User talk:Ryulong/Archive8

This is an archive page, last updated 18 December 2015. Please do not make edits to this page.

Archives for this talk page:

<1>, <2>, <3>, <4>, <5>, <6>, <7>

, (new)(back)

Hitman Absolution - Video Games as Art

Can you please explain what you meant when you called the part about video games as art within the Hitman Absolution section of the Sarkeesian article as "non-sequitur-y"? The point was making was that Sarkeesian is analysing games as art, so that means exploring multiple different facets of video games, like all the features within video games that I mentioned, and that because Anita is analysing video games in that kind of way, making complaints about "the way it's meant to be played" is actually something that doesn't follow. I think there is stuff you deleted from that section that does belong there. Jon91919 (talk) 12:16, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

I summarized it better as "this is a straw man argument because no one is debating her point about the sexist depiction of women but rather nit picking the mechanics of the game to say she's a fraud".—Ryulong (talk) 22:35, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

Mona

Stop desysopping me over and blocking me. How is giving context to any of the completely bullshit claims against a person victimized by a hate mob not libelous?—Ryulong (talk) 22:51, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

Your "logic" is bullshit. You simply dislike the edits. You drove a good editor like GooniePunk out of her for the nite. You are an utter asshole.---Mona- (talk) 22:54, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

You know who's the real asshole? You two for thinking that allowing context to libelous claims concerning pedophilia isn't libelous.—Ryulong (talk) 23:05, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

But no. Any sysop action I take with regards to a Gamergate page must be me abusing my tools and I should be treated no better than Ken or AvengeroftheBoN.—Ryulong (talk) 23:13, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

JAQing as to pedophilia claims on a talk page is literally what got someone utterly banned from RW for by board vote. It would be ridiculous to ever have to do such a thing again - David Gerard (talk) 23:16, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

I have a law degree and practiced defamation law. There was no libel involved. But there are literally no facts, and no reasoning, that apply to Ryu, and David Gerard will stand by him no matter how outrageous he is. As ill as this kind of injustice makes me -- including blocking Tallulah for 3 months -- I accept that this is the way it is. No one is going to significantly oppose David Gerard. I've been instructed on this reality by others and realize it just is what it is.---Mona- (talk) 23:23, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

You keep saying that but have you considered explaining exactly what a libelous hitpiece on someone says about them which was itself based on posts and attacks made against them on untouchable web entities (ED, 8chan) for which there's no legal recourse against is kind of fucked up? But no. I'm wrong in saying we shouldn't contextualize false allegations against someone when it concerns pedophilia.—Ryulong (talk) 23:30, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

Mostly the problem is there's "this case is ridiculous" and there's "but even though it's ludicrous bullshit it still costs money to make it go away". The RMF has an annual budget of $7000. If you're personally good for the cost and can actually demonstrate that to the board ... then I can't speak for anyone else, but I expect we'd still say no - David Gerard (talk) 23:33, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

I don't understand. If I look at the edits, I see a reasonable reference for this claim, what am I missing here? Carpetsmoker (talk) 00:02, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

The only reference I could find was Milo at Brietbart, neither of which could ever be considered reasonable. Basically, Milo's using his position at Brietbart to play pied piper to GG, throwing them whatever bones he thinks' they'll like so he can lead them deeper into the Brietbart alternative reality. Queex_{chthonic murmurings} 00:06, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

Don't want to link to it here, as it was removed previously, but the chat logs seem real, and confirmed by Nyberg over twitter. Dismissing it out of hand because "it's Milo at Brietbart" is not a very valid argument, IMHO. Carpetsmoker (talk) 00:18, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

Whatever the contents of the logs are, we don't need to give any more context to the allegations against her other than "they accuse her of being a pedo because of what she said in the logs". There is no point in saying anything beyond that, particularly when the Breitbart hitpiece is being sourced.—Ryulong (talk) 00:30, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

The mistake you made Mona (as did Goonie and as did I) is attempt to introduce some reasonable discussion into one of the pages which form the glorious fiefdom of Ryulong and Gerard. Hope you learned your lesson. --TheroadtoWiganPier (talk) 00:39, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

Okay. that we "don't need to give any more context" is a valid opinion. But I don't see why the revisions had to be scrubbed from history, the discussion on the talk page had to be scrubbed from history, and the user banned for three months? Because from where I'm sitting that seems like a rather close-minded way of going about things. Again, the fact that a "Breitbart hitpiece is being sourced" doesn't mean that it's *wrong* (perhaps it is, but a cursory glance reveals it to be mostly genuine, and no one has put forth any arguments on why it's wrong). Carpetsmoker (talk) 00:46, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

Can you link directly to that confirmation for me? WalkerWalkerWalker 00:45, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

here's the screenshot. Searching twitter is a bitch, so I don't have a direct link, but this article is a more detailed response, where she/he claims that she/he says it were "outlandish lies I told nearly ten years ago to get a rise out of people"... What our page(s) exactly tell about this is something we can have a (hopefully reasonable) discussion about (I, for one, am not certain it deserves too much attention, although the jury is still out). Carpetsmoker (talk) 01:03, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

Yes, I let my personal outrage at manifest injustice take over my reason; I know this is a situation I can't change. But, the lawyer in me is angry at this inane tossing around the word "libel" so absurdly as a defense to deleting edits, and blocking a user, two people do not like. Especially given that the user had entered good faith talk-page discussions that these two have simply disregarded and then punished. It's makes me sick, the injustice of it.---Mona- (talk) 00:49, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

1. I saw no accusations of this Sarah person being a pedophile, and 2. The edits were sourced, not so much as for the truth of what they contained, but that what they said, was in fact said, and what this Sarah admitted about these said things.---Mona- (talk) 00:53, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

ADDING 3. Even as heinous as Breitbart is, if what they reported is factually accurate, and if this person admitted she said these things -- and she did admit it-- that's not libel. Moreover, these edits were negotiated in good faith with reasonable users on the relevant talk page. This wiki cannot simply go about refusing to publish unpleasant things that living people admit they said or did because of contrived legal issues. Very few unpleasant behaviors and statements would be documented if we adopted such a policy. ---Mona- (talk) 01:20, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

Breitbart didn't factually report anything. Yiannopoulos pulled the rumors and allegations about Sarah from the Gamergate scrublords and presented whatever he could legally present as fact, prompting the resoponse from her in that Medium.com blog entry. We don't need to add anything locally that gives any actual context to libelous attacks in tabloids that are in a gray area that Yiannopoulos and his editors at Breitbart (even though he is now head editor of the "tech" section so he's in charge of what gets posted now) got vetted through their legal team.—Ryulong (talk) 01:46, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

You just admitted it IS legal, so will you at least do the honor of unrevdelling it? WalkerWalkerWalker 01:50, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

Just because a reactionary tabloid has the legal leeway to post completely false attacks on someone does not mean that there's a loophole for anyone else. And Gooniepunk oversighted it all apparently.—Ryulong (talk) 01:52, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

And just because she goes "Yeah, those are my chat logs" doesn't mean there's any point to providing context to something that is libelous at best.—Ryulong (talk) 01:55, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

"Yiannopoulos pulled the rumors and allegations about Sarah from the Gamergate scrublords and presented whatever he could legally present as fact," I say this not for your benefit because you are not amenable to reason or reasoning. But for the benefit of others I note: The reason Yiannopoulos could legally publish that, and not take it down, is because it is true. Disliking that it is true, and that she admitted it, does not make it unlawful. He may be a total asshole (I'm sure he is), she may be a fine person who was subjected to outrageous threats and harassment by Gamergaters (it certainly seems she was), but none of that alters the fact that she actually did say those things. Or that the user who made the edits had sought and received consensus on the talk page for the edits.---Mona- (talk) 01:57, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

Just because the chat logs are legitimate doesn't mean there's any point in giving context to their contents, particularly when they're used to attack someone and solely used on RationalWiki to weasel in those accusations.—Ryulong (talk) 02:00, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

It's irrelevant what you think about any of that. The user in question sought and received support by a majority of reasonable users for truthful edits. It is not up to you to unilaterally revert them. Your option, the only honorable one, is to litigate the issue on the talk page, just as she did.---Mona- (talk) 02:12, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

They were trying to weasel in the false accusations against her and cite the hit piece on her as evidence. We're talking about a newspaper that has repeatedly released highly edited videos and content to discredit their political opponents. Just because they have some legal recourse doesn't mean shit for us here.—Ryulong (talk) 02:14, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

Umm... legal for them but not us? Do explain. I'll wait. WalkerWalkerWalker 02:26, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

What passes for "okay we won't probably get sued over this" at Breitbart shouldn't be the same threshold for RationalWiki.—Ryulong (talk) 02:28, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

Ironic statement given you defended copyright violations under "they likely won't sue us over it"--"Paravant" ^{Talk & Contribs} 02:30, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

Fine I'm a fucking hypocrite. Now I'm done discussing this.—Ryulong (talk) 02:34, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

Coop

You're being cooped, and David isn't ending it early. Your total lack of remorse for abusing your sysop tools ontop of saying we shouldn't undo sysop abuse because "it annoys me that you do" is what tipped me into doing it. --"Paravant" ^{Talk & Contribs} 03:15, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

Fine.—Ryulong (talk) 03:25, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

Dog whistles

You have spammed my page several times with disingenious nonsense, dubious political views and unproductive nonsense for long enough now. I don't want that on my page. You can comment in a constructive fashion, but I don't want to see your dubious reek smeared over my pages all the time. Aneris ✻ (talk) 12:30, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

You must be really far up your ass to think a gay Jewish kid from New York would be a Stormfront sympathizer you fedora vaping nutcase.—Ryulong (talk) 15:22, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

Yeah right and you have a POC as a friend.

Protip: stop stallking me you creep, stop spamming my page, or revert when I try to contain your nonsense. I'm overally anyway not interested in the stuff you are interested in, so you can continue edit your articles unperturbed. — Aneris ✻ (talk) 16:44, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

You're acting increasingly unhinged, Aneris. Is this all because Ryu proved you lied about your (not)editing the article on Anita? Typhoon (talk) 17:47, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

I think someone doesn't like deer fart.wmv.—Ryulong (talk) 23:52, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

Oh my. Look what I found. Seems like this guy is infamous for being completely nuts. Typhoon (talk) 23:57, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

Oh look, I have them blocked on Twitter already. I wonder why that is.—Ryulong (talk) 00:04, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

A Discordian LessWrong Slymepitter. Good Lord - David Gerard (talk) 00:14, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Well, now I'm certain that Aneris is here only to continue their years long crusade against PZ Myers, post-modernism, social justice and anything that isn't fedora tier atheism. Aneris will obsessively edit about these topics, mostly. I expect lots of drama. Typhoon (talk) 00:16, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

What's "fedora tier atheism"?--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ 17:38, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

He probably means a type of stereotypical chauvinist nerd who likes to present himself as gentlemanly, also known as "Euphoric Atheist". Rationality, reason, "logic", polite speech and the fedora are merely accessory to help that image. These people flocked to the atheist project as it made them seem intellectually superior. That is paired with old fashioned sexism and a belittling attitude towards women. Basically a type of wannabe "gentlemanly masculinity" (as opposed to the oily muscle type of masculinity). The fedora type seems to overlap with the "men's rights activists" (MRA) who are identitarian arch-enemies of the social justice warriors. Also seems to have an overlap with the Brony subculture. Take a step back and you see many similarities to social justice warriors (who are also gender identitarians, who also sign up to feel superior, who are also typically nerdy types etc). A difference is that among SJWs, "In the land of the nerds, the double “x” chromosome is queen" (R. Watson) whereas the fedora faction seems to believe that women like manly men who don't treat them like queens. Hence, there is also an overlap with so-called "pick up artists". Yes, it looks a bit like a ridiculous nerd-war, hence it is mocked and Poe'd and trolled that often. — Aneris ✻ (talk) 18:21, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

You know that no one meets your ass backwards definition of "SJW" right? You're just making yourself out to be an idiot every time you rail about that. And if you use "gender identitarian" or similar snarl again I'm going to see if you can be banned for our own safety.—Ryulong (talk) 23:12, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

That's not what "identitarian" means - David Gerard (talk) 11:03, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

The term is also used for adherents of identity politics, and it's not even far away from identitarian, see the critical race theory movement founded by people like Kimberle Crenshaw. The wikipedia page notes things like, quotation:

• "Non-white cultural nationalism/separatism, Black nationalism—exploring more radical views arguing for separation and reparations as a form of foreign aid."
• "Essentialism philosophy —reducing the experience of a category (gender or race) to the experience of one sub-group (white women or African-Americans). Basically, all oppressed people share the commonality of oppression. However, that oppression varies by gender, class, race, etc., so the aims and strategies will differ for each of these groups"

so, you have a sort of nationalism and a race/human group essentialism. Now, Kimberle Crenshaw is the same person who came up with the intersectionality system! Which also belongs to prejudice plus power corner where such nationalism and race-essentialist are declared non-racist (non-whites have no power, thus cannot be racist, according to that idea). Also note that the people who are associated with founding the CRT movement come out of the lawyer and legal corner, and are not from humanities or sciences. Also check the second source on the CRT wiki article, which leads you here which asserts: "are most peculiarly marked by their utilization of developments in postmodern poststructural scholarship, especially the focus on "subaltern" or "marginalized" communities and the use of alternative methodology in the expression of theoretical work, most notably their use of "narratives" and other literary techniques". You should be knowing with whom you go to bed with. This is the underlying ideology for modern day social justice movement, which will be apparent yet another time when you look at ideas such as "cultural appropriation". It incidentially also explains why I am fairly astonished that a "rational" wiki swallows and accepts things uncritically that are described as "alternative" and inspired by "literary techniques". You're far more in trouble than you seem to realize. That Ryulong wants me banned for calling this "identitarian" (derived from identity politics) is another dubious highlight here, not that users already have removed rights nonchalantly. — Aneris ✻ (talk) 15:48, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

Already tried on Jerry Coyne. Wonder how his attempt to dox me is going - David Gerard (talk) 00:19, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Ah, Lügenmeister David Gerard again. Did happen as much as "obsessively edit[ting] about these topics". And writing about Coyne's disagreement with your Dear Leaders was not only conform to the article (which lists several of such disputes with others), it was also completely sourced. You simply expose yourself as a liar. I also never tried to dox anyone and have written against it several times, even here. It was your Dear Leader gang who are doxers (which -- quelle surprise -- was removed from the RW). — Aneris ✻ (talk) 19:26, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

Holy mackerel. The mask is slipping further. Queex_{chthonic murmurings} 19:32, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

Since I just use my nick, have stated upfront that I'm critical of postmodernists and against fascists (/social justice warriors), are known to post on the SP (never a secret either), I guess that I also sympathise with certain atheists is taken to be the grand reveal? Everything else Gerard claims is completely false. You can also know this by checking SSC, which I have visited a few times tops and where I found fallacies, which I added with sources (not knowing there was an issue). I also have a very rudimentary idea about LessWrong, which you can also check if you feel like stalking some more. I don't even know what it supposed to mean, but assume it's another dogwhistle since Lügenmeister Gerard brought it up. I obviously hang out in euro/international Nu Atheist corner and know little about the wider "rationalist" scene. — Aneris ✻ (talk) 20:00, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

I meant your mask of rationality and impartiality. What was, at one point, a credible attempt at presenting yourself as an earnest and thoughtful party has now devolved into word salad and oddly conspiratorial meanderings. You've now reached the point where no cliché is too banal for you to invoke - 'Dear Leader', 'fascist', dear god. And again, you seems to wield the word 'postmodern' as though you expect it to be a magical talisman that will protect you from the scary real world. And, like other similar pests we've had here before, you are inordinately averse to admitting being wrong about anything. That's a character flaw, not a strength. Your best path to rationality is to acknowledge is that you're not as smart as you seem to think you are. Queex_{chthonic murmurings} 20:09, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

Again a complete lie. You accused me since the beginning, same for some others. There never was a "different" situation at all whatsoever. My user/talk pages has that documented. "Dear Leader" is Gerard-Speak taken from PZ Myers et al. The same goes for the other phrase, which I use in reply when people try to label me with their preferred (false) labels. This is based off this or this. I also stated openly: "My standard reply is that people who sign up to this belief system and use its tactics to shut someone else up are themselves fascists (perhaps only Leisure Fascists™ variety [...]". And to give you a bigger picture. Lügenmeister Gerard's troupe is on the way out, exposed as frauds, paedophile supporters and where good organisations have distanced themselves from (this however due to smears and libels, typically for you SJW bunch). See here, another topic where the RW of course tells blatant lies for "Dear Leader". — Aneris ✻ (talk) 20:29, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

Yes, but did you know there are 0 google hits on "roko's basilisk porn"? - David Gerard (talk) 23:04, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

Actually, I get thousands. None are relevant, but... Narky Sawtooth (Nyar?~) 23:18, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

Gonna start writing me a lemon fic. The action gets started with the AI convincing someone to cut a glory hole in the box. Narky Sawtooth (Nyar?~) 23:28, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

That's nice, hon. Why not go and show daddy? Queex_{chthonic murmurings} 00:31, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

All this over farting deer?—Ryulong (talk) 07:03, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

what's with the basilisk? I thought his thing was more of the japanese tentacly variety? — Aneris ✻ (talk) 03:49, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

Yo

Autoblock still in place because Reverend Black Percy is a plagiarizing cockmongler.—Ryulong (talk) 03:00, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

Always so polite... Carpetsmoker (talk) 07:50, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

coop

Yes, again. RationalWiki:Chicken_coop#We_need_to_talk_about_Ryulong. Carpetsmoker (talk) 11:10, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

Again? How many coop cases around Ryulong where there in the last, say, 6 weeks?--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ ∈)☼(∋ 11:34, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

Please don't remove posts from your talk page mate, no matter how embarrassing you find them. Tielec01 (talk) 12:47, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

Edit warring on the monument page.

From what I can see, a consensus has emerged on the relevant talk page. Please remember that we don't always get out own way in life, and respect the consensus that has emerged, even if you think it is wrong. Sometimes people on the internet are wrong, and we have to live with that. Edit-warring when there is already a massive Coop case with your name on it is probably not a good idea. Find something productive to do instead; you're not doing yourself any favours. Peace. AgingHippie (talk) 20:37, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

Two people isn't a consensus particularly when the points I'm trying to raise aren't even being addressed.—Ryulong (talk) 20:39, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

Is this -- or anything -- worth the drama and disruption to the community that your behaviour typically produces? What is more important to you: that the community works, that a quote you don't like appears in an article nobody will read anyway, or that you get your way because that's the only thing that makes you fell validated in the world? Peace. AgingHippie (talk) 20:47, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

I'm not trying to disrupt the god damn community. Why is it that every talk page dispute I've entered blows up into something like this?—Ryulong (talk) 20:54, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

Because you are stubborn, unable to accept the smallest amount of criticism, abrasive, and have a massive persecution complex. Peace. AgingHippie (talk) 20:56, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

This has to end Ryulong

This has to end. You're resistance to the idea that anybody who disagrees with you is anything but targeting you and likely a GGer or other evil group has to end. You're unending combative attitude has to end. I said I wouldn't moderate you for two weeks but that was running with a hidden modifier that required you to not keep doing the exact same nonsense. If you do not make your own effort to reform yourself, you will end up banned from here, I promise that and would rather it didn't happen. --"Paravant" ^{Talk & Contribs} 20:39, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

I was wrong in applying that to RBP and I recognize that. But the quotes on the page are still shit and irrelevant to everything else. I can't raise any complaints it seems without it being seen as me causing more drama.—Ryulong (talk) 20:49, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

The wiki disagrees with you. deal with it.--"Paravant" ^{Talk & Contribs} 20:51, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

No one gives me a god damn chance because it's always just drama and reading past what I've said to make their own conclusions.—Ryulong (talk) 20:52, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

The wiki disagrees with you. Deal with it and move on.--"Paravant" ^{Talk & Contribs} 20:54, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

You're not actually addressing what I'm saying which is my fucking complaint in the first place.—Ryulong (talk) 20:56, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

ECX2That is probably because you have caused so much drama on the wiki. There's no way to see this case in isolation from all the drama you have caused here. No you'll have to bear that weight until you've demonstrated that you can accept that not everything you edit is gonna turn out the way you want it to. If you simply cannot do that -- and I have seen zero evidence that you can -- perhaps a blog, and not a collaborative and communal format like a wiki would be a better choice for your online activities. Because this clearly is not working. Peace. AgingHippie (talk) 20:55, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

But this happens constantly. And I'm tired of you all saying "Just make a fucking blog and get off of our corner of the Internet".—Ryulong (talk) 20:56, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

It happens all of the time because you are incapable of handling the concept of a collaborative wiki in which you are not the arbitrator of content. You would do well on a blog, where only you can decide what content is. Or a CP esque wiki.--"Paravant" ^{Talk & Contribs} 21:01, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

Yes, it does...since people have to read past a constant barrage of insults, accusations, and derogatory comments to get to the meat of your point in order to make their conclusions. Then if they disagree it gets so much worse. -EmeraldCityWanderer (talk) 21:04, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

I already posted my views on "No one gives me a god damn chance" here: User_talk:Ryulong/Archive7#Dude.... Well, now you got a coop case :-/ What you did after this (the copyvio "conflict") was stop and after a bit created Yonaguni Monument. I thought this was great, doing something constructive! I didn't really want to drive my point too far, so I just left a positive reinforcement comment on the talk page. I really thought things were going to be different! I wanted to maybe take it up with you in a private email a week or two later after you had some time to think this over, but I never got the chance, as by that time, the whole revdel thing happened and I sort of lost the energy.

I also want to quickly remind you that I defended you on the No platform edits, as I thought Paravant was out-of-line there. We may disagree on the content, but I saw no reason for sysop-locking the page.

I know we're not exactly friends, but please, trust me when I say that I'm talking to you as a friend and that I really don't "have it out for you" or have a desire to see you hurt.

I don't know if you read all of the coop, so let me repeat it here, I really don't mind working with you, helping you, to avoid unnecessarily conflicts. But something really has to change. The constant conflict drives people away, harms RW's reputation as a whole, and saps time from more constructive edits. The start has to be that you realize that there is a problem in the first place, and that we (as a community) need to make a real (not haphazard) effort to change things. Carpetsmoker (talk) 22:28, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

What Carpet said. I apologised to you repeatedly for blocking you, Ruylong (I specifically assumed that you had sysop, and that you could unblock yourself immediately) - and why did I think you had sysop? Because I haven't been following the drama surrounding you closely, and I'm not out to get you. I'm really just trying to go about my business and learn to be a good editor - a huge part of which is learning from my mistakes. I'm just saying that I'm not trying to be your, or anyone's "enemy". And I'm a minor figure in all this, I'm sure, but for what it's worth - I'll never stop trying to make things work amicably here, and part of that is demanding the same of others. And I agree with Paravant, Carpet (and the rest really) that for the constructive wiki editing process to get anywhere on this site, something indeed has to change. So; what carpet said. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 22:56, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

The unwillingness of so many editors to accept that problem users can destroy online venues if they are not banned is very disheartening. Being so tolerant and accommodating becomes, after a time, enabling of the abuser and the destruction -- or at least, the degradation -- of the site.---Mona- (talk) 00:02, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

This from the editor who seriously threatened RW with Glenn Greenwald - David Gerard (talk) 00:27, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘David, below I explained your misunderstanding of the Greenwald matter. As to the rest, Paravant's leaving shows the issue was as serious as I indicated. Fortunately, that served as a catalyst for the other two mods to finally approach the matter as sober adults and force everyone else to do the same. The results speak for themselves.---Mona- (talk) 16:04, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

David, I love you, but this sort of tu quoque ad hominem attack is beneath you. Carpetsmoker (talk) 00:34, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

No, it's a relevant example of someone with no sense of scale or their own dramatising tendencies when talking about others' - David Gerard (talk) 15:33, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

I'm not going to "defend" Mona, because there's certainly some truth to what you're saying. But this discussion is about Ryulong, and his behaviour. Distracting the discussion by suddenly start talking about someone else is hardly helpful. Besides, we don't all need to be perfect to (constructively) talk about someone else... Carpetsmoker (talk) 15:46, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

Yes yes, you'd like your pecking party to proceed according to plan, got it - David Gerard (talk) 10:56, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

I assume with "pecking party" you mean my coop case against Ryulong? Really, you cannot deny that there has never been a problem with Ryulong's behaviour, at all? And that this isn't a common pattern? And that he's been in conflicts with many editors since day 1, and not just me? And that he's been banned on everything from Wikipedia to PowerRanger wiki and whatnot for disruptive and abusive behaviour? Unless you want to claim the problem are always "the other people" across several different sites. I was merely the one who put his foot down the first and took the time to construct a decent coop case. If it wouldn't be me, it would have been someone else sooner or later. All three other mods agreed maybe not with everything I did or said, but with enough that they quickly decided to put an end to this; a rather rare event here and one that was, IMHO, sorely needed. Carpetsmoker (talk) 11:04, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

David, the post made by Ryulong below -- what are your thoughts on it?KrytenKoro (talk) 17:27, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

I did not "threaten the wiki with Greenwald." What I did do, is announce, early in my tenure, that I was networked with journalists who might be fascinated by what I misperceived to be reality here. That is, I thought Avenger, Hipocrite and Arisboch represented the will of the wiki to allow them to dictate that only pro-Zionist commentary would be permitted. If that had been the case, it could have been a good case study of online Zionist bullying and intolerance -- writ not too small. As it turned out, however, those 3 did not represent the prevailing view here; the issue was simply dread of a controversy taking up oxygen as GG was and does. That's a thoroughly banal matter unworthy of any larger attention. As soon as I realized the real issue I no longer said anything about the journos possibly being interested. There was no political issue involved, except for local wiki politics.---Mona- (talk) 15:59, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

Your judgement and sense of proportion have repeatedly been absolutely terrible; you are not anyone to advise on how to reduce unnecessary drama - David Gerard (talk) 10:56, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

I'm sorry David, but you entirely lack standing to criticize anyone else's judgment. Because of you, the community was forced to go through the final Ryulong debacle, a total clusterfuck that consumed the wiki. That was very largely due to your incomprehensible, constant protection of a manifest problem user. When I was newer here I was utterly perplexed, and no one could explain your position and behavior; they just were. In any event, my initial invocation of a journo network was based on a reasonable, good faith misunderstanding of the dynamics of the wiki. What is your excuse?---Mona- (talk) 15:47, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

Besides, even in the interpretitive scenario that Mona was making stupid threats, they never came to frutition and were indeed - as I understand it - nullified or even redacted, as per her explanation. And if it was entirely out of line, it was a one-time screw up. When Ruylong makes stupid threats, however (read: every other time he communicates in text with another human being), he not only carries them out - he carries out more than he threatened to, with an almost erotic schadenfreude, pushing every last letter of his ultimatums to the absolute brink. Ruylong thinks this is how adults get their way. I don't think so. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 17:28, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

Mona, you're an insufferable holier-than thou bitch. Carpetsmoker, have fun circlejerking it with the neo-Nazis on /r/WikiInAction and patting yourselves on the back that you're the rational ones because I disagreed with article content and you managed to show me that parochial Wikis are festering garbage dumps. Reverend Black Percy, Tielec01, Gooniepunk, Paravant, Arisboch, see last. Last edit I'm making here. And, again, fuck y'all.—Ryulong (talk) 06:50, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

k |₹Λ¥$€₦₦ ^{Stars don't twinkle, the moon doesn't shine} 12:05, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

Oh, you mentioned me. Ryukong-senpai noticed me. KYAAAAAAAAAAAAAA!!!!!!!!!!!--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ ∈)☼(∋ 13:04, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

LANCBing and then coming back to make a comment before going "Still Lancbing" has historically been a big warning sign that a LANCB is not happening.--"Paravant" ^{Talk & Contribs} 06:55, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

" Last edit I'm making here." Betcha it ain't. Peace. AgingHippie (talk) 06:56, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

"Moooooo!"

Gooniepunk (talk) 06:59, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

And there we have it. My last sympathy and desire to help Ryulong has disappeared. Great job! I sincerely hope you have a happy life worrying hours upon hours about the spelling of 'buddyloid' and that I never run into you again. Houdoe! Carpetsmoker (talk)

He didn't mention me in his villain list?! DAMN THAT CURSED SERPENT! BAN HIM! STRANGLE HIM! FORCE HIM TO WATCH DOCUMENTARIES ABOUT MY LITTLE PONY!!!!!11--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ ∈)☼(∋ 07:48, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

And nothing of value was lost. Besides, I have to say I'm flattered to have been included among the select group of people who, by virtue of their actions, managed to cost the great dictator the war. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 17:08, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

A reply to your list of objections

(My comments in bold, yours as they originally appeared)

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.

• Agreed, actually, glad we can discuss them here

• 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.

• One issue with that. While you are somewhat correct, small disingenuous bit I need to refute. You can have an argument that is pro-anti-vaxxer be refuted by use one source that calls them on being fools, which you can back up with a study on how vaccines don't cause the harm the anti-vaxxers claim. There is a still a bias, but you have tempered the bias with verification and thus bolster the strength of the counterargument.

• 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).

• I'm sorry, but that a bullshit defense. You want to prove someone lied, use their own words against them from the source. You may not be religious, but I believe the truth sets everyone free, no matter how painful, and there is less pain in the long run in dismantling lies at their source than allowing them to continue because you are scared of hurting feelings. Allowing lies to go unchallenged is merely trying not to step on eggshells that already ground in the feet of others, so they are already in pain. Putting the lies to rest as decisively fault is actually treating the wounds from the eggshells. It might leave scars, but the pain will finally heal.

• "[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/.

• Point taken. I've gone by the latest version of the Zoe Post, citing an earlier draft to back up this proposition would be useful to prove this point of yours, I concur on that.

• 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.

• Possibly true. The onus here is to prove decisively that was how they were discovered. If they could have been obtained by any legitimate means other than what you claim, we must allow for that possibility as well.

• 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.

• Glad you have a citation for that. Another to verify it would seal the deal and make your argument even better.

• 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.

• Lies of omission are still lies. Even if Grayson was to blame, if Quinn had knowledge, she should have called him on lying as opposed to remaining silent, assuming there was any ethical issues to begin with.

• 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.

• Fair point, but going off RW own sources he told the truth, later admitted he lied, and then disappears off the radar. A later source after all this that decisively closes any holes in the argument would remove any doubt as to what happened.

• 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.

• It was very clear just whom or what was affected. It was very generalized, and while understandable if she didn't want to name name, confirmation of her words from another source would bolster this point

• 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".

• Bear in mind I was an initial fan, so while I agree, think where the logic leads: If the games with these elements are bad, what does that say about those who enjoy them?

• 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.

• Fair enough, but the fact it was not verified should still be mentioned to eliminate doubt.

• Anita Sarkeesian is still not a video game journalist.

• Point. Then all her known occupations and works need to be summarized somewhere to eliminate doubt as to her credentials so her work and contributions cannot be falsely construed.

• 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.

• Glad we concur on this.

• 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.

• Why? If it proves a lie, why not?

• As I said above, we're not citing the actual doxing.

• If it's lie, you would rather not debunk it for all time then let it continue to raise doubt? Not very rational.

• 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.

• The Guardian still decided to reinstate it of their own volition. Maybe you are right, but they decided to restore it anyway, so even if you are right, they decided to play things safe anyway

• 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.

• I wanted confirmation from another source besides the one you mention to VERIFY THE CLAIMS

• 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.

• Good. Glad we concur this needs cleared up

• 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.

• She got obvious trolling and reacted badly to it. What happened to her was sad, but let's not deny some asshole thought trolling her was funny.

• Just because DIGRA works with feminists doesn't mean anything.

• They have their own agenda which may have had had some level of influence on DIGRA, that is a possibility.

• 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.

• Here we part ways. As a free market advocate, the consumer decides what they want to see in the market, and they wanted to see Alexander and Gawker suffer for what they saw as lack of ethics and respect for the consumer, and they voted with their pocketbooks and pressure on Alexander and Gawker's fiscal ties. I see nothing wrong with that, though feel free to disagree.

• 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.

• Academia requires honestly in a similar manner as journalism, and I happen to take that seriously, feel free to disagree, but that can be proven.

• 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.

• I don't care if they made a cent. Promotion without disclosure is wrong, period.

• 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.

• Then we need to include that in the rebuttals with citations to Roph's words in order to discredit them.

• 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.

• The sources provided didn't tell all this, perhaps adding stuff to debunk the fake wife/child rumors would help, and while you don't think linking to dox is right, it's long been in the public eye and will provide an open-shut case against Brennan, so do you want the truth to obvious, or do you want to let doubt continue to stand?

• 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.

• True, but it should be acknowledged they were a hoax with links to Rankowski's admission and verifying sources, even if at the time Wu assumed otherwise.

• 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.

• 4chan posts can be linked, archived, and cited like any other web page. And second, do you have a grudge against the chans? I care little about them no matter what and I spoke for myself, quit assuming my own words are how GG as whole tries to whitewash itself, that's disingenious bullshit. I've had other GGers call me out with similar accusations of trying to polish my own apple if makes you feel better, but I stand by my own words.

• "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.

• I already conceded that was shitty.

• 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.

• Hashtag abuse is well known, Ryu, and ANYONE can post one and add their own commentary in their tweets, even if it runs counter to the tag or has nothing to do with it, but they will all show up in a search for the tag on Twitter

• 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.

• Then that should be included with additional verification.

• Bias again.

• Come again?

• Also your "monolithic" quip is only really proving what we've said about how Gamergaters see accusations that Gamergate is responsible for harassment.

• How? Cite examples please.

• 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.

• I've always found statistical data that doesn't account for changes over time to be a bad argument anyway, so glad we agree.

• 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".

• This debunking is to convince the unwashed, right? Why not include a technical explanation source to how Tumblr works to prove your case beyond all doubt?

• 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.

• So you refuse again to take the lies and destroy them for all time? A debunking is supposed to do just that. Remember my eggshell comment?

• 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.

• You are trying to construct an argument to decisively debunk GG as bullshit, so the onus falls on you to do just that. Failure to do so leaves holes in your argument and leaves room for people to attack the debunking, glad you concede you could have sourced this part better.

• And your complaints that "not all anti-GG are angels" are really pointless.

• And similar remarks about how the same is true of GG are also 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.

• Skullgirls, maybe. SFV, they did it as a direct reaction to criticism, so it's SELF CENSORING as they themselves admitted, which is a creative decision. It's their product, they can do as they want, but to straight up admit that when they themselves say the same is just admitting they themselves said the same.

• 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.

• I like good arguments that are immaculatly sourced so all room for doubt is gone. This Rational Wiki, it's only rational to want to a good argument, is it not?

• 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.

• Point, but at least you acknowledge the mistake.

• "Bias" again.

• And you refer to what exact?

• 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?

• While I don't defend anything he does outside the courtroom, if he feels wronged, it's his legal right to seek redress against the party who he feels wronged him via legal means

• 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.

• Fair enough, but at least you concede your source is crap. Also, I have a mix of liberal and conservative beliefs, always have, but I do not speak for the majority, and your evidence for what does is sourced very poorly.

• 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.

• A debunking cites external sources to eliminate all possible accusations of bias on it's own part. RW would be predisposed towards a bias of it's own, so an external link to this information even if available on RW removes this bullet from the gun of your opponents.

• 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.

• You make fair points, but check Tweetsave, Wu deleted a few tweets that give the lie to that claim Wu wasn't fooled.

• "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.

• Aside from r/GamerGhazi, I largely concur with you on the opposition, but aside from r/KotakuinAction and it's Voat counterparts, any organized GG enclaves are also fuzzy, so I'll partially concede this one.

• 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.

• If I'm Joe Q. Public when I file a court document, and it's acted on when I'm Joe Q. Private, the court will refer to case as it was originally filed. It's not doxxing when they follow their own protocol, and you can't tell GGers to just not use certain terms no matter how much you wish otherwise

• Part 4 now. Good thing you're agreeing with us that Gamergate's indulgence behavior with charities is bullshit.

• I think either side using acts of charity to polish their own apple is BS, but glad we concur.

• 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.

• Again with the terror of calling out liars in the name of not hurting feelings

• 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.

• Fair, but include links to that in the claims article to strengthen your case

• 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.

• Given how you and David Gerard are open members in good and still active standing and your posts are in line with their anti-GG line, it does make it clear you agree with them quite a bit. Granted, you wish to debunk GG, but as I pointed out, a good debunking can destroy an argument by using the argument against itself to show it cannot stand on its own. An outside bias only taints the credibility of your attempts to do so because you need outside help to destroy something that is allegedly inconsistent on its own.

• 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.

• Then cite proof of all this with extensive citations. You want to show GamerGaters are assholes, present ironclad proof.

• 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.

• I never took part in it and thought it was disgusting, but I do know about troll culture, so don't assume I'm a bigot simply because I'm not ignorant of that culture, just means I bothered to do proper research. And besides, I'm not sure how many serious and how many are edgy, /pol/ is Poe's Law to an insane degree.

• Your demand for a claim that the media assumed Gamergate skewed straight white male is specious.

• A lot of the sources cited go down this very line.

• 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.

• No, Ryulong, I will NOT dismiss it simply because it's Tumblr, you just need to verify it with a non Tumblr source. You were a Wikipedian, I thought proper sourcing would be second nature by now to you.

• 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.

• Maybe so, but you do a bad job of proving it. Include cites and references to make you case if you want to better debunk her credibility.

• 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.

• I sense a running theme of not wanting to offend people. I understand that, it's noble. Unfortunately, it weakens your arguments because you refuse to use certain sources to solidify your case for fear of offending someone and hurting their feelings. Besides, you're defending the assholes by not exposing their bullshit to the world so it can be rightly scorned and condemned as much as you aren't trying to hurt feelings.

• 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.

• So you included this just to be petty. Tsk Tsk.

• 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.

• Then include citations of how he was cleared of the charges to bolster your case then.

• 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.

• You want to prove bullshit is bullshit? Then show the bull, show it shitting when it produces the bullshit, you've made your case. Use archive links if you don't want to give them clicks if you need to, but are you so damn scared of Breitbart you'll refuse to link to them in any way even if it hardens your case?

• Forcing people to disclose meager Kickstarter donations is not ethics.

• They don't need to disclose the amounts, just that they shill the Kickstarter for their own reasons and contribute to it.

• 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.

• Glad we agree, which is why places like Kotaku aren't doing so well these days since the free market decided they had enough of their BS for the most part.

• 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.

• Again, both Alexander and Kotaku angered people who made that anger clear by forcing the fiscal powers that be to put pressure on them to better serve their targeted demographic. If it caused Alexander and Kotaku's stars to fall from grace and their fiscal livelihood to suffer, then maybe they shouldn't have shit on their own reader base.

• 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).

• Very well, but had they chosen not do so regardless, that would have been their artistic decision, and I would have respected it, and I guess we will have to part ways here, but I consider it a slap to the face to demand creators compromise their own vision jsut to make others happy. Yes, they should listen to the fanbase and outside complaints, but if they insist on doing certain things, they should have the right to stand by their work as they intended it to be.

• 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.

• Point noted.

• 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.

• Then we need updated information to account for that.

• 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.

• Again, we need updated infromation.

• 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.

• It was still restored, that's fact. Doesn't matter why, it happened.

• 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.

• Fair point, but had never acted as they had, they wouldn't have needed to bother, and as I said before, the free market is decided by the consumers, and those consumers decided to make those publications pay for their apparent betrayal of those consumers.

• Gamergate giving people free background checks is wrong. The statements made on this article that concern Gamergaters' behavior is different.

• Mind elaborating your meaning here just a little, I'm a bit confused.

• Again, we're sorry someone took down the Gamergate Wiki. But this is still just a quote and not important overall.

• Agreed, just need fixed is all.

• 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.

• No, it's pointing out hypocrisy. Usher blew the whistle on affairs meant to be private, and since it's on a matter you wish to debunk, he's evil. Psygremlin was a mole inside Conservapedia who released their private affair, he's a hero simply because RW enjoys mocking Conservapedia.

• That thing about the Forbes link is something we should look into.

• Concur.

• 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.

• Again, I call on you, as a longtime Wikipedian, to look back at how THEY do this. They cite more than one source most of the time to verify the first source for accuracy. You want to make an airtight case, then make sure you can verify facts in one publication with another so you can head off room for doubt later.

• 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.

• I stand by my statement there and will not apologize for it, and if there was reason to believe Sagal being transgender had any role to play in the illegality that took place, the public's right to know is paramount, and I do not share your concern that hurting feelings is as bad as letting a potential criminal have their crime go unaddressed, and I would rather tell a painful truth to force the rest of the truth into the open than a soft lie and let the rest of the truth stay hidden.

• Stop complaining about Tumblrs used as sources.

• No. Back them up with secondary sources. You want an airtight case for GG being bullshit, then make it hard to attack.

• 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.

• In response to potential complaints about certain portrayals of women as depicted in the media about them, according to Ono himself, there is no shame in conceding this point, dude.

• 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).

• I simply want to remain true to my own vision, and while I accept a lot of criticism otherwise, I have certain artistic and lore concepts I will not budge on if I feel it demeans my end goals for my work. I stand by that, and I stand by any other developers who feels the same, for good or ill

• 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.

• Then cite this. Also, I see your personal politics leaking into this on the Marie Rose thing. I've played the game with her in it, and my first thought was not about her being pedobait, just whether she was a good fighter (she's got decent grapple moves but her punches kinda suck to combo well), and nowhere did I ever see them mention her inclusion as an issue, unless you got an offical source from them saying so I haven't seen.

• 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".

• I stand by every word, and fascist ideology is all about shaping bulture to serve the ideology, and her insistence journalists have an obligation to shape culture with their work regardless who complains is textbook fascist rhetoric.

• 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.

• Again, this is a debunking article, and to remove any accusations of RW having bias, it makes sense to include external references even if they are found on those links to avoid posioning the argument with even RW's own bias on the pages in question. You want to kill the argument using it's own merits against it, then don't invite any help from any other bias save the proof from sources external to back up your claim.

• 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.

• Strawman, no, I was pointing out ignorance. For the record, I don't give a shit about the PC vs. Console fights, I was just pointing out how the leap to Nazi ideology is utterly ridiculous given I'm a member of the culture being libeled with such ignorant bullshit

• Stop complaining that we're colluding with "the enemy". It's bad form. Really.

• Truth hurts, doesn't it? And besides, I make no bones about my affliations, why can't you guys do likewise?

• We're not citing an instance of dogpiling.

• So you can't prvoe it actually happened?

• The FTC content is true but the sourcing needs work. I personally didn't write the entry though.

• Glad we agree.

• Kotaku hasn't made any ethical breaches sorry.

• One, specify what you're referring to. Second, tell Bethseda and Ubisoft that, they clearly disagree.

• And now we're in argumentum ad Hitlerum territory.

• Yes, I went there, to point out the fallacy inherent in the argument that I felt needed to be shown for its foolishness by using another one to reveal it's fallacy for the world.

• 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.

• Immaterial. One bears responsibility for the actions of the other in both managerial and fiscal terms.

• 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.

• Yes, my alternate e-name, what of it, and I backchecked the information, and the "conspiracy theory" checks out, unless you're willing to get over your terror of stepping on eggshells to smash it into the ground as utter bullshit with decisive evidence. Again, you want to debunk GG positions as bullshit, then you need to do a very good job taking their arguments and rendering them impossible to justify.

• 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.

• We disagree, but I plan to cover that as you say.

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

• And your dissent is welcomed, will have the next part ready in another few hours. Arcane (talk) 16:24, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

@Arcane: It'd prolly be better to post ths on the talkpage in question. αδελφός ΓυζζγςατΡοτατο (talk/stalk) 16:50, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

Farewell and happy holidays

I did what I wanted, which was take apart the Gamergate claims article with some analysis and offer suggestions how to improve it, and with that done, I plan to gracefully depart. If anything in it proves useful or helps raise the quality, I hope it's of use to you and the other editors. Also wanted to say if you still want to hit me with rebuttals, please, feel free, I admire your honesty, respect your stances even if I don't agree with them, and welcome the critique.

And while I don't know where you sit on the topic of religion exactly, I just wanted to know I hope you have a happy holidays, may the blessings of God be upon you. Arcane (talk) 22:47, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

Forever, aka nine days

And you're back already. That was predicted. Ochotona princeps^{not a pokémon} 06:06, 16 December 2015 (UTC)