "I totally help out women look at this praise I got from Parliament" thing as a justification that we're treating him wrong. But if you want to do a find+delete on Timeline of Gamergate for his middle name I suppose that won't be too much of a problem. It might also stop him from being such an asshole but David isn't necessarily threatened by the legal threats he was sent.

Also I have a sneaking suspicion Seriously is just Vordrak's sockpuppet but we'll never know that for sure will we.—Ryulong (talk) 13:02, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

Accusing me of being a sockpuppet just for objecting to you doxing somebody is going a little overboard, mate. Seriously (talk) 13:16, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

Well, the person objects, the middle name adds very little, so the least we can do try and be fair, even if we disagree with someone... I've removed the name from the timeline page. Carpetsmoker (talk) 13:11, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

Speaking of being fair Collingwood is going forwards with revealing names and "potentially occupations" of rationalwiki editors. Typhoon (talk) 18:14, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

He also claims that the above isn't dox. what do you think about that, User:Seriously? Typhoon (talk) 18:16, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

So he's a hypocritical asshole. Great for him and lets point that out in our page in big bold letters. He basically threatens to get Goonie kicked out of college ("Gooniepunk’s college may be less impressed with him when they learn of his unjust online conduct. It is unfortunate that his exams are next week, but it is his choice of timing not mine.") Seriously, fuck that guy up the ass with a 6 feet pole.

But ... it's still not a reason to "stoop to his level", so to speak. We can be better. We should be better. Carpetsmoker (talk) 18:27, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

I think he's a hypocritical asshole. I've seen his shenanigans and I knew he was a dox-dropping asshole before I posted here in his defense, and I came here and defended his right not to be doxed anyway. He's thrown a fit about posting easily-obtainable legal names being dox, and how terrible and monstrous and unconscionable that is, then he goes out and doxes somebody he doesn't like, and claims "yeah but that's not really doxing". I think that's disgusting and contemptible. I also think that's exactly the same thing Ryulong did to him, which is why I brought it up and asked for his middle name to be removed. If he's a hypocritical asshole for doxing us, then Ryulong's a hypocritical asshole for doxing him and it's right and just that we took it down. We can't have it both ways. Seriously (talk) 18:53, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

Here's an interesting quote from the topic you linked User:Typhoon "We aren't RW. We shouldn't lower ourselves to their level to teach them lessons." It mirrors exactly what Carpetsmoker said. I don't know why it's so difficult for people to look across the aisle and see similarities when they're doing exactly the same thing. Rational Wiki let an editor dox an ideological enemy, then mocked him by flaunting the dox when he tried bringing it to our attention (which you're still doing when you refer to him as Collingwood, I hope you realise), and now we're supposed to be indignant that he's doing the same thing back? No. People should be judged by their actions, not by which side of a silly internet slapfight they've chosen to support. There is no moral high ground to be had here. Even gamergaters hold Vordrak's actions in contempt, and his actions are no worse than ours in this instance. Think about that. Seriously (talk) 20:29, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

~~Do the same thing to him! An Eye for an Eye always works!~~Keter (talk) 19:48, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

Remove the middle name, and stop fucking accusing people of being sockpuppets as an alternative to discussion.KrytenKoro (talk) 21:18, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

I removed it this morning. I didn't rev-del it, not sure if that's required in this case... Carpetsmoker (talk) 21:20, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

IN this case, since it's not exactly something creepers could use to send death threats to his house and since it's already available information, revision delete is not necessary. Gooniepunk (talk) 02:04, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

That was my thinking as well... Carpetsmoker (talk) 09:26, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

Nyberg[edit]

From Hopkins:

Since then, Rational Wiki’s spirited defence of Nyberg has been undermined by the fact that Nyberg herself has admitted in a Medium article (archive here) that she did claim to be a paedophile and that contrary to Rational Wiki’s assertion, she was not taken out of context.
Nyberg admitted, for example, that she had claimed her hard drive had been “seized by police”. She described this as, “Outlandish lies I told nearly ten years ago to get a rise out of people”. It is therefore clear that in the IRC logs concerned, Nyberg was not “expressing disgust” as Rational Wiki claims, although she does now claim (10 years later, that she was lying). Despite this, Rational Wiki’s team of editors has yet to correct the entry, including the criticism of (now vindicated) YouTuber TheLeoPirate whose assertions they disputed.

Fuzzy. Cat. Potato! (talk/stalk) 21:46, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

I'm not sure what exactly we need to "fix" at this point? The page says "Nyberg said such and such on a chat", and her response to it. What more do you people want? It's a "he-said/she-said" sort of game, really... Carpetsmoker (talk) 22:18, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

Hopkins' claim seems factually wrong. The article doesn't state her comments were taken out of context (maybe it used to? idk), it expressly says she admitted to them and claimed to be joking about it. It does bury it in a hamfisted mess of a paragraph that details an unrelated 8chan CP issue, while strongly inferring that gamergate are actually the real pedophiles, which is ridiculously clumsy to my eyes, but seems to be the norm throughout a lot of this article. It does state that she was insincere about being a pedophile as absolute fact, which isn't something we could know one way or the other (I've read some of the chatlogs and personally find the edgelord defense extremely unconvincing). Maybe it just shouldn't be under the 'plain old libel' heading, since it's provably not libel that she spent years claiming to be a pedophile? Seriously (talk) 22:43, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

The "taking out of context" refers to her harassers taking her confession of claiming to be a pedophile and trying to spin it into a confession of actually being a pedophile.191.190.225.192 (talk) 22:53, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

The article doesn't actually mention anything like that happening, unless I've somehow missed it? Seriously (talk) 00:57, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

That section needs a rewrite, regardless of Hopkins' stupidity. FᴜᴢᴢʏCᴀᴛPᴏᴛᴀᴛᴏ, Esϙᴜɪʀᴇ (talk/stalk) 01:13, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

Yes but it doesn't seem like anything needs to be said other than "Nyberg says the contents of the chat logs are lies she told friends as part of their black humor but deeply regrets having done so and she believes Gamergaters are being hypocrites for attacking her for making jokes when they make similar if not worse jokes in the same vein and also Milo opened up his article calling her a pedo by using a stolen photo of herself pre-transition as a shirtless teenage boy". Also I tried to format the "Just plain old libel" section by comparing the comletely false libelous claims made against Gamergate's targets and victims with actual representations of those alleged behaviors within Gamergate itself: ex. Quinn isn't the abuser Eron is, Sarkeesian isn't a scammer but Gators gave Davis and Aurini thousands of dollars to make a shitty documentary and thousands more to the Honey Badger Radio hosts to hire a disbarred lawyer, they attack(ed) Ian Miles Cheong for being a Nazi while courting Stormfront and weev, they reported Olson and Nyberg for pedophilia charges while 8chan has had mltiple problems concerning it hosts child porn, etc.—Ryulong (talk) 01:51, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

Tu quoque is not a debunking. And speaking of tu quoque, I'll point out the entire section on 'anti-gamergate are mean too' ignores the actual claim completely and just lists off a bunch of examples of gamergaters being assholes to other gamergaters. The fact that gamergaters are assholes to each other doesn't disprove the claim that anti-gamergaters have acted like assholes. Seriously (talk) 01:56, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

That's the point of the section. To show that every single attack and retort Gamergate has against its opponents is psychological projection.—Ryulong (talk) 02:21, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

btw, are you including Nyberg claiming to be a pedophile as a 'completely false libelous claim' Seriously (talk) 02:01, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

That's because she isn't one, so Gamergate insisting that she is one is a "completely false libelous claim". Mind you, Gamergaters aren't going "look she claimed to be a pedo" they're going "she is a pedo this is proof". They're trying to justify their existing harassment of her for calling them out on the bullshit they pull. That's why there are so many of them who think her avatar is Pedobear instead of that old photo of a dog looking through holes in a fence.—Ryulong (talk) 02:21, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

That's ridiculous, Ryulong. If a person is found to have self-identified as a pedophile for years, it's entirely reasonable that people would assume they're most probably a pedophile, even if they recant it later as 'edgy trolling'. It's infinitely less reasonable to decide that everybody calling her a pedophile is just 'psychologically projecting' their own pedophilia onto her. That's madness. That is utter, pants-on-head, howling at the moon insanity. How do you even reach a conclusion so ridiculous? Yes, it's obvious gamergate digs up dirt on people who criticise them. They research them with bias and the obvious intent of undermining their credibility. It's ugly, and it's nasty. It's also the foundation of quite a lot of things documented here about gamergate proponents, but if I were to say you were (for instance) projecting your own plagiarising of Tori Amos onto Milo Yiannopolous, I would be rightly seen as a ridiculous idiot. Because that line of thought is mind-boggling in its idiocy. Nobody can fully prove or debunk the assertion that Nyberg is a pedophile, but what you can do is present her defense and relevant context to the accusation. Launching a tu quoque counterattack just makes you look like an unthinking fantatic, and more to the point, makes her look guilty as sin. Seriously (talk) 03:17, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

I think you should know exactly who you are defending here, Ryulong. Is this interview all staged too?--Banned main (talk) 03:36, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

Oh god. I hadn't heard this interview. And I felt a little dirty supporting Milo, this is beyond dirty. – Sarah (HH) 05:10, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

Sarah Nyberg has gone on record to say she said all those things in jest. Does it excuse what she said? No. But that does not mean she is in any way shape or form a pedophile regardless of what the chatlogs contain. The chatlogs themselves are simply the result of over a year of Gamergaters trying to dig up whatever they possibly could about her to get that one meager "gotcha" that they could then use to completely strawman her muckraking on Gamergate out of their radar. Her being an idiot teenager 10 years ago does not make a lick of difference to what she is pointing out that Gamergate and 8chan and others do today. And I do not want to spend my one edit every half hour uselessly debating over Sarah's decade old behavior on the Internet because that's just Gamergate 101. Waste your opponent's time debating one minor point so nothing gets done.

Now, with regards to the section "Just plain old libel", perhaps I was describing it in a wrong way, because the issue is that for every single libelous and false claim made against Gamergate's targets and critics (ex. "Zoe's an abuser", "Anita's a scammer", "Ian's a Nazi", "Dan should be arrested for looking at child porn", "Sarah's a pedo") those can be directly applied to Gamergate's figureheads, supporters, defenders, and allies (Eron physically assaulted Zoe, Aurini and Owen made the absolute worst and amateur movie after being given thousands of dollars, the Honey Badgers spent thousands of dollars on hiring a disbarred lawyer to be their legal counsel, weev is a literal Nazi, Hotwheels wrote a pro-eugenics piece for Stormfront, most of Gamergate is made of /pol/acks, 8chan only exists because of child porn, Gamergaters keep sending Kern half naked pedobait anime characters). The section exists to point out the abject hypocrisy displayed by Gamergate on a daily basis for a year and a half.

I'm not watching that interview because A) it's a youtube video longer than an hour even if you gave me a cued up link and B) it's that blowhard Nero trying to justify what I covered in the first paragraph. She said things in that chatroom that are considered incriminating. She wasn't being serious about any of it. It doesn't excuse what she said. She realizes that. She's owned up to that. She's not in criminal trouble. She's not a pedophile.

Milo was involved in the original doxxing of Sarah, repeatedly uses photos of her as a minor in his articles, repeatedly links to items stolen in the hack, and anyone actually willing to go into a live stream with him is already openly malicious towards her and a Gamergater. None of her real friends who actually know what went on in that channel and know that people like Roph or "M" in Milo's interview are liars wants to come forward and call these people out because they know that once they do they will become prime targets for doxing by Gamergaters and Yiannopoulos egging them on, as had happened to one of her friends already and she didn't even come forward and say anything about it. So yes, that interview is staged as hell. And we are not going to keep debating on whether or not someone is or is not a pedophile.—Ryulong (talk) 04:40, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

Sarah Nyberg took genital shots of her 8 year-old cousin and shared them with other self-described pedophiles. Their reactions in the chat strongly indicate that the photos were real ("She looks drugged", "I can see underage twat", "i see some vagin", "nudity isn't CP")[5], and I really doubt the FFShrine community is collectively conspiring against her. Additionally, 5 former members of FFShrine have come forward to affirm that Sarah was totally serious (although only two of them being verified). Additionally, you keep describing them as the result of "hacking", when the chatlogs were downloaded from a public IRC chatroom using basic IRC commands. Sarah also spent a lot of time talking about sharing her pedophilia issues with her psychologist, and argued against the age of consent on other message boards [6]. The avatars that she used on somethingawful and thepriceislol forums were also taken from child-lover websites. She also claimed to be 20 in 2005, and the earliest record of her talking about her pedophilia was from 2006. So I'm skeptical of the claim she was a teenager. Lastly, Milo has reported that the DA charged with Sarah's case admitted that the case against her was solid, but the statute of limitations had expired. I have no idea what there is to gain by denying all this.

Also some minor corrections on 8chan, their global rules never allowed for CP, and Brennan claims that any CP posted had an average takedown time of one hour (law requires them to act within 48 hours of a takedown request). Aside from this, the 8chan had a subforum dedicated to pedophilia discussion and sharing pics of kids in swimsuits (which is obviously creepy as hell, but not illegal). Additionally, the forum in question made up less than 1% of 8chan's active userbase, so I'm not sure where the idea that 8chan's business depends on it came from. 64.38.194.13 (talk) 19:21, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

Sarah also said that the feds confiscated her computer while she was still in the chatroom and even when Milo went to confirm parts of the story Sarah's aunt and uncle said their daughter was never alone with Sarah for any of these events to have actually happened. Also, Milo's lied about people he's called and things that have been said to him within the past week and lying about things to ruin a liberal is Breitbart's bread and butter. So really, who are you going to believe? But the point here is really this: if she's not in any legal trouble now, that there was nothing in those chat logs that would put her into legal trouble, and she is showing remorse for having made those poor taste jokes while she was in a deep depression, what the fuck does it matter to the discussion of Gamergate now?

"The Mods Are Always Asleep".—Ryulong (talk) 23:47, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

Like the story about having a wife, it's likely that Sarah was lying about being subjected to a police raid 10-ish years ago, as the cops have no record of it. Though I see you now take Milo's word on what her guardians told him. Although in your very next sentence you're back to assuming he's lying. I did read your link in which he referred to a private university as a public one, it's a legitimate error, though it's a huge leap to take that as proof of him committing outright libel and slander. But to specify, Sarah's guardians have said that they didn't permit Nyberg to be alone with her cousin anymore, for reasons that they didn't want to specify (ie to avoid legal incrimination). 64.38.194.13 (talk) 00:43, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

Well if he's lying about both then there's nothing that he's said is true so his whole article is garbage. And the link is to prove that he lied about calling the school and getting proof for his story when the school has no record of ever talking to him.—Ryulong (talk) 01:15, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

Ryulong.... there are chatlogs spanning years, which appear to be incredibly sincere and unlike any 2edgy5u humour I've ever seen. There are witnesses who took party in that community at the time who were willing to give their retelling of events to add context to those logs. But she was joking about the logs because she said she was. And they're lying because you say they are. And there's a whole bunch of witnesses willing to say so but I'll just have to take your word for it, honest. You outright admit to refusing to look at evidence supporting one possibility, and assure us that the opposite is true and there's plenty of evidence to back you up but we're not allowed to see it so we'll just have to take your word for it. I believe, based on what's been presented for and against, that Sarah Nyberg is most probably a pedophile. It's not a provable claim, and I could very well be wrong, but there is a significant amount of evidence supporting it, which you are outright dismissing because Sarah said she was joking. Considering the potential damage such a claim could do, I'd be fully in favour of not speaking of it here whatsoever, but announcing it debunked because 'Yeah we asked her and she said no, it was just a joke' is laughable, and adding that 'gamergaters only say she is because they're actually the pedophiles' is so incredibly, mind-bogglingly retarded that it leaves me in awe of the way your mind works. Seriously (talk) 04:59, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

Who told you it was a hack, Ryulong? The logs were public until Sarah took them down.--Banned main (talk) 05:14, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

If the stuff from the DA can be backed up, that would be pretty good evidence, and should be included. Personally, I'm of the belief that so long as Nyberg is no longer pursuing pedophilia, the stronger rebuttal is not to go "nuh-uh" but to point out that it's almost totally irrelevant to the issue. The GG crowd did not go after Nyberg because they found out a person may have been a pedophile, they went after her because she spoke out against what Gamergate was doing, and they later uncovered that allegation. From the other side, and I may be seriously mistaken, but the problematic aspect of the CP on 8chan in regards to gamergate is that GG defended the practice that allowed for and encouraged CP, not solely that members of GG may or may not have been former pedophiles. It's the platforming that's more troubling and relevant in that regard. If the con-Gamergate side is defending the actual pedophilia Nyberg is accused of, that would be a solid counterpoint for GG, but instead they seem to simply be saying (as we've seen from certain editors on this very site) "well, some of the people you support have done some bad things in the past, and redemption/personal correction don't exist". Conversely, a lot of what I see on sites like here or gamerghazi is those against Gamergate saying "I can remember when I was as angry as the GG crowd, and I think they'll probably end up seeing the light." (Not to say there's not a few assholes who just hate GG folks for existing, but I definitely see this sentiment more often in the countermovements.)KrytenKoro (talk) 23:11, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

Sarah's lawyer and cops who were investigating found nothing illegal. I doubt Milo spoke to the DA because if he can't be trusted to talk to someone at a school and get the facts right, why are we to believe he talked to a district attorney? And yeah, KrytenKoro, the point is people against Gamergate see the "we found these chat logs" situation as just a barely there excuse for having been digging into her life for over a year. They hated her because she points out the stupid shit GG says and believes. The "WE HAVE PROOF SHE'S A PEDO" came after they had already been calling hera pedophile and a zoophile (for some other reason I can't remember). Meanwhile, it shows Gamergate's hypocrisy in that they went out of their way to defend 8chan's pedophile boards after Dan Olson's article by falsely claiming he should be arrested because of some inane reading of Canadian child pornography laws that all got thrown out by the cops.—Ryulong (talk) 23:47, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

So, you trust Sarah's account of what the cops said, but not Milo's? Only one of these people is legally obligated to tell the truth about Sarah's criminality, and it's not her. Also, the zoophile claim came from a forum post she made in which she claimed that her and her wife were considering having sex with their dog and wanted some advice. We know post was fake, because there's no record of Sarah being married.

To specify on the 8chan story, GG didn't defend CP so much as deny that it was permitted on 8chan, or that they had any association with the pedophilia board. Dan Olsen tied GG to child porn because there was both a GG board and a pedo discussion board hosted on 8chan. Keep in mind, the site allows anyone to make a board. Dan Olsen was reported because to the police because he claimed to download a bunch of 8chan's child porn to his hard drive as evidence. This is very much illegal, but he was never charged because the photos he downloaded didn't qualify as CP (it was mostly kids in swimsuits). And that kind of goes back to the disingenuous nature of the Olsen article, he claimed to have collected a bunch of CP and as proof, blurred out images of pics that didn't fit any legal definition of CP. Which is a shame, since an article about the creeps on 8chan's pedo imageboard skirting laws would have been enough of a story, without bringing in false criminal accusations. 64.38.194.13 (talk) 00:33, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

Yes because Milo has a track record of lying, Dan Olson didn't mention Gamergate at all in his piece, there's a legal gray area when it comes to the muckraking he was actually doing (people on KIA were reporting him for having sought out the websites, not that he had to do a print-screen and then heavily blur out a photo), and stop hiding from behind a proxy like a coward.—Ryulong (talk) 00:48, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

I'll have to look up the Olson piece again, but if you're right then I appreciate the correction. Also, by your own account, Sarah Nyberg also has a long track record of lying, for spending years lying about being a pedophile and molesting her cousin. She's now considered a reliable source, so clearly lying is not a dealbreaker. 64.38.194.13 (talk) 01:09, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

All she does on Twitter is directly link to other people's tweets. Hard to lie about things like that. She actually puts sources unlike the long track record of lying for the sake of undermining political enemies Milo and his pals at Breitbart have.—Ryulong (talk) 01:18, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

Who told you that, Ryulong? The posts I linked to, by the way, are her claiming 8chan is an "active pedophile network" (a lie, and hypocritical), her claiming Brad Wardell "sexually harassed" a woman and created a hostile work environment based on a discredited harassment accusation (both lies), and her claiming that "GamerGate websites openly posted instructions on how to illegally gain access to my servers via SQL injection exploits; this was used to leak chat logs between a small group of friends from almost a decade ago" (a lie, I posted an archive showing that the logs were publicly accessible).--Banned main (talk) 07:36, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

8chan is a pedophile network. The Daily Dot pointed this out. Dan Olson pointed this out. They've been kicked off of Patreon, Gratipay, and their domain registrar because of their child porn hosting. Sarah pointing this out is not hypocritical because she isn't a pedophile. Meanwhile, sexualized photos she took of herself as a minor (before her transition) acquired through hacks are being spread throughout Gamergate like wildfire. She printscreened Brad Wardell's comment in that second tweet so those are his words not hers that she's commenting on. And Gamergaters told each other how to hack into her website in January 2015 and months later, Gamergaters suddenly claim they have proof of the chatlogs being public on her servers. You know what else? No one fucking new srhbutts was the owner of ffshrine until Gamergate doxed the shit out of her. Even your based "Cathy Young" doesn't think Sarah's a pedophile or ever did anything criminal. The only people who insist she needs to go to jail are Gamergaters. The cops don't think she did anything wrong. Her legal counsel doesn't think she did anything wrong. And she's not simply not in trouble because of statute of limitations garbage. It's because there's no possible case against her. So we are all done with trying to rules laywer over this one woman's history and complete lack of criminal activity despite all that Gamergate is trying to throw against her.—Ryulong (talk) 10:30, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

A few minor corrections, 8chan is not a 'pedophile network', at best they have a single board for pedophilia discussion. But if permitting pedophilia discussion and sharing sexualized photos of kids is your definition, then Sarah Nyberg also ran a pedophile network for years, while directly contributing to and encouraging such discussion (in addition to creating and sharing CP). The photos of herself were taken in 2005, when she was claiming to be 20. I'm not sure what evidence you have that she was a minor.

Additionally, Sarah was publicly known as a pedophile long before GG discovered it.[7] She was also known as the FFShrine owner, because she claimed to be so publicly on twitter. Again, this happened long before GG.

In terms of Sarah's honesty, you're insisting that she spent years lying about being a pedophile, posting sexualized images of kids from a cross-section of obscure child-lover sites [8], yet wouldn't possibly be lying now in order to avoid self-incrimination. On her GamerGate tweets, many of them are accurate! Many are not, in the sense that she often screenshots posts out of context from random message boards and blames GamerGate for it. It's also common for her to take the words of a single person and attribute it to a collective "they", no matter what GamerGate's actual reaction to it might be. There was one instance in the past two months where someone posted an unambiguously transphobic comment on KotakuinAction. The post was downvoted by the community, and removed by mods within 10 minutes. That didn't stop Sarah from taking a screenshot and using it as proof of collective transphobia.

On the topic of "hax", the logs were publicly hosted on FFShrine in a directory called ffshrine.org/logs.[9] They were available as html pages for anyone to download, which is how they were originally obtained, no "sql injection" required. This is in addition to the FFShrine feature that automatically displayed the latest IRC chat lines on FFShrine's music piracy page (also open to the public). Multiple web archives of this page provide yet another cross-reference. [10]. The young girl she was "joking" about having as a girlfriend was the same one she later took genital shots of in an apparently drugged state. 70.162.81.250 (talk) 17:27, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for posting that. I was unaware the IRC chat lines were automatically posted to the front page or that the logs had been archived directly.--Banned main (talk) 18:52, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

8chan is indeed a pedophile network. They have had multiple boards for discussion of pedophilia and child porn in the past year. Sarah was never a pedophile. You keep showing me evidence of Gamergate's deep digging on her and expect me to take it as good evidence. And none of Gamergate would have ever discovered she owned FF Shrine until they began doxing her. And the chatlogs were never known about until Gamergate began hacking her website. This discussion is fucking ridiculous and we should not keep having it.—Ryulong (talk) 21:45, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

By that standard your own Wikipedia would be a pedophile network - unless you dismiss the whole pedophilia userbox incident. I'm not sure what the rest of your argument here is: if they didn't dox her they wouldn't have known she was a pedophile, therefore she's not a pedophile? – Sarah (HH) 21:59, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

#GGinDC Bomb Threat[edit]

We are claiming that the bomb threat was 'traced back to posts on 8chan' based solely on this tweet. https://twitter.com/arthur_affect/status/632636987367751680

How the fuck are people saying with a straight face that this article is 'meticulously cited'? Seriously (talk) 13:42, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, that shit needs to go.KrytenKoro (talk) 15:27, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

Took me 5 minutes on google to find the archived 8chan thread from which the bomb threat came. I've added it to the article. Typhoon (talk) 18:33, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

No. That is (an anonymous person who claims to be) /baphomet/ admin Eclipso taking credit for the SPJ bomb threat (which is also problematic as a source, more on that later). I can't find any source supporting that anyone on 8chan ever claimed responsibility for the GGinDC one. We can source that the bomb threat happened, we can source that the FBI considered it credible, we can source how and why Arthur Chu was considered a suspect by GGers, and state that a lack of FBI response against him means it almost certainly wasn't him, but then we're basically stuck at 'there's no proof of who did it, or why'.

Anyone can go and claim responsibility for any crime on that site. Witness claims from literally "Anybody" is unreliable without corroborating proof, like said mod saying "That was me" with his identity or while posting under a secure tripcode.Keter (talk) 21:59, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

The SPJ bomb threat also has problems as we're sourcing an 8chan post (and some rando's tweet capping the 8chan post, as if that strengthens our sourcing any) taking credit for it ; we can source that an 8chan post claiming to be a /baphomet/ admin took credit for the bomb threat, but as the poster isn't tripfagging (and used a tor service on top of that) we can't prove it's actually him. Even if we could, /baphomet/ are chaotic trolls and shouldn't be considered a credible source on what they had for breakfast that day. He does post details of who he sent the bomb threats too, and the actual wording of the bomb threat, so there's a chance somebody can confirm that whether or not he's Eclipso, he's actually the guy who did it. I'm going to start hunting for any indication that somebody confirmed that the wording checks out. But in the meantime, we've got 'a guy claiming to be a /baphomet/ admin took credit via an 8chan post using tor, and maybe it's actually him, and maybe he actually did it' and after that we're right back to 'there's no proof of who did it or why'.

As far as both bomb threats go, we have no real rebuttal whatsoever besides 'there's no proof it was one of us', which isn't really a rebuttal, and brings up the uncomfortable point that gamergate could quite rightly say that about the majority of the harassment attributed to them. So what do we do? Go upfront with 'Maybe they're right, we don't know.'? Remove the section completely and pretend like it never happened? Suggest that it was a gamergate falseflag and use speculations from ghazi threads as our source?

Also I'm massive dumbass and don't remember my password, and I'm not getting the reset email so I'll sign this now. Seriously2 (talk) 19:32, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

Too much BLP-hazardous rubbish here[edit]

from driveby users. I've set protection to sysop and emailed the other mods about it. Please desist - David Gerard (talk) 22:31, 18 December 2015 (UTC)