Talk:Gamergate (harassment campaign)

RFC: Can an article be too biased in favor of near-universal sourcing of one side of an issue? (Gamergate controversy)

See /RFC1

Sanctions enforcement

All articles related to the gamergate controversy are subject to General sanctions

Requests for enforcing sanctions may be made at: Wikipedia:General sanctions/Gamergate/Requests for enforcement

Sourcing to expand on the consumer/culture war asepct

GG Consumerism as a culture war from Reason by an associate editor there. --MASEM (t) 22:17, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

I thought you were calling for more mainstream "higher quality" sources? Artw (talk) 22:35, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

Artw has a point. Specifically, it should not surprise us that a Libertarian think tank whose raison d'être is "free markets" publishes a piece by an associate editor that concludes that Gamergate indicates the need for free markets. I see lots of opinion here but little if any news; it might be news if a right-wing free-market outlet failed to find a culture-war aspect to the controversy. MarkBernstein (talk)

Actually Masem has a point. This article contains multiple opinion sources. Why are libertarian sources not included in this article anyway? Is it due to paid editing like it happened before? --Artman40 (talk) 00:31, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

First, the article is neutral - it neither glorifies or condemns the GG side, but instead begs the question "why" this is happening, at least in terms of the ethics questions. Second, Reason as a magazine is similar to Slate or Salon, in that 1) they are not video game/tech publications and 2) they are writing from a social analysis standpoint, which is definitely where we should be putting forth the broader questions of why GG occurred like it did, without blaming or sympathizing. --MASEM (t) 00:55, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

Its certainly better than Gawker Media sources. And of course, I must agree with Masem's points. --DSA510 Pls No H8 04:23, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

Slate and Salon are run by media companies, while Reason is funded and run by a non-profit political think-tank. --Frybread (talk) 09:26, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

This could go for just about any source, people have their own views that they generally view everything in the context of. Also bias per se isn't enough to dismiss a source. HalfHat 09:05, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

While an interesting read, a think tank publication is not quite on-par with actual media sources. Tarc (talk) 13:35, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

Reason is not a "think tank publication," but an actual media source. Thargor Orlando (talk) 13:56, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

Reason Foundation Artw (talk) 14:43, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

Which, FWIW, does not bar it from being WP:RS or used in Wikipedia, but we were talking about using only mainstream, non-specialist sources on this page and it would go against that. Artw (talk) 15:01, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

I would consider this, like Slate or Salon, a mainstream source - it has nothing to do with technology or video games on a regular basis, and has all the usual facets of RSes we'd expect (editorial board, an established history, etc.) It's not a broad distribution mainstream source like NYTimes or WAPost, but that's not an issue. --MASEM (t) 15:24, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

It's a specialist publication for the kind of right wing politics espoused by Baldwin et al. I also note that it's an opinion peice, something you've been against also. Artw (talk) 15:36, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

Reason is not a right wing publication. It takes liberal positions on social issues. —Torchiest ^talk_edits 17:59, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

I never said opinion pieces were not usable. Just that we have to recognize they are opinion pieces and can't be used for what WP says it ins own voice. Further, I've pointed out that we should be looking to put more weight on sources that are removed both in topic (non-tech/vg) and time ( months after the initial events) that avoid the RECENTISM problem. All the initial responses by the VG industry within the first few weeks by people that were not directly involved are the ones that we should be reducing how much we use them, given that their overall response - that GG should be condemned for harassment - are now well summarized by more recent sources. --MASEM (t) 15:41, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

In principle, this argument might be used to justify removing coverage of female developers who were threatened with dismissal, assault, rape, and murder (because they are involved in the video game industry) and replacing it with the more measured commentary of right-wing male pundits who are more distant from the issue and can see both sides. Their greater perspective naturally gives them a more measured and nuanced view than those hysterical girls who made such an unholy fuss and who were directly involved. Of course, that’s not what anyone editing this page would propose, but we should be cautious both to avoid the injustice and also to avoid the appearance of injustice -- especially as some of our number appear to be in a desperate hunt, coordinated on-wiki and off, for any source anywhere that casts the misogyny in a less vivid light. (See, for example, the edit war over replacing "rape" with "sodomy" in the proposed draft, now escalated by the proponents of not mentioning the word "rape" to a request for sanctions[[1]].) MarkBernstein (talk) 16:46, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

There's plenty (an excess even) describing the harassment, but nearly all of them have the same general stance - the harassment and threats should be condemned, which are still readily summarized by current mainstream sources. (And of course, the opinions of the three women at the center of it should still get their own weight). And there are sources that are very critical of GG in the mainstream side that also acknowledge this is a culture war, which this Reason article would help build on. So no , there's zero issue here in the direction you are speaking of. --MASEM (t) 16:54, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

That 4chan image

Since I'm not seeing where this was discussed before and to actually establish some consensus, in considered the referenced DBZ image that the GG logo's colors are said to evoke, the question is how that image is described. Both from the sources and knowing the image in question, the image can be described, at best, depicting sodomy (one static image cannot readily imply rape) but when the image was used on 4chan, it was typically associated with their so-called "rape jokes" - in that 4chan applied the "rape" concept to the image. The FastCo Branding article does establish that it is a "rape joke" image, so we can't say it depicts "rape", but can say it is a image often associated with "rape jokes" on 4chan, per FastCo. --MASEM (t) 16:30, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

-MASEM writes: “ one static image cannot readily imply rape”.

I rather suspect that few art historians and fewer semioticians would agree with MASEM.

In the context of threats of personal harm, I’d not advise anyone to rest too much weight on the distinction between "rape" and "rape joke". I know that I just critiqued MASEM above (in fact edit-conflicting with this), but seriously: this is not what you want to say, not even on a talk page, not even in the heat of an argument. Please rethink this quickly. MarkBernstein (talk) 16:53, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

There is a necessary distinction, however, when it comes to the typical 4-chan mindset, and why we should be clear. Communities like that are aware of the cruelty of the physical action, but their online culture of anonymonity and separate from any victims, as described by many social reports on GG and the Internet in general, give them little idea of the consequences and repercussions of the use of "rape jokes" and the like particularly to those the target of those jokes. They don't see that being an issue (at least, until moderation steps in as was for the given 4chan image with the given color scheme). As such, in terms of talking about the 4chan community, there is a difference, and we have to be careful with the wording to avoid implicating something that is not true on a otherwise delicate manner. --MASEM (t) 17:17, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

It really wasn't that I could find after the fact, or it was not discussed with any conclusiveness, so that kinda takes the hot air out of the flawed GG sanction filing last night. I'd be fine with "rape joke" as the descriptor. I'm also rather nauseated that we even have to discuss this in this level of detail. Tarc (talk) 16:51, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

Trying to stave off another edit war, and since I can't find earlier consensus, might as well set it now and get it done over with quickly. I don't like talking about this either but necessary to avoid problems here. --MASEM (t) 17:17, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

Emphatic Oppose: First, the Fast Company article uses "rape" in the headline, repeatedly in the body, and elsewhere. Second, "joke" is a silly fig leaf: "Oh, my client made no threat -- the horse head in his bed was simply a practical joke" Third, we are apparently being invited to speculate whether in the mindset of 4chan sodomy is not as bad as rape or is "not that big a deal" and we have to respect what the people making rape threats 4chan commenters really meant. This is well beyond the pale. Please think again. (Meanwhile, should this go to AN/I immediately? Discretionary sanctions? WP:EMERGENCY? The project would be cast in a most unfortunate light if this discussion became common knowledge.) MarkBernstein (talk) 17:27, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

First, there was an edit war over it; something has to be discussed; it's an icky discussion but one that is needed if we are going to talk about that in the article (WP is not censored). Second, it is not a "fig leaf", it a very large difference between a "rape joke" that comes from the locker room attitude of 4chan, and the actual vile physical action which I doubt the average 4channer would actually support. --MASEM (t) 17:36, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

BTW, the FastCo article doesn't use "rape" in the headline at all, and only uses "rape joke" or "rape meme", but even describes the actual image in another manner. --MASEM (t) 17:39, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

My mistake: rape is in Boing Boing’s headline, the other reference. I'm glad you think the average 4chan reader does not support committing a first-class felony. And it's not an icky discussion at all. What’s icky here is excusing threatening female game developers with rape (besides murder) because either (a) not everyone on 4chan thinks that three women who happen to work in the games industry ought to be raped, and (b) they might have intended to threaten anal rather than vaginal rape, which they (or you?) think is less bad for some reason? Or you have reason to think that they think it’s less bad? MarkBernstein (talk) 17:57, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

Well this is where we'd probably differ, but I think we're winding up in the same place anyways. The average, level-headed person obviously finds the idea of rape abhorrent, but IMO they also find the idea of joking about such a serious thing equally abhorrent. Trivializing and desensitizing others to the act via joking is just as damaging, so if Gamergaters want to hang their argument on "we aren't being serious, we're just having fun", I say "go right ahead". Tarc (talk) 18:02, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

Agreed 100%. Is there consensus to change this to ... linked the character's green and purple color scheme to an old 4chan rape joke.? This is how it's most commonly referred to in both sources (or 'rape meme', but in this context I'd consider them pretty much synonyms.) — Strongjam (talk) 18:05, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

I'd quote "rape joke" but other than that is fine. Let the reader determine how appropriate a "rape joke" is instead of putting it in WP's voice, to keep us neutral. --MASEM (t) 18:08, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

No. "Old" implies it's just an old joke, so no big deal. "Joke" is doubtful: I see no evidence that there's a joke here. Is there a story with a funny punchline? Is this something said to cause amusement? Who is amused, precisely? It’s allusion to an image of anal rape, presented in the context of threats against specific named women, and we should (and must) say so without excuse or prevarication. And someone -- preferably Masen -- should revdel the claim that "static images cannot readily imply rape " before we end up being called (a) a laughingstock and (b) rape enablers.

I was thinking of "old" as in "long standing", not as a diminutive. We can leave it off, but we should convey to the reader somehow that this wasn't something new and unfamiliar to 4chan users. The sources use both "joke" and "meme". I agree it's not much of a 'joke', maybe "meme" would be better? We definitely don't need the scare quotes or any "locker room culture" talk. — Strongjam (talk) 18:49, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict) MASEM: in the interest of keeping WP’s voice neutral, you want to be sure that the reader determines how appropriate a "rape joke" might be in the context of threats of physical harm leveled against women for pursuing their professional vocation. Could you provide an example where readers would think rape jokes to be appropriate in this context? (Do you have a bunch of good rape jokes you'd like to share with us?) MarkBernstein (talk) 18:16, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

Firstly your thoughts on this aren't very relevant, second of course people found it funny, it's shock humour. HalfHat 22:02, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

No, we should let the reader come to a conclusion that is not stated in the sources but implicit by a reasonable moral system. That is we can say, factually:

• There was an image (since banned) used on 4chan as part of a "rape joke" locker room attitude that has a unique color scheme.
• Even once the image was banned, other images of the same color scheme were used on 4chan in the same "locker room" joking attitude.
• Images used by GG - their logo and Vivian specifically - use a similar color scheme.

We can then say, per Fast Co's commentary that they (and others) believe this is not concidence, while GGs have denied any connection.

But we cannot make the implicit connection from GG using images that suggest the rape joke to the issues of harassment and rape threats to say that there's a problem with this because even as an opinion that is not stated in the sources; it's well implied, but not stated. The reader will have to come to that conclusion themselves, and I would expect most will, regardless. But we have to stay non-sympathetic as editors on WP, and present things as neutrally and impartially as possible. Also, I consider your last sentence approaching a personal attack; I am in no way trying to morally justify how 4chan thinks, only that they do think in a different way that we should not present wrongly. --MASEM (t) 18:28, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

On the subject of whether a static image can imply rape, we have MASEM on the one hand, and on the other hand we have Goya, Picasso, Bernini, Rubens, and a whole lot more. I think it's quite clear that Fast Company and Boing Boing drew the conclusion that the color scheme was chosen to allude to a rape meme. I also note that above you adopt the excuse that it's merely a "locker room" joking attitude -- after all, threatening rape in a locker room is just boyish behavior? I can't believe what I'm seeing -- and I can’t believe I’m alone here. MarkBernstein (talk) 18:40, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

I am absolutely not trying to defend them, I am trying to say that in WP's neutral voice, there is a difference between a "rape joke" and the actual act, and we cannot imply the latter if the sources only talk about the former. We need to stay amoral regardless of any personal feelings on the matter. --MASEM (t) 18:56, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

This is Wikipedia. We go with what the sources say. Artw (talk) 18:45, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

It should be noted that this misunderstanding is partially my fault, as I mentioned and allured to a discussion which was not large as I remembered, and certainly not as concrete as I remember. For that I am regretful. Though, More discussion is warranted I suppose. Rather than all the not forum and heated arguments, let's argue strictly based on the sources. The 'sodomy' compromise was what I believe was endured to stop the edit warring and endured until it was reverted by another editor just recently. Sodomy and rape are synonyms and if not, very closely related and is appropriate. It was a euphemism, additionally. So, the sources say: Fastcodedesign.com (ignoring any issues of reliablity), say 'rape meme' in the author's tone, but quotes the 'rape joke' portion of it. It also further mentions 'meme' further down in the article. They also use rape joke as someone's quote, so it appears they're using it interchangably. Boing Boing is less ambiguous, they use 'rape joke' in the title and in the article. So in essence, rape joke appears in both sources and if we're going to be going with not a compromise but solely from the source, it would be the dominant figure. Tutelary (talk) 18:58, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

My goodness: I find I agree here with Tutelary Will wonders never cease. However, sodomy and rape are not synonyms nor are they "very closely related", nor is "sodomy" a suitable euphemism for "rape", nor should Wikipedia adopt euphemisms to cover up criminal threats. The terms of this discussion are extremely ill-advised, but we now have a consensus: the sources say "rape" and "rape joke" and there we are. MarkBernstein (talk) 19:05, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

It's not uncommon to do such on Wikipedia, especially with regards to BLP; and to stop edit wars. It just makes it all the more common. And no, you're deliberately leaving off the 'joke' portion of it. They didn't mention purely the word, 'rape' but with the qualifier based on it. If you're trying to deliberately omit that qualifier, I am opposed to such as that would be synthesis of the source and leaves behind the important background information. Tutelary (talk) 19:08, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

I'm OK with "rape joke" as in these sources, but I (and I think quite a few readers) would appreciate a hint about how this is "a thing that someone says to cause amusement or laughter, especially a story with a funny punchline." I guess I'm missing something. No doubt I'm being dense; be a pal and let me in on the joke, OK? I mean, if the source called it a "rape trout," we'd presumably be scratching our heads. (Hate to be a sourpuss, but I'm not sure that I join with MASEM in thinking Wikipedia should be "amoral" when it comes down to raping game developers.) MarkBernstein (talk) 20:22, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

As the FastCo article explains, it is a in-joke in that, in the past, someone would post that image regularly, forcing it to the readers despite them not wanting it (hence the name). It is not so much "a joke about rape" (which yeah, would be hard to stomach), but a "forced" meme, which they came to call a "rape joke". We don't have to make any attempt to justify this even close to be a reasonable thing, only that it does exist and best described by that. --MASEM (t) 20:30, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, MASEM. Walk me through this: I guess I'm very slow today. A group at 4chan is discussing a campaign to dissuade female game developers from pursuing their vocation by various means, such as beating them up at conferences. We're sending them rape and murder threats on Twitter, coordinated through this board at 4chan. And we’re sending each other an image that depicts a purple cartoon character raping a green cartoon character, which we send to various people "despite them not wanting it." I'm still not seeing a joke here. Of course, for some reason you don’t think any static image can depict rape, so I'm not sure you and I have a lot of common ground when it comes to visual humor.

Let’s literally follow the sources. Rather than a "rape image" or a "rape joke", how about "an image of rape which 4chan users regarded as a joke"? That seems to follow precisely what you describe; the sources agree that the colors allude to a specific image, the sources (and common sense) that the image described non-consensual sexual penetration, and (as you point out) the sources make it clear that at 4chan, GamerGaters considered it a joke. This precisely follows our sources. MarkBernstein (talk) 22:15, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

The image and the harassment are separated by about 4-6 years of time (the image was banned on the site some time ago). So you're creating a statement about connection that doesn't exist. The connection from the image, to the green and purple colors which sorta became memetic on 4chan, to the Vivian/GG logo is postulated; the creators in the Fast Co article are stating it started from the green/purple of 4chan, and not the allusion to the first image, even if that's where the green/purple came from (there's oral history-type stuff that gets lost that people might forget such origins). There are clear possible theories presented that the designers of those images knew exactly what they were doing when they created the logos, but we cannot verify that at all. And no, the sources are clear is it s a "rape joke/meme", (in quotes) when used in the past. I doubt that today they would considering using that image in light of the harassment issues. --MASEM (t) 22:26, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

I am so lucky I have someone on the inside to consult about *chan and the IRC. To start MB's... useful contributions are full of factual inaccuracies, appeals to emotion, and other such stuff. For one, Poole has formally censored any talk of GamerHate, save for a containment thread on the /pol/ board, which everyone takes seriously. Secondly, I can't imagine what 20k+ group of diverse peoples who are fed up with the status quo GamerHate sockpuppets, have to gain from harassing 3 women for 3+ months. Am I defending the scumbags who have harassed the women? Absolutely not. I simply find it beyond logic that 20K+ white, cishet male sockpuppet SPA vandals like me (neither cis, heterosexual, white, SPA, or vandal, and im NEUTRAL to GG, fyi), would have something to gain from such a trivial exercise in self-humiliation. Anyways, sure someone on the internet said so and so = rape, but it is up to Wikipedia to present the APPROPRIATE INFO. I'm sure the "green+purple=rape" can be justified; the same way /pol/ justifies the Holocaust. And, suppose that the green+purple colourscheme was based on piccolo. There are many avenues one can take to explain that. Perhaps the /a/ anime board wanted to hijack, in essence a character in a professional game. Or, make an inside joke about DBZ and GG. Perhaps a subtle way for /a/ to insult /v/'s taste in anime? Maybe some other board did something, since as I'm told, board infighting is common. AND, even if it is a reference (somehow) to Daily Dose, context matters. Perhaps it was the forced nature, perhaps (this is a huge stretch), since the pro-gg side were already nazis/rapists/KKK/ebola, they wanted to throw a curveball to the media knowing they grasp at nonexistent straws, in the hopes they'd make fools of themselves (suddenly its sounding very plausible). Unless you hunt down all 20K+ sockpuppets of GamerHate, and force them to submit to polygraph tests, and interrogate them about the meaning of the colors, is there really any way to make the claim said by the "RS"? Sure, both sides have made some hilariously fringe claims, but this one takes the cake, and eats it too. Unless you resort to far-right pseudoscience, I find no logical way to make such a definitive, and final claim. More attempts to charge an already charged article. --DSA510 Pls No H8 01:46, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

if we're going to open things up to WP:OR them we're going to open things up to EVERYONES OR, and trust me when I say it's not going to come out looking any better. Artw (talk) 05:45, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

The articles sourced should somewhat be held to Wikipedia's own standards. This is a fringe point being made. It takes up valuable server space and adds nothing of value to the article. It should be removed completely. --DSA510 Pls No H8 06:07, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

You are not actually suggesting that we should apply WP:OR to content within our sources and dismiss any source that makes an analysis because the source has made analysis and interpretation? -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 16:03, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

/glances upwards at ridiculous conversation.

I think the whole conserving server space ship has sailed, I'm afraid. Artw (talk) 06:44, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

it was a joke. --DSA510 Pls No H8 07:14, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

Cernovich's involvement

WP:NOTFORUM for general discussion of a topic; if there are, at some point, reliable sources for this discussion, it can be restarted.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
It seems Mike Cernovich, impromptu lawyer of pro-gg, wants to take on the IDGA for libel and/or slander. Has any RS picked up on this? And no, tabloids/blogs don't count as RS. --DSA510 Pls No H8 05:25, 22 November 2014 (UTC) Is there a connection between Gamergate and the issue(s) between Cernovich and IDGA? If not, then it is just an issue between the two sides. --Super Goku V (talk) 07:24, 22 November 2014 (UTC) For one, Cernovich almost got SWATted by an anti-gger (No true Scotsman works both ways. Second, IGDA, is under scrutiny by pro-gg I hear. --DSA510 Pls No H8 07:46, 22 November 2014 (UTC) Update, by this point the IGDA is throwing the chairman of its Puerto Rican branch under the bus. No 2nd party sources yet. Check Cernovich's twitter, Milo's twitter, and Roberto Rosario's twitter for background before Gawker is inevitably sourced again. --DSA510 Pls No H8 09:40, 22 November 2014 (UTC) Background [2]. --DSA510 Pls No H8 09:48, 22 November 2014 (UTC) Ummm,,,,I see no sources here, reliable or otherwise. What are you trying to say?MarkBernstein (talk) 12:58, 22 November 2014 (UTC) He's trying to find out if anyone else has found reliable sources on this issue. This appears to be a valid question and a valid situation to address if we can. Thargor Orlando (talk) 15:02, 22 November 2014 (UTC) No, this appears to be a WP:SOAPBOX for DSA510 to talk about something he explicitly admits has no sources. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 15:09, 22 November 2014 (UTC) I see him saying there's no second party source on this Puerto Rican issue, but not on the chief topic. It appears he's being proactive in trying to find non-poor sources, which should be commended. Of course, if no sources can be found, it shouldn't be included, but that doesn't preclude discussion. Thargor Orlando (talk) 15:13, 22 November 2014 (UTC) Nonsense. The twitter stream only shows that one fellow on the internet is upset and threatening to sue someone. There's no reason to believe that he is capable or willing to file such a suit, and less reason to believe that the suit will succeed -- especially if it is filed against IDGA, which merely links to the database. Meanwhile, Cernovich’s allies have been sending Randi Harper, the developer of the blacklist, pictures of her dead sister: absolutely charming, right? But sure -- it's a valid situation to address, because maybe something will happen and maybe if something happens a WP:RS will mention it, and then you can edit war indefinitely for a pro-spin? No sources, no news. MarkBernstein (talk)

False allegations against Quinn and subsequent harassment

Highly disruptive reopening of a settled topic with strong BLP implications.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
I seriously cannot believe we are starting this topic again. We can't slap the False into the title because the allegations that the a friendship existed were true. We have to define that the allegations that favourable coverage were given were false; That however cannot be done in a single heading. Avono (talk) 16:20, 22 November 2014 (UTC) Unless I'm missing something in the sources, isn't the accurate description of the claim "unfounded?" After all, the allegations have not been proven true or false, right? Thargor Orlando (talk) 16:27, 22 November 2014 (UTC) No, the claims, while based on weak evidence, has some foundation. But the claims have certainly be "refuted" by and large - the claims were made but the press has considered what the involved parties have said to be truthful so the claims were refuted. --MASEM (t) 16:32, 22 November 2014 (UTC) Walk me through this as if I'm completely new to this topic (it may just be able to nip this for good). What is the foundation, and what refuted it beyond the press simply declaring the "involved parties" as "truthful?" Thargor Orlando (talk) 16:34, 22 November 2014 (UTC) The foundation of the claim is: based on Gjoni's post, that Quinn and Grayson had started a more closer relationship. Quinn is a game dev with a game about to come out at that time, and Grayson an editor for the video game site Kotaku. The supposition that GG has used from that foundation is that Quinn was using the relationship to garner positive press for her game. (Note that Gjoni himself did not suggest any of this, and later went on record to affirm he didn't imply this at all). The refution comes from a post made by Tolito, the lead ed at Kotaku, stating that the relationship between Quinn and Grayson (Which exists) has not impacted any of Grayson's editing since - there has been no review by Grayson or any member of Kotaku about DQ (this is provable), and while Grayson wrote about DQ earlier in a post about Game Jam, the timing was before the start of their relationship. As such, Tolito has refuted such claims, which Quinn and Grayson have said similar in their own comments. The press has readily agreed that the accusation is simply untrue based on these statements and lack of a DQ review. The GG side still point to the Game Jam article, which was written about 3 months prior to the relationship start date, as that there was still positive press at a point where Grayson and Quinn were friends within the industry, and that this still points to ethical concerns that Grayson gave Quinn's game a more favorable light in that Game Jam article. But at that point, we start going down a rabbit trail to even talk about it more from RSes. As such, the primary charge - Quinn was using the relationship with Grayson to get positive press - is by and far refuted by pretty much everyone else in the world. --MASEM (t) 17:11, 22 November 2014 (UTC) Zoe Quinn is a free adult woman; she may befriend whom she pleases -- even a writer. So no "allegation" can be made on this account. The "allegation" is that she traded sexual favors for favorable reviews; this allegation has been comprehensively shown to be untrue. "False" accords with (a) the sources, (b) the facts, and (c) the longstanding usage on this page and its consensus. Also note that the unqualified allegation that Quinn traded, is alleged to have traded, or arguably traded sexual favors for favorable reviews would, if it appeared in the article, be a major BLP violation and as such is not, by my understanding, subject to the 3RR rule. Please note that this edit war began (as I predicted yesterday) within 5 minutes of the end of page protection. Restoration of FULL PROTECTION is very much in the interest of the project -- not least because this page is and will continue to be the subject of interest and scrutiny. Admins please take note. MarkBernstein (talk) 16:43, 22 November 2014 (UTC) The fact the accusation has been the major point of discussion of sources - and that all key parties have clearly stated that these are not true - means that from a BLP standpoint, it is acceptable to include the high-level nature of the allegations, as long as it is 100% clear that they have been refuted by the specific parties and by the press at large. This has been determined waaaaay in the past. Now there are other claims that have come against Quinn based on Gjoni's post, but which the press have generally ignored, but we are absolutely not including those per BLP. --MASEM (t) 16:51, 22 November 2014 (UTC) So, to be clear, the evidence that they're false comes from personal accounts, right? That's why "unfounded" appears to be a better word to use. That way, we're not letting the voice of Wikipedia take a side in what amounts to he-said-she-said, unless there's some clear evidence that I'm not seeing here. Thargor Orlando (talk) 16:55, 22 November 2014 (UTC) The biggest piece of evidence is the lack of positive coverage; there is no DQ review from Grayson (or Kotaku for that matter). What some GGers have focused on is Grayson's Game Jam article that highlights DQ as one of several games there, which arguably may be positive press, but it also was written before the date that Quinn/Grayson's relationship has been claimed to have been started; some GGers still consider this a problem in terms of positive press. --MASEM (t) 16:58, 22 November 2014 (UTC) So there isn't anything proving or disproving the allegations, thus they're unfounded. Am I reading this right? Thargor Orlando (talk) 17:07, 22 November 2014 (UTC) That there is a relationship is true - none of the involved parties deny this (Tolito even affirmed it in his post). But using that relationship for press, there is no visible evidence for that, in addition to what all three have said on the matter (Tolio, Quinn, and Grayson). There are some GGers that doubt those statements, but that's not our place to second guess what RSes have all assumed to be true statements. --MASEM (t) 17:15, 22 November 2014 (UTC) That there is or was a relationship is true, but cannot be an allegation. The only thing that can possibly be alleged is that sexual favors were exchanged for favorable reviews. This was alleged, and it was shown to be untrue. Dredging this up again and again could conceivably be actionable and is certainly a violation of WP:BLP. Nor need we make a point that the RS have all assumed these to be true statements: since no favorable reviews were in fact written, then the favorable reviews that do not exist could not possibly have been written in exchange for sexual favors. Why do the same WP editors keep finding the need to rehash the sexual history of this particular woman, who committed no wrongdoing, here? Stop it. MASEM : please consider revdel-ing this section, and someone -- anyone -- please hat it without delay. MarkBernstein (talk) 17:24, 22 November 2014 (UTC) @Masem: got it. I think, given what is known, that "unfounded" is what we should be using. Thargor Orlando (talk) 17:50, 22 November 2014 (UTC) I think false is fine. And I think it's a good thing we have six months now to discuss this and other pressing topics without risk of using wikipedia to make allegations about a game developer’s personal life. Now, it'd be dandy if the proponents of "Allegations" or "Unproven Allegations" would apologize to their victim, but that's not going to happen, is it? But I think it not unreasonable to ask that we enjoy a respite from rehashing this unrelenting torrent of vituperation against women in computing. MarkBernstein (talk) 18:09, 22 November 2014 (UTC) With no firm evidence that the claims are false, regardless of our own feelings or beliefs on the matter, we need to go with what's available, thus "unfounded" seems fair: it put the onus on the accusers and assigns no fault to the target. "Unproven" implies evidence exists that hasn't been presented for the purposes of writing a neutral, factual article. Furthermore, please stop with the bad faith accusations here. It's a lot of heat and no light. Thargor Orlando (talk) 18:13, 22 November 2014 (UTC) The allegation that Quinn had a relationship was something that Gjoni's original post brought up (and to go into any more of that post, would be BLP for sure); the subsequent allegation that grew out of that from the GG side is that she not only had that relationship but was using it for positive press. Now at that point, there was no affirmation that Quinn/Grayson had a relationship, but once Tolito posted, as Kotaku's lead editor, about the situation, he affirmed that yes, there was an relationship, but nothing else about the allegation was true. As such "false" is technically wrong, because one facet of the allegation was confirmed as true; I'm fine with "unproven" to signal that no reliable source considers the allegation to be true otherwise. --MASEM (t) 20:02, 22 November 2014 (UTC) I've restored full protection. An immediate edit war upon the end of page protection regarding a significant aspect of the controversy clearly indicates the need. Gamaliel (talk) 16:54, 22 November 2014 (UTC) Thank you,Gamaliel. As you were doing this, I was posting at AN/I asking someone -- anyone -- to do exactly that. You're a prince. [3] The hatting of this thread really comes across as strange. If we're not able to discuss a key section of the article, how are we supposed to improve/fix/settle the article? Thargor Orlando (talk) 18:32, 22 November 2014 (UTC) per the above, I was willingly to compromise with the "Unfounded" change, having regrettingly done the "Unproven" edit one because I thought it represented it better. I was about to post this to end the discussion when I instead found out that Gamaliel RedPenOfDoom hatted it instead. Avono (talk) 18:41, 22 November 2014 (UTC) RedPenOfDoom hatted it. Arguably we've been through the details of what the allegations are so many times in the past but that's been something that new ediors might not recognize if they don't read the archives. --MASEM (t) 18:43, 22 November 2014 (UTC) The hatting (partially) protects serious BLP violations. If it were necessary to discuss false allegations concerning a named individual's sex life -- which you apparently felts was desirable -- that discussion is now settled. The allegations were false and unfounded; that's what the sources say, and that's what Wikipedia says. Some people apparently felt it was important to argue that the false and unfounded allegations might be better described as "unproven" or that we should rehash the sexual allegations again, in more detail, to see if something exculpatory for Gamergate might come up. It didn't. I'd take it as a kindness if, having read this, talk would tick his question and my answer together up under the hat.MarkBernstein (talk) 18:44, 22 November 2014 (UTC) I will not do so, no. I don't know why you continue to assume motives about your fellow editors, but the fact remains that the allegations, true or false or unfounded or unproven or disproven, remain part and parcel of the topic as far as I can tell, and are as such because of the sources that discuss them. No one involved in this talk section appears to want to slander anyone, but rather wants to solve the problem so we can all move on. Comments like this only serve to fan the flames. Thargor Orlando (talk) 18:49, 22 November 2014 (UTC) That's an overreaction. If we were only including an allegation with no claims to back it up or no sourcing to show it was refuted, that would definitely be a BLP allegation. But we have many many RSes that all explain how this situation started from the allegations of using the relationship for positive reviews, the refutation of those by said parties, and the numerous sources that all believe their word it was refuted. That's completely acceptable to include (and as necessary, discuss) in building and improving the article. Again, I note that there are several other claims made by Gjoni that we will not include because no one else has talked about them or provided evidence about them, and that would be a clear BLP issue. But when an accusation is the focal point of an event, it has to be discussed. --MASEM (t) 18:52, 22 November 2014 (UTC) I have unhatted, Red Pen of Doom should absolutely not be hatting any discussion. It also violates WP:BLPTALK. Tutelary (talk) 19:07, 22 November 2014 (UTC) There is a valid argument that TPROD should not have hatted the discussion under WP:BLPTALK. There is no valid argument that it requires unhatting. According to BLPTALK, false allegations should be removed, deleted, redacted, or suppressed. It does not say that hatted discussions should be exposed. User:Tutelary: You are experienced enough that you should know that BLPTALK does not say that hatted comments should be exposed. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:12, 22 November 2014 (UTC) I have issue and concern that if these claims related to the article are not resolved, they will stay in a state which will happen to also be a BLP violation. Hatting (and especially by a seriously involved editor) has no purpose on this specific discussion. For an example of hatting done right, Dungeon's assertion of Mike Cernovich should be hatted, as he presented no sources and the like. Hatting an active discussion relating to content which there are sources is not a productive use of time and delays the editing process. Tutelary (talk) 19:17, 22 November 2014 (UTC) So gamergate IS about prurient interests in women's sex lives? I thought it was about ethics? -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 19:15, 22 November 2014 (UTC) On the Internet, no one knows that you are being sarcastic. You, User: TheRedPenOfDoom, never really believed that it was about ethics, did you? Robert McClenon (talk) 19:19, 22 November 2014 (UTC) Is it about misogyny in gaming then? Explain why I was doxxed. --DSA510 Pls No H8 19:25, 22 November 2014 (UTC) Or you could just not make meme claims on the talk page which is about improving the article, Red. Tutelary (talk) 19:17, 22 November 2014 (UTC) edit warring to reopen well settled and well sourced content to beg WP:FORUM BLP allegations that are not related to the topic of the article is not improving the encyclopedia. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 19:28, 22 November 2014 (UTC) It's obviously not resolved if you're having to edit war to hat it. The article was edit warred to the exact issue. Discussion ensued. I see nothing out of process here other than the disruptive hatting. Tutelary (talk) 19:29, 22 November 2014 (UTC) that editors keep saying we dont believe we should follow all of the reliable sources, doenst mean that it is not "settled" it just means that some people are disruptive. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 19:34, 22 November 2014 (UTC) And no editors in this discussion are saying we shouldn't follow the reliable sources, so this accusation also appears unfounded. Thargor Orlando (talk) 19:38, 22 November 2014 (UTC) The reliable sources call the accusations false. That's a settled issue. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 19:40, 22 November 2014 (UTC) The reliable sources call the accusations false, yes. No one is disputing that. The question is how we, as a project, should refer to them in Wikipedia's voice given the evidence of the claim. Thus the option to use "unfounded," as it is a neutral term that encompasses the claims of all sides as well as weighs the evidence. Thargor Orlando (talk) 19:48, 22 November 2014 (UTC) We look at the sides of the evidence that have been presented by the reliable sources. Their side of the evidence: That the allegations ARE false. Period. And yes there ARE editors who are not only passively disputing it like you, but actively disputing it .-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 20:08, 22 November 2014 (UTC) There is no "other side" here worthy of discussion, per WP:FRINGE. We cannot mention disproven allegations about a living person without clearly describing them as disproven. It is not "neutral" to present something which is false as possibly true. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 19:54, 22 November 2014 (UTC) You seem to misunderstand, and part of the discussion above was to solve this. The reliable sources have declared them untrue, yes. We should say that with proper attribution. In Wikipedia's voice, however, we cannot simply assert a claim in either direction lacking evidence to do so. This is not a fringe position that the claims are unfounded, as reliable sources also state that. Given the nature of the claims and the evidence, there does not seem to be any other word that responsibly defines the situation described. Thargor Orlando (talk) 19:58, 22 November 2014 (UTC) You are just kidding arent you? Otherwise you are clearly demonstrating that you are either not WP:COMPETENT or are simply here to troll. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 20:02, 22 November 2014 (UTC) Please stop the personal attacks. I have been an editor here for years, I understand very well how this works. Thargor Orlando (talk) 20:27, 22 November 2014 (UTC) No. The reliable sources call them false, because, as the reliable sources discuss, the evidence demonstrates that they are false. There is not and never has been a review of Depression Quest by Nathan Grayson. No such review exists in this or any other universe. This is uncontroverted fact, and fundamentally disproves the allegation. Any claims that the allegations are true is a fringe theory unworthy of mention in this article. When it comes to allegations of wrongdoing about living people, it is a fundamental BLP issue that we describe false allegations as false, and we will do so in this case. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 20:21, 22 November 2014 (UTC) Okay, now we're getting somewhere, and this comes back to the original question above. How does the lack of the review disprove the claim? That's the part I'm missing, based solely off the sources provided and the article. I'm trying to figure out how to solve this issue. Thargor Orlando (talk) 20:27, 22 November 2014 (UTC) The claim is that the relationship led to positive reviews and coverage by Nathan Grayson. No such reviews exist, and Nathan Grayson did not write anything at all about Zoe Quinn after the relationship began. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 20:30, 22 November 2014 (UTC) Got it. Based on what you're saying here, I have a better grasp on it. The language in the article as it currently stands appears good, then, and we might want to be more explicit about it being about one specific allegation, as the current wording suggests multiple allegations beyond the single review. Thank you for your patience. Thargor Orlando (talk) 20:34, 22 November 2014 (UTC) Reviewing the bidding again, as requested.. The page is unprotected this morning, after an overnight spasm of WP:FORUM speculation by DSA. Immediately after it's unprotected, we are asked to inquire into Zoe Quinn’s sex life, which has already been exhaustively discussed here. Is there something unethical? No. (again) Is there some source somewhere what says something might be unethical? (no) Can't we find anything bad to say? (no) Can we just say "allegations were made?" (no) Can we substitute "unfounded allegations" for "false allegations"? (maybe) Should this be on the talk page? (no) But OMG WP:BLPTALK !!!!! Can't hat! We must have more discussion of Zoe Quinn's sex life, as prominently as possible, because ... why exactly?! Oh -- and what other GG victims have sex lives we can discuss? (Hint: DSA tried to start that last night.) But its all fine, 'cause DSA says he got doxxed just like Ruylong, and WP:BLPTALK, and we mustn't misquote the nice admin about no static image can readily depict rape, because (oh yeah) it's really important that we spend a few thousand words to distinguish whether to call it a "rape meme" or a "rape joke" or "sodomy" because sodomy is totally like rape and it's all icky (as the respected admin reminded us repeatedly) but what are you going to do? Let me walk right up to the edge of WP:CIVIL, because the very edge is the only place we can decently stand: The behavior of pro-GG wikipedians on this page over the past 36 hours has been disheartening, appalling, and a disgrace to what was once a noble project. MarkBernstein (talk) 19:58, 22 November 2014 (UTC) Now this comment is the definition of WP:FORUM and a rant in itself. Tutelary (talk) 20:25, 22 November 2014 (UTC) No: it's a measured summary of the discussion, specifically requested by Thargor Orlando. But it you consider it WP:FORUM, I believe you know the way to discretionary sanctions. MarkBernstein (talk) 20:41, 22 November 2014 (UTC) I consider the slander against my name by anti-gg pov-pushers saying that I am not neutral and such is sanctionable. But then again i don't support censorship, or lower myself to the level of anti-gg terrorists. --DSA510 Pls No H8 20:52, 22 November 2014 (UTC) Arb break The issue overall is that when we mention "allegations", we have two allegations that we can talk to (under the scope of BLP and what good RSes give us): That Quinn and Grayson had a relationship (from Gjoni's post) That, in that relationship, Quinn was using it to get positive reviews (from GG's side) The former was proven true by Kotaku, Quinn and Grayson, in a public manner. The latter has clear lack of evidence (no review of DQ on Kotaku, and Grayson hasn't mentioned her game in anything he's written since the relationship started) to be presumed false by all sources that matter. So the issue, saying "false allegations" is not accurate because one was at least true. On the other hand if we are limiting it to the single accusation of positive press, then "false" is correct, as we currently have in the body This led to false allegations from Quinn's detractors in the gaming community that the relationship had resulted in Grayson publishing a positive review of Quinn's game, Depression Quest. But in the section title, "false assuations" is not correct, and while we could say "false accusation", there are several others accusations made (that we will not repeat) that GGers have also focused on, and while these have not had anywhere close to the same visibility of the main one, they have generally been considered unfounded or tangent to the matter at hand, but they do exist. Thus a word that is near to "false" but less "absolute" would be the better wording choice for the section title, such as "Unproven allegations...". --MASEM (t) 20:25, 22 November 2014 (UTC) Am I right in understanding that the Depression Quest review claim is false based on the evidence, but that there are other allegations that are believed to be false, but can only accurately be called unfounded or unproven? That might be the root of the issue of this section right here. Thargor Orlando (talk) 20:31, 22 November 2014 (UTC) There are other issues the proGG side has said that involve Quinn and journalism corruption that are above and beyond the relationship with Grayson which I am not going to go into any detail about for BLP reasons, just that those allegations have been made. I don't believe these allegations have merit but they do exist. --MASEM (t) 20:35, 22 November 2014 (UTC) If such allegations are not discussed in reliable sources, they don't exist for our purposes. You should know this already, Masem, and I'm sure you do. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 20:47, 22 November 2014 (UTC) That was my concern as well, and some research I've been doing this afternoon sees them as barely discussed in unreliable ones as well. I think my issues with this section are mollified with the current language in the article. Thargor Orlando (talk) 20:49, 22 November 2014 (UTC) The article prose on the allegations itself is fine, I don't have issues with it either. It's just the section title and how things are reflected in the lead. --MASEM (t) 20:54, 22 November 2014 (UTC) No, Masem. The fact that someone's in a relationship is not an "allegation." There is no wrongdoing inherent to a personal relationship. As per the dictionary definition, an allegation is a claim or assertion that someone has done something illegal or wrong, typically one made without proof. Therefore, "alleging" that Zoe Quinn and Nathan Grayson had a relationship is meaningless and a non-issue. What is or could be a meaningful issue and allegation is if that relationship resulted in unethical conduct by Nathan Grayson. That is the allegation. That allegation has been thoroughly and repeatedly disproven. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 20:32, 22 November 2014 (UTC) Two adults having a relationship is not an "allegation" that anyone cares about or that has any bearing on this article. The Puritan sex police are => Thataway-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 20:33, 22 November 2014 (UTC) Gjoni's post certainly made it it an allegation - he didn't have clear evidence of the relationship at the time. --MASEM (t) 20:35, 22 November 2014 (UTC) The existence of the relationship is not a meaningful public issue and no reliable sources have commented upon it. The only allegation which has been treated by reliable sources as a matter of public concern is the potential for a conflict of interest affecting journalistic coverage. The mere existence of a relationship between two people can have no bearing on the GamerGate controversy — unless you are admitting that GamerGate is ultimately founded upon the desire to slut-shame a woman. And if you are doing so, then I submit that the controversy about what to put in the lede of this article is over. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 20:39, 22 November 2014 (UTC) That Quinn and Grayson had a relationship is not an allegation. All sources agree. It is simply a fact.Moreover, an allegation implies wrongdoing, and there is no wrongdoing here. On its own, this has no relationship to this topic or to Zoe Quinn's biography, and mentioning it would be XP:UNDUE and a major BLP violation. That Quinn exchanged sexual favors for favorable editorial coverage is an allegation. Unfortunately for MASEM's point of view, this allegation is false. We can assert its falsehood in two ways. (a) The overwhelming preponderance of reliable sources agree it is false. (b) It could only be true if, in fact, sexual favors were exchanged for editorial coverage. As Grayson wrote no editorial coverage, the allegation is necessarily false. Again and again: MASEM and his (fortunately shrinking -- DSA is about to be topic banned for last night's escapade) band of merry editors try to insinuate that Zoe Quinn's sex life deserves discussion here and that the language of the article should find some way to insinuate that something unethical occurred because.....why exactly? MarkBernstein (talk) 20:37, 22 November 2014 (UTC) The relationship existed. The allegation that it led to favorable reviews is unfounded. That the relationship lead to ethics changes is true. Professional news organizations have association policies and disclosure policies and post-Quinn/Grayson policy changes have occurred. In fact, those changes were assailed since they only came out after a female developer's relationship was exposed. That doesn't change the fact that the changes happened. Make no mistake: it was Grayson that was ethically challenged by not disclosing his relationship and the fact that he didn't review Quinn's game is a very narrow view of ethics. Grayson's boss had employees that reviewed Quinn and is why he made a statement. Quinn is not a journalist so any allegation against her is unfounded. --DHeyward (talk) 20:38, 22 November 2014 (UTC) Grayson did not write anything about Quinn or Depression Quest after beginning the relationship. Therefore, there was nothing for him to disclose, as he assiduously refrained from covering anything which might have led to the potential for a conflict of interest. No journalism ethics code anywhere requires that journalists wear scarlet letters informing the public of whom they have had intimate relations with. Kotaku never reviewed Depression Quest so no, Grayson's boss didn't have "employees that reviewed Quinn." You seem to be thoroughly misinformed as to the actual facts of the case. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 20:49, 22 November 2014 (UTC) Nonsense[4][5]. Get's kind of awkward in the staff meetings when one author is discussing the work of a secret S/O of another writer. It's why ALL relationships with their topics are to be disclosed. It's why news organizations have disclosure policies (even if only internal). That Grayson's boss was surprised and had to investigate and then run damage control was enough to change policy. Think of Olbermann and Scarborough giving campaign donations. the problem wasn't the donation, it was the lack of disclosure. I work in an industry where disclosure to management is required (and isn't publicized, though may be forwarded to regulatory body). It doesn't matter whether a conflict happened, rather it's the perception of a conflict and a lack of oversight. Not disclosing a real or potential conflict can lead to termination. --DHeyward (talk)

False allegations against Grayson and subsequent harassment

Highly disruptive reopening of a settled topic with strong BLP implications.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Why are we (again, still) discussing Zoe Quinn’s sex life? Zoe Quinn did nothing that was either (a) wrong or (b) any of our business. This will not, apparently, lead the sex-squad tag team from asserting that there's some sort of unproven sexual allegation that we need to explore in exhaustive depth. Proposal: since all sources agree that Zoe Quinn was blameless, let's rewrite the section without her. Journalist Grayson was alleged to have had a relationship with a game developer whose work he would review. The allegation would still have to be clearly stated to have been false, but we could leave Zoe Quinn out of the matter entirely since she did nothing wrong. Of course we will do no such thing, because ethics! (And we're terrorists now, forsooth, according to DSA’s swan song on this page.) MarkBernstein (talk) 21:01, 22 November 2014 (UTC) Nice cherrypicking. I'm talking about the people on anti-gg who found my personal info and doxxed me. Unless you're admitting to doxxing me? --DSA510 Pls No H8 21:11, 22 November 2014 (UTC) I also like to turn people's words against them. Someone on twitter called gg a group of terrorists, I call people who dox me terrorists. --DSA510 Pls No H8 21:13, 22 November 2014 (UTC) No we can't. Because then the reason that Quinn got harassed makes no logical sense in the article. Her name is necessary to mention - by no fault of her own - as central to all this. --MASEM (t) 21:06, 22 November 2014 (UTC) How about Journalist Grayson was alleged to have had a relationship with a game developer whose work he would review. This allegation, upon investigation, proved to be untrue, but nonetheless led to the persistent harassment, death and rape threats against game developer Zoe Quinn, author of Depression Quest? At very least, this sequence reduces the temptation to insinuate that some wrongdoing might have occurred and further reduces the likelihood that any insinuations that find their way into the article, even briefly, will redound against Quinn. We've already done more than enough of that. But of course (sad...so sad) the very sorry GG contingent will find some reason that this, too is simply impossible and that instead we'll have to talk more about whether allegations about Quinn's sex life are alleged or unfounded or unproven. Again: shameful. MarkBernstein (talk) 21:21, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

Categories

I'm sure there's a good reason that the categories are deliberately broken, but I don't know what it is. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 16:46, 22 November 2014 (UTC).

fixed, happened during the merging of the draft article Avono (talk) 16:53, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

Many thanks. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 19:10, 22 November 2014 (UTC).

Stop with the hat war

Enough: @startship.paint, we're at or past the 3RR threshold. Please stop this silly protest against hatting BLP violations which ought, in point of fact, to be revdel'd. If the sanctions are to have any real effect, little edit wars like this need to be sanctioned. MarkBernstein (talk) 01:27, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

I did one revert. I am simply trying to stop this silly battleground mentality. From my point of view every one of Avono, Masem and Thargor were discussing in good faith. Instead the hatting treats their discussion as highly disruptive and presents that as a fact. Mark, you attacked "pro-GG editors", which you labelled a "disgrace" in the hatted discussion, and you even attacked Masem on your blog. Legitimate discussion should not be censored, I don't recall anyone seriously arguing that the specific allegations against Quinn's sex life are true, so where indeed are the BLP violations? They've only said that the relationship (not the review) was true, which has been affirmed by reliable sources. starship.paint ~ regal 02:41, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

"Conspiracy theories in the United States"

When was adding this category discussed? The only mention of it being labeled a conspiracy theory is not even about the movement itself, it's a single mention by Leigh Alexander, someone involved in the controversy saying some of it is based "on bizarre conspiracy theories", yet another attempt at controlling the narrative, albeit this one a sneaky one. This should be removed until a consensus is reached Loganmac (talk) 02:33, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

• No, the core of GG is described as a conspiracy theory throughout the article's sources (and other reliable sources). I'll put some of the examples at the end to make this more readable, but basically, I think that it's uncontroversial -- obviously most GG sources allege a conspiracy (accusations of collision and conspiracy are at the core of what they feel are ethical breaches, after all); it's just that they dislike having that framed as 'conspiracy theory' as opposed to, I guess, 'conspiracy fact'. But either way, just a quick look over the article's sources show that most of the ones we're relying on for a general overview describe GG as being based around conspiracy theories (this is just from a random grab of some of them -- I'm not going to read every single one of the 40+ sources, but these are all clearly from reliable publications.) If anything, I think that these make it clear that we should cover the conspiracy-theory nature of the controversy in more detail rather than just via categorization:
  • The Verge's article describes "The conspiracy theory at the core of Gamergate..."
  • The quoted response from DiGRA likewise describes it as a conspiracy theory.
  • The Guardian article says: "And ultimately, those members of the gaming community who distrust the games press, have a really wonderful option: make the alternative. Instead of constructing strange conspiracy theories and flooding games sites with vitriolic comments, withdraw entirely."
  • The Daily Beast article says: "On one side are calls for reason and equality; on the other are the conspiracy theorists who fund a “documentary” intended to “shed light on the truth: that the SJWs have been the ones using manipulation and intimidation to push their agenda forward and that the mainstream media has accepted their story uncritically.”
  • The New York Magazine article: "...I was inundated with angry tweets from the movement’s indignant supporters. You don’t get it, they insisted. This is about ethics in journalism. They often pointed me to long, pretty involved conspiracy theories that seemed to claim, among other things, that various gaming websites were colluding to attack the “gamer” identity they held so dear, or that an indie developer named Zoe Quinn had slept her way to positive coverage."
  • The Week describes GG as existing in a "hermetically sealed bubble of conspiracy nonsense".

There's many more (even the Forbes article, which IIRC we're not using at the moment, makes repeated references to the movement being based around conspiracy theories, describing the earliest video as one that "...speculates on a feminist/social justice illuminati that are taking over gaming, and accused Quinn’s parent company, Silverstring Media, of being a part of that conspiracy.") Gamergate's accusations are described as conspiracy theories throughout most of the reliable sources that make up the basis of the current article. --Aquillion (talk) 03:06, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

Again, we have the spectacle of (a) an angry, outraged claim that Gamergate is wronged! This must not stand! This comes from Loganmac, who was most recently seen on his own talk page colluding with topic-banned DungeonSiege5whatever. This is followed by Aquillion patiently, exhaustively, definitively, cataloging the many, many sources that compell the categorization. Next, the three remaining un-topic-banned editors and their admin will arrive to say, "but there is doubt! there might not be unanimity! Perhaps we cannot (alas! so sad!) say "conspiracy theory" -- we might say "possible conspiracy theory" or "alleged conspiracy theory as reported in misguided but reliable sources". And we will spend another five thousand words debating the point, wind up again with two or three treks to AN/I and a trip to discretionary sanctions with WikiTrout for all. In the end, as Aquillion usefully captures, New York Magazine describes today at Wikipedia precisely: conspiracy theories that seemed to claim, among other things ... that an indie developer named Zoe Quinn had slept her way to positive coverage. Enough. This has got to stop. MarkBernstein (talk) 03:20, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

Mark, I request that you cease this battleground and inflammatory behaviour. The disparity between Aquillion's and your response is telling, Aquillion looked at the sources, while Mark targeted editors who haven't even commented yet! starship.paint ~ regal 03:53, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

Mark please calm down, it seems you are attacking people who have not participated in discussion yet. Retartist (talk) 04:38, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

We aren't pals, Retartist: it's Dr. Bernstein to you, thank you, or Mark Bernstein if you're a member of the Society of Friends. Thanks. See following comment which applies equally to you.MarkBernstein (talk) 04:47, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict)The pattern has been unrelenting for days on end. It's really interesting that starship shows up a few minutes after another user, one who makes the same arguments in the same tone, is topic-banned, and complains just after asserting in the section above that he made one revert (I recall two) and that it's perfectly reasonable to change "False sexual allegations" to "Sexual allegations" because they probably did have sex! For crying out loud: do you folks have no decency? This pattern of edits has been unrelenting for days -- one BLP violation followed by an insinuation followed by a slow, slow retreat, fighting every inch of the way. Yes, I'm angry. (No reason to think starship's a sock: we all know they've been coordinating offsite and banned DS apparently defied the topic ban when issued to coordinate their offsite rendezvous). MarkBernstein (talk) 04:47, 23 November 2014 (UTC)