Talk:Crash Override Network

Sanctions enforcement

All articles related to the gamergate controversy are subject to discretionary sanctions.

Requests for enforcing sanctions may be made at: Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement.

There's a countdown?

Hi, just wondering if anyone knew what the countdown on the site is leading to? For me it says it's 314 days away from finishing but what happens after that? I haven't seen anything like a press release or the like. I can only assume it's a countdown to the one year anniversary of it's creation? I have no clue what it's for but I thought it might be interesting to note, I dunno. Sethyre (talk) 20:11, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

The countdown has reached 0 several times before and just reset, it counted for several months and hit 0, and then for a while was running on a 24 hour countdown-reset, and then at some point set to a year long countdown. No information about what it means anywhere. Weedwacker (talk) 02:31, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

This is moot since the site was redesigned. The original design was a Wordpress theme designed for a "Coming soon" placeholder website. It had a timer widget built in to count down until the launch, which apparently was left in the default value and allowed to run down to zero, at which point it automatically reset. Punstress (talk) 17:17, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

Chat log leaks

There have been some leaks of chat logs from Crash Override Network: https://heatst.com/tech/chat-logs-expose-crash-override-network-as-online-bullies/ http://www.oneangrygamer.net/2016/08/chat-logs-reveal-zoe-quinn-admitting-to-sabotaging-polaris-game-jam/10429/

Should a mention be added? It seems to be a lot more note worthy then saying the website underwent daily hack attempts. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Informat2 (talk • contribs) 15:38, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

This would need to be covered by a reliable source for it to be mentioned in the article. Those links are not to reliable sources (Breitbart is similarly unreliable.) PeterTheFourth (talk) 21:29, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

How can Breitbart be still unreliable when they've achieved international relevance at this point? Might as well say FOX, MSNBC, or CNN are unreliable. Jesus Christ Wikipedia. 2607:FB90:24A9:7F51:0:4A:279E:9901 (talk) 15:22, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

Which reliable sources would those be? Gawker and it's owned properties? Which are essentially a tabloid on par with Weekly World News and The National Enquirer (Gawker, itself), or blogs it owned (Jezebel, Valleywag, etc.)-- and Gawker.com is going to be gone, very soon, anyway. Personal blogs (at least 1 Wordpress page is used as a "reliable Source" on this site)? "Studies" or other "academic papers" behind paywalls? "Professional blogs" like The Mary Sue? Oh, maybe you mean all those reliable source sites where the authors aren't friends/acquaintances with one or more of the people involved in the chats shown (Like Polygon/Vox, Kotaku/Gawker, etc.)... Oh, wait. Almost all of the "reliable sources" used in relation to these topics can't pass the test of not being friends/acquaintances with at least one member of the chats in question. How about you source articles written by people in the chats (and don't say that hasn't been done, before, as it has)?

The real issue isn't that you're waiting for reliable sources; it's that this site has already decided that only sources that agree with it on a sociopolitical level, follow a strict narrative, and/or you know will never talk about the leaks, because their writers are already friendly with people implicated in them can be considered reliable.

Keep showing how important "reliable sources" are on this site, when you use Gawker, personal blogs, papers behind paywalls, etc. as "reliable", as long as they lean left/progressive politically; but say pretty much every right/conservative leaning source is unreliable. It doesn't show any sort of bias. I swear. It shows complete neutrality. Really. 199.72.143.98 (talk) 15:08, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

We can't have people notice how the CON chat logs had someone actually say "we should get Ryulong to write a better GamerGate article"! That's too much cronyism for the normies to handle!! Sethyre (talk) 22:06, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

There's no need for so much snark, it's not going to help anyone. To get back on topic, the Washington Examiner has also covered the issue and I'm pretty certain they're considered a more valid source: http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/when-the-harassed-become-the-harassers/article/2600558 98.115.22.9 (talk) 23:56, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

True. All jokes aside this is a serious issue, and the coverage we have should be enough to add in, at least in my opinion. Sethyre (talk) 06:46, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

Washington Examiner, similar to Breitbart, is an unreliable source. PeterTheFourth (talk) 06:48, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

Says who? These discussions at RSN suggest otherwise: Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_193#Sourcing_for_Mattress_Performance_.28Carry_That_Weight.29 Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_192#Washington_Examiner_op-eds

Not only that but Ashe Schow (the author) has followed the story closely. That should be considered when evaluating sources. She appeared on the Gamergate discussion panel at SPJ Airplay, which along with her other reporting qualifies her as an expert on the subject as much as anyone can be (from WP:RS The opinions of specialists and recognized experts are more likely to be reliable and to reflect a significant viewpoint.)

It's definitely a better source than say the National Monitor which we cite heavily in the article for statements of fact. It's tagline is "Opinion and Analysis from all Angles" but according to WP:RS: Editorial commentary, analysis and opinion pieces ... are rarely reliable for statements of fact so something's off there and should be corrected.

Overall I don't see any issue citing the Examiner, and that article in particular. James J. Lambden (talk) 07:22, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

If you read the discussions to which you linked, you will find that nowhere is it established that the Washington Examiner is a reliable source. PeterTheFourth (talk) 09:08, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

Sure I've read them, have you? More editors say it is than say it isn't. That's about as close as we get here - there's no official list to add it to or remove it from. More importantly:

• It's subject to editorial review
• It's never been disqualified as an RS (unlike Breitbart, contrary to your suggestion)
• The author's an expert in the subject matter

I don't think we can expect to find the NYTimes and WSJ covering this little org (CON), much less in depth, so this is about as good as it gets which for our standards is just fine. Who wants to work up a few short sentences to add to the article? James J. Lambden (talk) 09:43, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

Considering that they've been covered by the NYT before as "anti-harassment" specialists, and according to their own chatlogs actively engaged in harassment of people they have ideological differences, it seems that anything related to the leaks should be added. Since the definition of a source is so flimsy already, their own word of mouth plus a verification by a member who was there should be more then sufficient. Not to mention that they actively used a wikipedia editor(ryulong) as a meatpuppet. 198.48.236.163 (talk) 14:48, 8 September 2016 (UTC)Mdot

Your daily reminder that consensus is not a vote. PeterTheFourth (talk) 09:46, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

Daily? Looks like you're the only editor against it so you're going to have to at least argue for why you're right. Claiming it's not RS (when it is) and reminding people that "Consensus is not a vote" aren't exactly arguments... I'm sensing a lot of WP:IDONTLIKEIT - just to get it out of the way you don't have any connection to the org or the subject do you? James J. Lambden (talk) 09:55, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

You've got me, I'm the founder and owner of Crash Override Network. My conflict of interest is clear, and you now have free reign to add as many dubious statements sourced to as many unreliable sources as you want. PeterTheFourth (talk) 10:03, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

Sarcasm aside, I'm going to ask the obvious question and expect a straight answer from you. Define "reliable source" and explain why all of the sources used to discuss CON in a positive light are demonstrably "reliable" while every source to date painting them in a negative light is demonstrably "not reliable", because you seem to be using a different standard than WP:RS, and I suspect that standard has more to do with whether or not the source has a positive view of CON than anything. Schadrach (talk) 15:20, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

A reliable source is generally a third-party, published source with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. PeterTheFourth (talk) 23:22, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

Wouldn't that disqualify almost every single source used in this article and in the gamergate article? 2601:3C8:0:5ADC:7CDF:1825:899:BBC9 (talk) 03:03, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

No. PeterTheFourth (talk) 03:06, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

Because we all know sources responding to controversies involving them are 100% reliable, right? 2601:3C8:0:5ADC:7CDF:1825:899:BBC9 (talk) 03:43, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

Jezebel (and its until recent parent, Gawker, and other Gawker subsidiaries), as well as The Mary Sue, are cited on articles as reliable sources; even though they all fail this arbitrary test of yours. As do the personal blogs used as reliable sources. And The Daily Dot. And... Well, I guess you get the point. If you are defending any of these sources, you're a massive hypocrite. Just pointing that out. But, I suppose your word is godlike on this site.199.72.143.98 (talk) 19:34, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

Again, I've got to add to the voices saying that there's nothing unreliable about the sources for the CON collusion weblogs. It's fine. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.255.206.160 (talk) 22:36, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

That's a bunch of sarcasm but nothing in the way of answer or argument... if this discussion is going to be productive we really need more of the latter. James J. Lambden (talk) 18:15, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

Everything I don't like is an unreliable source. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2607:FB90:2400:9289:0:4D:7EBC:2901 (talk) 08:36, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Gaming_the_system don't mind me, just leaving this one here for peter c: HeroofTime55 (talk) 01:28, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia isn't a democracy. We don't need a vote here. Make the changes you want into a draft on the talk page and we can argue about it there. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fangrim (talk

We have confirmation from an individual who was a member of CON that the logs are legitimate and cast a light which is contradictory to the current article. Clearly there is an overwhelming desire to amend the article to reflect this new information. It seems pretty obvious to me that ignorance or denial of this source would be with the intent to deny WP:NPOV. LCrowter (talk) 17:02, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

I might not have the know-how or experience with Wiki to properly add it in, but I'll make the first step. If anyone would like to make corrections to my edits please feel free, I'm still learning the ways of the wiki. Nevermind I'm terrible at this I can't even cite a source without getting fatigued. Sethyre (talk) 18:50, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

Heat Street is most certainly not a reliable source. PeterTheFourth (talk) 23:20, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

And you are basing this on...? Marteau (talk) 23:29, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

It does not have a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. PeterTheFourth (talk) 23:33, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

Examiner is fine for the claim. Maybe arguable in Quinn's article, fine here. Heat St is definitely usable for Cheong's confirmation, which I've added. James J. Lambden (talk) 23:54, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

Are you seriously saying that a primary source verifying the legitimacy of leak documents is an unrealiable source because you don't think Heat St is a good site? I'm not involved in this edit war but this is utterly embarrassing for Wikipedia and undermines its credibility at large. (Redacted) 24.84.155.22 (talk) 04:11, 9 September 2016 (UTC) Comment partially redacted per WP:NPA & WP:ASPERSIONS - Ryk72 ^'c.s.n.s.' 04:52, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

"Primary sources are original materials that are close to an event, and are often accounts written by people who are directly involved." Miles Cheong was a member of the group! How long are we going to tread around this. LCrowter (talk) 08:57, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

Cheong's account and the report from Schow are quite clear. As indicated above, Schow has followed the controversy extensively and this is significant enough for her to report on. LCrowter (talk) 09:19, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

Parts of the chatlogs indicate an attempt to "fix" articles involving gamergate on this very wiki by members: http://www.oneangrygamer.net/2016/09/crash-override-network-had-wikipedia-articles-changed-at-their-behest/11348/ Does it deserve a mention? 65.153.30.202 (talk) 12:56, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

• Comment - Question on reliability of Heatstreet for attributed opinion raised at WP:RSN. - Ryk72 ^'c.s.n.s.' 23:51, 8 September 2016 (UTC)
• Reminder - Editors are reminded that this Talk page is for discussions relating to building the article, not a forum for discussion of the topic itself, and that we are all expected to remain civil and refrain from personal attacks. This Talk page is also not a proxy for discussions of other articles. - Ryk72 ^'c.s.n.s.' 04:52, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

My reasonably conservative addition was removed on NPOV grounds. What's the NPOV argument for removal? There seems to be firm support for inclusion. Is the issue my phrasing or the specifics I chose to include? James J. Lambden (talk) 19:25, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

I feel the removal of recent major revelations concerning Crash Override Network should be reverted as it has been confirmed to be real by a primary source. There is no reason why it should be not included. 24.84.155.22 (talk) 20:25, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

If this is an actual, newsworthy story worth coverage here, it will be picked up and reported on by a reputable, reliable source. All you need to do is wait- there's no point forcing it through now with unreliable sources. PeterTheFourth (talk) 23:50, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

The statement is sourced to The Washington Examiner. The Washington Examiner is considered reliable. This was discussed earlier. If you take issue with that classification the place to resolve it is WP:RSN. James J. Lambden (talk) 01:25, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

There you go again, claiming documents and confirmation from primary sources along with verifiable authorship via a known publication. You're arguing that unless organizations with known conflicts of interest and bias cover this story you don't think it should be on wikipedia, regardless of it's factual or not. We even have comments from these so-called reputable organizations that they simply will not cover this story. You're clearly pushing politics, not facts. 24.84.155.22 (talk) 00:02, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

On another note, the section currently reads "An August 2016 leak of chat logs among members who would go on to found the group" suggests that Crash Override Network was not yet founded or operating, as the logs predate CON's public launch. Yet other sources (including a client and supporter of CON) describe the group as operating in the weeks prior to their public launch- "Now, that group has a name - the Crash Override Network - and after operating in secret for weeks, it’s gone public"

http://birthmoviesdeath.com/2015/01/17/the-social-justice-illuminati-is-real-and-its-an-anti-hate-task-force

It's seems safe to say that these logs document CON's official operations, as they contain all of the founders operating under the Crash Override name. 73.13.28.182 (talk) 20:09, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

The idea that these leaked chats are de-facto official internal communications is further backed up by the Trello board leaks (assuming Ian confirms these as well) 24.84.155.22 (talk) 22:13, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

1RR

The banner at the top of the page indicates reverts are limited to 1 per 24 hours. @PeterTheFourth: @WoKrKmFK3lwz8BKvaB94: @Marteau: James J. Lambden (talk) 18:05, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

@James J. Lambden: Page template is wrong. WP:DSLOG has no record of any admin putting a 1RR on this page. — Strongjam (talk) 18:13, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

From the looks of it, Dreadstar was the one who placed the template on here. Didn't he use to be an administrator? GamerPro64 18:19, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

@Strongjam: I don't know that editors should be removing admin-imposed restrictions... James J. Lambden (talk) 18:26, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

All DS must be logged to have any effect. Likely Dreadstar just C&P the header from the Gamergate talk page, which is the only GG page that is under 1RR. Unfortunately we can't get clarification from him. — Strongjam (talk) 18:28, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

That might explain why the WikiProject tags don't really look to be in the same scope as the article. So what then? Take the article to enforcement to have it removed by an admin? Because having it be addressed by them would help out here. GamerPro64 19:01, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

Probably easiest just to ask about it on Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement. Dreadstar logged all of their other sanctions, and adding 1RR to a brand new page would be strange. — Strongjam (talk) 19:39, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

Discussion of The Washington Examiner as a source

Belated notification: the reliability of The Washington Examiner in relation to this article is being discussed at the Reliable Sources Noticeboard (RSN) James J. Lambden (talk) 17:47, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

• It would appear that some basic reminders about WP:BLP policy are required. First of all, contentious material touching on living people needs exceptionally strong sourcing. Lacking such sourcing, the material should not appear, and it is in fact a serious violation of policy to keep re-inserting poorly sourced material attacking living people. Secondly, the burden of proof is on those wishing to include the contentious material, meaning that it should not appear in the article unless/until there is a clear consensus that it is relevant and properly sourced.

  In accordance with WP:BLP, and with my responsibility as an administrator to enforce it, I've removed the material from the article pending further discussion here and/or at WP:RS/N (as linked above). Further violations of WP:BLP are likely to result in sanctions against individual editors, particularly since this topic area is subject to discretionary sanctions and editors should be working harder to comply with policy, rather than skirting it. MastCell ^Talk 17:53, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

Good thing we have a primary document, a primary source verifying the legitimacy of the primary document and none of the participants have denied the legitimacy of it. Hopefully we can get this sorted out so the editors can begin referencing specific statements in the documents. 24.84.155.22 (talk) 18:03, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

I think it would be useful to review the relevant site policies before continuing in this vein, especially regarding your intent to use primary sources. MastCell ^Talk 18:53, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

I'd rather not, I'm more interested in improving wikipedia by making it a more reliable and informative site. I also don't plan to hang around after dispute is resolved, or at least until something so ridiculous falls under my purview again. I'm like a WikiGnome on a whole nother level 24.84.155.22 (talk) 19:15, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

I don't think Ashe Showe (Author of the Washington Examiner) has any evidence against them proving a challenge against NPOV. The chat logs that are being referenced have been vetted by someone who was part of the organization before leaving, which suggests that verifiability has been covered. I'd like to hear everyone thoughts on the Chat Logs being a NPOV? I believe coverage over the chat logs might be best served by putting it under Criticism/Controversy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fangrim (talk • contribs) 19:32, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

@MastCell: I believe the editor's argument is that, unlike most secondary sources, this one provides primary sources in addition to support its claims.

Inclusion was discussed above and by my rough count: 12 editors were in favor, feeling the sourcing was sufficient, and 2 opposed. Given the weight of the arguments, which I find heavier on the include side, that appears to be the "clear consensus" you require. No other discussion has reached a contrary conclusion, yet you've removed the content - overriding local consensus and leaving editors with no way to restore it. Have I misunderstood? James J. Lambden (talk) 19:36, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

A couple of points:

• I don't see how you arrived at a 12-2 count above in favor of inclusion, or anything near it.
• Consensus is not a vote, and arguments are weighted by their validity with regard to site policy. Arguments that have no grounding in policy, or that fly in the face of policy, are generally discounted. If (hypothetically) 12 people argue in favor of a blatant BLP violation while only 2 people defend the proper application of the policy, the 2 people can, and should, carry the day.
• The issue is currently under discussion by a wider and more representative cross-section of editors at WP:RS/N, and there does not appear to be anything resembling consensus that these sources (the Washington Examiner in particular) are sufficient to support the wording that was in the article.
• Even if there were a local consensus here to use an unacceptable source for contentious material about living people, a local consensus cannot override a foundational policy such as WP:BLP.

If an uninvolved admin feels that the material should be restored and remain in the article pending further discussion, then I'd be open to talking with him/her. But the policy is very clear that such material needs clear consensus to justify insertion, and that such material must remain out of the article until such consensus is obtained. I don't see much of a gray area here, and I'm concerned by the very cavalier attitude toward sourcing and WP:BLP policy on display, particularly given the discretionary sanctions active in this topic area. MastCell ^Talk 20:11, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

I'm concerned this discussion is wading into editorial territory... I specifically addressed weight in my comment. Regarding the "count", in the relevant section Talk:Crash_Override_Network#Discussion_of_The_Washington_Examiner_as_a_source we have the following !votes:

Arguing for inclusion and/or the sufficiency of existing sources

• Informat2
• Sethyre
• 98.115.22.9
• James J. Lambden
• 198.48.236.163
• Schadrach
• 2601:3C8:0:5ADC:7CDF:1825:899:BBC9
• 199.72.143.98
• 109.255.206.160
• 2607:FB90:2400:9289:0:4D:7EBC:2901
• HeroofTime55
• LCrowter
• Marteau
• 65.153.30.202
• Ryk72
• 24.84.155.22
• 73.13.28.182

Total, that's 8 registered accounts and 9 IPs, 17 total.

Arguing against inclusion and/or the sufficiency of existing sources

• PeterTheFourth
• Fangrim (questionable)

2 total.

Have I missed or mischaracterized any?

Regarding BLP, I think it would be instructional and helpful to identify which editors you feel have been cavalier about sourcing, and with which edits in particular, if possible. James J. Lambden (talk) 20:47, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

I may have a very dumb question, but boldness here we go. Why is Crash Overridde the network considered a living person? Its an organization correct? Would the same restrictions apply to a corporation such as IBM or Twitter? Fangrim (talk) 20:15, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

WP:BLPGROUP is the relevant policy. It really depends on the size of the organisation. For groups of only 2 or 3 individuals accusing the group of doing something is not that different the accusing those individuals. — Strongjam (talk) 20:19, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

Thank you! Fangrim (talk) 20:28, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

Considering Crash Override had more like a dozen members over the course of it's existence you're essentially defining a large portion of small businesses as living people. I move that this definition be removed and it's status be updated to an organization or a network as opposed to a living person. 24.84.155.22 (talk) 20:31, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

I believe this is the relevant statement from BLPGROUP: A harmful statement about a small group or organization comes closer to being a BLP problem than a similar statement about a larger group, which appears to apply in this case. James J. Lambden (talk) 20:57, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

If that's the case I think you'd have to question whether or not the article is even notable enough to be included in a separate page and not just be included on the main Gamergate controversy page. LCrowter (talk) 08:47, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

Question: Can this really be a BLP violation if the article in question is against an organization, not a person? 66.241.131.208 (talk) 13:08, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

WP:BLPGROUP is the relevant policy. It really depends on the size of the organisation. For groups of only 2 or 3 individuals accusing the group of doing something is not that different the accusing those individuals. As a note i disagree with the way this edit was handled. You had people complaining about the source, which was debated on, then you had an admin swoop in and declare WP:BLP, lock everything and then swoop away. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fangrim (talk • contribs) 13:37, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

As mentioned elsewhere Crash Override Network consists more of like a dozen members if the primary documents are to be believed. Then again essentially all information about CON is unverifiable and we only have self-cited advertisement-tier information that is currently on the article. 24.84.155.22 (talk) 20:55, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

• I have already commented on the unsuitableness of the WE source at WP:RSN, but I will do so here, because I find the attitude of many of the SPAs here rather worrisome. The WE editorial is an opinion source, which is reliable as a primary source for the opinion of the author, but not a reliable factual secondary source. There is no way to determine the weight to assign the authors' view, although her WE profile says that she was formerly affiliated with the Heritage Foundation, an American conservative think-tank. Some editors here seem unable to tell the difference between news, like the New York Times, that has a solid reputation for fact-checking, and websites like Breitbart, which are known for peddling unsubstantiated conspiracy theories; these same editors apparently are unable to tell the difference between news reporting, and opinion reporting. The WE piece is definitely opinion. The last paragraph of the article leaves zero doubt about that:

"There's much more in the leaked logs, which Ian Miles Cheong has been documenting over at Heat Street, and I encourage you to read it. The point I want to make is that members of CON, including Quinn, have spoken out against online bullying before the United Nations, and have also worked with Google and Twitter allegedly to stop online harassment, all while engaging in the very same harassment."

I don't want to speculate why some editors seem unable to tell the difference between news and opinion, but competence is required. Sławomir Biały (talk) 15:58, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

Your attacks on editors (WP:SPA, WP:CIR) are unjustified. Claiming the WE article is an opinion piece doesn't make it so. You use the word "editorial" without providing evidence beyond "the author has written editorials in the past." The text you quote above as evidence contains only verifiable statements of fact. One can reasonably dispute their accuracy but they are statements of fact nonetheless. It's a news article like any other published in a source with a better record of reliability than many of the existing sources in this article, which I gather from your lack of objection you don't object to. I'll remind you BLP requires strong sourcing whether the material is negative, positive, [or] neutral This is one of the stronger sources in this article, the only one backed by authenticated evidence, yet it's the only one you object to. Standards should be consistent. James J. Lambden (talk) 16:14, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

A news source would never address the reader ("...I would encourage you to read it.") and would not have an injection of editorial opinion ("The point I want to make is..."). Journalists don't "make points", they present facts. Here is an example of news. The piece under discussion is obviously opinion. I am astonished that any editor could in good faith believe otherwise. This is deep WP:CIR. Sławomir Biały (talk) 17:00, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

Conversational does not imply editorial and professional does not imply factual.

These are the news sources the community currently considers acceptable for this article:

https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2016/apr/13/online-abuse-how-women-are-fighting-back

It’s a glacial task, trying to persuade privileged, male-orientated Silicon Valley culture that harassment is an issue, particularly when some threads of West Coast libertarianism react to moderation of offensive comments by claiming it is censorship.

https://www.destructoid.com/zo-quinn-founds-anti-harassment-network-crash-override-286719.phtml

If you have recently found yourself a victim of organized mob harassment, you can email the Crash Override network via crashoverridenetwork@gmail.com. Hack the planet.

http://herocomplex.latimes.com/games/crash-override-offers-relief-from-harassment-in-the-gaming-world/

For too many people and for far too long this has been the norm, even if the bulk of players believe that common decency shouldn’t be the exception when it comes to gaming culture.

Just as we don't expect NY Times-quality sourcing in pro wrestling biographies we can't expect every incident involving a little-known organization to be covered in depth by the major press. If this wiki article about an organization small enough that BLP applies throughout is to remain as more than a stub, sourcing expectations must be adjusted. Statements published in reliable sources and backed by authenticated primary sources fall on the high end of reasonable expectations. James J. Lambden (talk) 17:42, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

The topic of this section is the reliability of the Washington Examiner source, as was the topic of the RSN post. Quite obviously, the source in The Guardian seems like a solid fact-checked piece, and so I think it is reliable as a news source, insofar as it can be used to say that Quinn said such-and-such. The LA Times source also looks like a reliable news source. I don't think the Destructoid source is a good one. I'm not sure what your point is. Sławomir Biały (talk) 17:58, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

From what I can gather, his point seems to be that the existing sources are hitting your disqualifiers for journalistic pieces. You said a news source would never address the reader, the cited news sources clearly do. You said that news sources would never have an injection of editorial opinion, but the included sources clearly do. We've already acknowledged that things categorized as 'opinion' can contain both objective facts and the author's personal views, which is why there are countless instances of wikipedia extrapolating factual claims from opinion pieces. For the most part, the Washington Examiner article is simply reporting the contents of the logs with little to no exaggeration, and the only thing people are interested in including into the this page are the documented and witnessed actions of the members, not the subjective views of Ashe 73.13.28.182 (talk) 22:01, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

• @James J. Lambden:Your attacks on editors (WP:SPA, WP:CIR) are unjustified. Claiming the WE article is an opinion piece doesn't make it so. Right off the bat, let me say that calling someone an SPA is a matter of fact, not opinion, and it is not an insult. SPAs are permitted here, and often even encouraged as a way to attract more editors. Slawomir might be incorrect about who is an SPA, but that does not make it an attack.

Now, the author (Ashe Schow) of the WE piece is listed under the "Opinion" section of the outlet's staff page. She is also listed as a "commentary writer," which is functionally identical to an "Opinion writer." Furthermore, as Slawomir has pointed out, she writes with a conversational tone, appropriate to an opinion piece, and inappropriate to a news piece. Finally, her bio in various places does not indicate any degree in journalism or work as a journalist.

In short, she looks like a duck, walks like a duck, quacks like a duck, and has has only ever worked as a professional duck. For you to not only claim that she's not a duck, but to berate another user for saying she is absolutely justifies their questioning of your ability to judge the merits of sources. That is not a personal attack (though it could become one, for example, if he insists upon linking to WP:CIR in every comment to you). In fact, questioning your competence to judge the merits of the source is the exact opposite of a personal attack, because it is attributing to a mistake that which, otherwise would have to constitute deceptive maliciousness.

tl;dr: You are not being attacked, you're being rightfully accused of being mistaken. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 19:49, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

I cannot believe you people are arguing about the reliability of WE instead of talking about 2 primary sources verifying primary documents. What a joke. 24.84.155.22 (talk) 20:32, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

Disagreement does not require or benefit from questioning competency. I don't feel much of your response furthers the conversation. Suffice it to say: if the standard you advocate for sourcing in this article is:

• author must be a news writer, no opinion writers
• author must have a degree in journalism

I will aim to bring the article up to standards once protection's expired. Please confirm I've understood.

My argument is: a number of factors should be weighed for statements of fact in a BLP. In the past days I've read and re-read the BLP policy and a number of noticeboard discussions. Fundamentally as I understand it aims to:

• ensure the accuracy of statements
• ensure the notability (WEIGHT) statements

With respect to accuracy: I acknowledge the author's history and (to your point) that they're listed under "opinion" - and count it as a negative. I also acknowledge the verification (from an involved party) of the accuracy of the author's statements and count it as a positive. If consensus is this falls short of the burden for statements of fact it would still be usable for attributed opinion.

With respect to weight: I believe the Heat St piece (usable only for attributed claims) and the WE piece together justify a sentence or two-sentence summary. I notice Cheong has published another article in Heat St in response to a new set of leaks. It's possible more sources will report on this, so I'll wait to propose an appropriate summary. James J. Lambden (talk) 20:47, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

Even if we accept both sources as reliable, that still does not address the BLP issues. WP:BLPGROUP doesn't specify exactly how many people constitute a 'large group', so there's a grey area, in which we normally exclude BLP info.

Even if we accept the WE piece as reliable, that's only a single reliable source. A disgruntled former members of a group is as likely to be an unreliable as a reliable primary source. With no way to verify the chat logs, we don't know that they are accurate themselves. Furthermore, a current member of the group have indicated that the logs have been edited, and are "not CO logs", whatever that means.

But getting back to the sources: right now, there are a total of two sources which might be reliable (but probably aren't). Both are minor sources. There's no significant coverage of these logs in the mainstream media. Hell, there's no significant coverage in the gaming media. In other words: It's a claim levied against the group (bearing in mind that a large chunk of the gamergate controversy itself consists of people levying false, misleading and irrelevant claims against a number of individuals) that hasn't gotten much attention outside of the immediate sphere of those involved. That in an of itself would exclude this materials on WP:DUE grounds, even if there were no BLP considerations to be made here.

If it blows up into a big controversy, then yes, we should include mention of it. But even then. I highly doubt we will find sources reliable enough to state that the events hinted at by this controversy took place in wikivoice. Even then, claims will need to be attributed. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 21:06, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

Randi harper absolutely does not imply the logs were edited, at most she stated that the logs _BEGIN_ before CON, but the logs cover an extensive period of time and official CON operations.

But here we have, the entire point. The leaked CON logs are of more weight than the majority of existing citations currently used, which are almost entire self-descriptions and passing statements from bloggers with known personal relationships to the people they're writing about. CON wasn't not noteworthy at all, until now.

I've realized that wikipedia doesn't really care about the truth, but I write this so the people outside of wikipedia see for themselves. Make no mistake, this entire exchange is being watched. 24.84.155.22 (talk) 21:20, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

Actually, if you read the tweet, she says "some are edited", which seems to mean 'some logs were edited'. PeterTheFourth (talk) 21:31, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

Which could also mean that the formatting of some were edited, or that the logs were excerpted. I'm guessing the latter, since more chatlog leaks were promised. But "some are edited" also clearly means that some are not edited. Otherwise Harper would simply call them fake and not bother to publicly justify her actions shown in the logs.

Anyway, you earlier floated the theory that Cheong could have joined CON with the intention of digging up dirt, then quit the group once he didn't find any, then wrote up the fake logs and leaked them anonymously. The odds of this happening, in addition the odds of not a single member of CON bothering to deny them or call them fake it highly unlikely. At least, it's less likely than the possibility that Cheong simply quit because of the unscrupulous activity he witnessed and alluded to prior to the leaks. If it was his goal to find dirt or slander the organization, then what purpose would quitting serve? Why wait nearly a year after quitting to make fake chatlogs? As opposed to creating them while still running with the organization. The odds that every primary source is fake or lying is not 50/50. I will see if I can find any other CON members confirming the logs. 73.13.28.182 (talk) 21:47, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

I never floated that theory. PeterTheFourth (talk) 21:56, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

Anyway, you earlier floated the theory that Cheong could have joined CON with the intention of digging up dirt Actually, that was me.

The odds of this happening... I have a friend who is 'internet famous', who has had people jump through more, smaller hoops than that to try to hurt her. I've read news articles about people going so far as to kill each other over internet arguments. I'll admit that it's not likely (again, I'm not suggesting that that's what happened, just that it's a possibility that the evidence at our disposal doesn't rule out, or even contradict), but things like that absolutely do happen.

in addition the odds of not a single member of CON bothering to deny them or call them fake it highly unlikely.There's a thread on wikipediocracy in which a handful of members (including active editors here) started trash-talking me. That thread was then blocked from non-members viewing at around the time someone started suggesting they do something about me. This is the first time I've mentioned it, and only because it's such a great example. Do you know why? Because it doesn't matter. There aren't enough people there, and those that are aren't dangerous enough to worry me. It could just as easily be the same story, here. Randi certainly seemed very dismissive of the whole thing. It's very possible that she only read a few lines, noticed some discrepancies right away, and laughed it off with the (apparently) two tweets she made about it. I'd say it's even quite likely.

Regardless, this still isn't addressing the issue of the usability of those sources for the text proposed (let alone the BLP issues!). Even if all the participants were to come out and proclaim that the logs are real and accurate, the fact that they've only been covered by two opinion pieces and a handful of tweets means they don't have the weight to be included. If this blows up to the point that Kotaku were writing articles about the hypocrisy of CON? Then hell yeah, we'd need to cover it (in source voice). MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 22:05, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 13 September 2016

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

I request that an admin look at the talk page and look at what is written there and perhaps unlock this article or reply to people or something.

24.84.155.22 (talk) 21:19, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

This template is to be used for specific edit requests which have consensus. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 15:17, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

Please read this page and reply to the people within it or something, perhaps talk to a person or two. I'm not sure, thanks. 24.84.155.22 (talk) 20:33, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Off-site speculation about PeterTheFourth

Off topic

Hello, Internet. I see some of you have taken an interest in PeterTheFourth's opinions on this article. I don't know a lot about Peter, but I've gathered that we have a few things in common. We both have a hard time internalizing that Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not about winning. We're both gamers, and we both dislike how the Gamergate controversy has tarnished the subculture's reputation. We differ on whether the antidote is to humanize it or dehumanize it, but things will eventually work out. That process is definitely not helped by any speculation about his real-world identity. I say this not because any of the real-life Peters you're floating as ideas sound at all credible, but because you should know by now that this kind of thing never ends in any way that turns out well for you. So don't worry, I'll take it from here. If you want to help, register an account, read WP:IRS, and spend a few months with Wikipedia:Today's articles for improvement. Rhoark (talk) 03:19, 14 September 2016 (UTC) I recommend the internet ignore the recommendation to create an account, engage with bureaucracy or engage with any articles outside of your immediate concern. I recommend you immediately start engaging with other editors and attempt to push forward in improving wikipedia where there are obvious roadblocks prevent such action. Wikipedia has shown itself unable to handle itself in an encyclopedic manner and it's up to the larger anonymous community of internet individuals to widen this discussion outside of internal wikipedia politics. 24.84.155.22 (talk) 04:25, 14 September 2016 (UTC) I should also point out that yes, most people here understand there's overwhelming evidence that PeterTheFourth has major conflicts of interest with his editing habits on wikipedia. A simple google search for his name will reveal his obvious POV-pushing campaign. I don't think anyone really disputes that. The truth is that wikipedia is broken and I think most editors are okay with that. 24.84.155.22 (talk) 05:15, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

Off-site speculation about this article

Off topic

Hello, Internet. I see some of you have taken interest in this article. I just wanted to let you all know that yes, an admin with a historical record of POV pushing has scrubbed and locked this page. Yes that same admin is now AWOL. Yes, the dissenting opinion of 1 or 2 editors was enough to override two primary sources verifying the a primary document and a dozen editors agreeing with it's relevance. Yes, Wikipedia definitely deserves it reputation for political hackery. 24.84.155.22 (talk) 04:18, 14 September 2016 (UTC)