Talk:Gamergate (harassment campaign)

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.

Topic Shift: to hat or not to hat (and the Topic original can go archive)

Closing this discussion because it has zero to do about article content and has become a way for editors to pontificate or use as a proxy battle. If you want a discussion to remain open, then participate in that discussion in a productive way. Gamaliel (talk) 02:24, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

collapse top|There is absolutely no way the article is improved with this meta-discussion of alleged censorship. This talk page is not a forum. If you believe an editor is unjustly hatting, unhat what they have hatted. If they continue doing so, bring it to any of the many conflict resolution avenues available. PeterTheFourth (talk) 12:44, 10 May 2015 (UTC) Any discussion of article improvement should be allowed on this talk page. Do not close such threads. Please re-open this thread in a timely manner. Chrisrus (talk) 01:32, 4 May 2015 (UTC) Your comment is clearly biased and lacks citations. Please improve it. Dumuzid (talk) 02:07, 4 May 2015 (UTC) Citations are not required on talk pages. There is no apparent bias in the statement "Any discussion of article improvement should be allowed on this talk page. Do not close such threads. Please re-open this thread in a timely manner." Therefore, this is not a substantive reply, so I am free to reopen this thread as soon as appropriate on the grounds that the topic of the thread is article improvement. Chrisrus (talk) 04:18, 4 May 2015 (UTC) By all means, please be bold, but pay mind to WP policies. I only meant to reference the recurrent nature of issues on this page. Dumuzid (talk) 11:57, 4 May 2015 (UTC) PetertheFourth, MarkBernstein, and TheRedPenofDoom's responses are basically as far as this conversation can go unless Mythiran has enough reliable sources on the topic to indicate that the harassment against GG supporters deserves more weight in the article. Adding it to the lede now would be undue weight. If Mythiran has actionable changes to suggest for the article, they can start a new section to discuss those changes, but there is no more discussion to be had here. Kaciemonster (talk) 10:55, 4 May 2015 (UTC) This is how talk pages are run on Wikipedia: When a conversation has gone as far as it can go, it will stop. At that point, the clock begins ticking until it ages off into the archives. If you believe that the fact that there is no more discussion to be had in any thread on any talkpage of any article on Wikipedia means that it is appropriate to close and hide that thread, you are mistaken. Instead, the thing to do is to simply say no more and let it age into the archives. Stop closing and hiding threads on this talk pages in this way. On the other hand, do close and hide threads if they contain BLP-type violations or are off-topic, or some other important reason. Do not close them because there is nothing more to say, because they have become tedious, or because you are sick and tired of having the same discussion over and over and over. The reasons given for closing the thread in question are wrong. Chrisrus (talk) 14:26, 6 May 2015 (UTC) Please note Gamaliel's response on the hatted section above: "The talk page is for discussion of potential article changes and improvements, not for a meta-discussion about alleged censorship. It is perfectly acceptable to ask a question that has already been asked, but it is also perfectly acceptable to respond to that question by noting this fact and closing the discussion when nothing new has been added." Kaciemonster (talk) 14:59, 6 May 2015 (UTC) It's not acceptable to close and hide conversations on the grounds that nothing new has been added. When nothing new has been added, the clock begins ticking and it will age off into the archives. In the meantime, the threads will not be hidden from talk page viewers, who may be less likely to repeat the question again, or otherwise benefit from reading them. Also, until that time, it may be possible that something new might be added. Just wait and leave it alone. Chrisrus (talk) 16:09, 6 May 2015 (UTC) See, I think it is acceptable to close and hide conversations on these grounds because the sheer volume of sea-lion complaints (like yours, in fact) cause everyone to spend a pointless amount of effort and energy continually refuting the same conversations. You're not here to help with this page; you're here to hinder. --Jorm (talk) 16:13, 6 May 2015 (UTC) Policy requires that attempts to exploit talk pages for purposes that do not contribute to the project should be promptly removed. One such purpose is echoing political talking points in order to gain a wider audience -- for example, repeated "wikipedia is bias" without any specific recommendation. Another purpose is punishing a group's enemies by rehashing rumors and sexual innuendo on the talk page, warning others that, even if WP:BLP keeps the material out of the article, it will nevertheless be broadly circulated through Wikipedia talk pages. Both these tactics have been employed here at great length. Enough. MarkBernstein (talk) 16:39, 6 May 2015 (UTC) (Edit conflict) Jorm, that may be your opinion, but that's not how we do things on Wikipedia, and also, apparently faulty logic to the extent that it is true that people are less likely, not more likely, to re-hash the same points over and over again while they can see that they've already been discussed and they can read what was said. Instead of closing and hiding such discussions, you may ignore them, or direct them to FAQs, or give some stock answer of your own, so there's no need to worry about wasted time and effort. Chrisrus (talk) 16:41, 6 May 2015 (UTC) @User:MarkBernstein. The threads in question do not contain statements to the effect of "Wikipedia is biased", but rather "This article is biased, please make it less so" and are therefore on topic. Neither did they contain any "rehashing rumors and sexual innuendo" and so on. If these appear, please do follow proper procedure, including closing and hiding the discussion if that is best. However, this your comment did not address the topic at hand, which is dealing with threads that say little more than, in effect, "this article seems biased to me, please change it", which appear here frequently. Chrisrus (talk) 23:28, 10 May 2015 (UTC) WP:HORSEMEAT. WP:NOTAFORUM. Read the FAQ and archives. ForbiddenRocky (talk) 17:45, 6 May 2015 (UTC) When you grow tired of a thread, just don't read it or post any comments to it, or just say as you have here "Read the FAQ and archives, but do not close and hide it. This is not a discussion of the referent of this article, so WP:NOTAFORUM does not apply. "Read the FAQ and archives" might have been a good reply instead of closing and hiding that thread, but not to this one, unless there is a helpful thread somewhere in there on the topic of when to close and hide threads and when not to. Chrisrus (talk) Maybe Gamaliel disagrees with Chrisrus since he collapsed the section immediately above with pretty much same comment as Jorm. The talk page is a workspace, and filling it up with this kind of junk is beyond annoying already. ForbiddenRocky (talk) 17:49, 6 May 2015 (UTC) I'm sorry you find our reader's feedback "annoying". However, finding a talk page thread annoying is not grounds for closing and hiding it. In your justification for closing and hiding this thread, you seemed to say that talk pages are not the proper forum for discussions of talk page improvement. This is not true. Talk pages are for article improvement, so talk page improvement supports article improvement. Countless talk page threads all over Wikipedia discuss changes to the talk page, such as for example which projects the talk page should place it under, what FAQs might be added, and so on and so forth. So your justification for closing this thread is demonstrably not correct, and I will open it again. If you want it to go away, just don't anybody add to it any more, and it will soon go quiet and age off into the archives and out of your sight. Or, you could just not look at it. Hiding a thread only increases the chances that the same topic will come up again. Hiding threads does not decrease the chances that someone will ask the same question again, so frustration with repetitive talk page subjects does not support hiding them, but rather the opposite. Chrisrus (talk) 19:10, 6 May 2015 (UTC) Per WP:TALK is this not a matter for consensus? It would seem that there is fairly wide agreement here. Dumuzid (talk) 20:22, 6 May 2015 (UTC) Per WP:TALK,"the prime values of the talk page are communication, courtesy, and consideration." Closing and hiding threads because one finds them annoying is not in accord with any of these values, which represent long-standing project-wide consensus that trumps the behavior and preferences otherwise that may be found in this thread. Chrisrus (talk) 21:03, 6 May 2015 (UTC) Per WP:TALK, everything after RedPen's comment should be collapsed as it's off-topic. Kaciemonster (talk) 21:15, 6 May 2015 (UTC) How reader feedback about this article is dealt with is on-topic. Chrisrus (talk) 21:45, 6 May 2015 (UTC) How reader feedback about this article is dealt with has nothing to do with rewriting the lede, which is the section that you've posted all of this in. Kaciemonster (talk) 21:48, 6 May 2015 (UTC) OK, so I've created a subsection at the topic shift. Chrisrus (talk) 22:29, 7 May 2015 (UTC) No, it is not "feedback" about the article. it is whining campaign by people who want think the wikipedia article should not represent the reliable source coverage of the subject. We are not here to be their therapists and listen to them whine. over and over and over for Thirty six pages of archives -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 01:34, 8 May 2015 (UTC) lol for fucking ever @ lecturing Jorm about how we do things on wikipedia. Protonk (talk) 20:03, 6 May 2015 (UTC) Heh. I was going to let that one go but yeah. :)--Jorm (talk) 21:53, 6 May 2015 (UTC) I'm sympathetic about your emotions, but calm reasonably is the best approach. It may seem like "whining" to you or me, but if someone leaves a thread on talk pages of articles on Wikipedia saying, for example, "This article seems biased to me. Please fix it so it's not so biased.", then that constitutes clear on-topic reader feedback, and we are to WP:ASSUMEGOODFAITH and not assume negative motivations without serious proof. We can then leave a brief stock reply polite reply, perhaps pointing them to FAQs, or ignore it completely. Then, the clock begins ticking and it will age off into the archives soon enough, but in the meantime. The fact that such reader feedback might seem tedious or annoying to you because you've heard it all before: the fact that you are sick and tired of answering the same questions again and again and again, does not mean that you should close and hide that thread. Closing and hiding such threads is at odds with the core values of Wikipedia talk pages: Communication, Courtesy and Consideration. You should allow those who choose to engage that person at length about why it seems biased to them or explaining to them why it has to be written this way: this is allowed. In fact, that is all the more reason to leave it in such a way that such people can see previous threads on the same topic asking the same question and not bother making that comment themselves. On these grounds, I will reopen such thread on this talk page as soon as appropriate. Chrisrus (talk) 03:25, 8 May 2015 (UTC) You can't justify leaving these threads open on the basis of their service to new editors and then say that these threads will pose no bother as they will quickly disappear into the archives. A quickly archived thread, hatted or not, does no service to new editors or old ones. If editors choose to use threads in a productive manner, then they should remain open. Otherwise, they should be closed. That should be the only criteria. Threads should not be left open solely because an editor wishes to make a point about openness and engagement. You can make that point by actual engagement with these editors, not demanding that others do so in manner that you prefer. Every editor should conduct themselves on the talk page with those three values you mention in mind (Communication, Courtesy and Consideration) but they can do that without leaving unproductive threads open indefinitely. Gamaliel (talk) 11:20, 8 May 2015 (UTC) Leaving such threads open doesn't require justification; closing and hiding them does. During the time that they remain easily readable on this talk page, others will be less, not more, likely to start another thread saying basically the same thing, so the argument that closing and hiding them is justified on the grounds that we are tired of the same old repetitive threads makes little sense because hiding them away before they age off into the archives lessens the chances that a talk page viewer will realize that someone has already made that point here before and that they will read the previous reply and get his or her answer that way instead of starting a new one basically saying the same thing. Chrisrus (talk) 16:58, 9 May 2015 (UTC) the hatting has plenty of justification, from WP:NOTFORUM to WP:DEADHORSE to WP:NOTFREESPEECH to WP:NOTHERAPY to the Thirty six pages of archives where the same pointless baseless and unsupportable suggestions have been redregged every week. Where and how exactly do you foresee any improvements to the encyclopedia from encouraging such pointless discussions continuing on and on and on? -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 20:01, 9 May 2015 (UTC) If a person there starts a thread by giving some reader feedback which is too vague to be very helpful, such as maybe "This article isn't good. It shouldn't be written in this way", then that constitutes on-topic reader feedback, so WP:NOTAFORUM does not apply. Chrisrus (talk) 05:29, 10 May 2015 (UTC) WP:DEADHORSE might or might not apply if that the person that started that thread had already done so, but unless there's some suggestion of that, it doesn't apply. Chrisrus (talk) 05:29, 10 May 2015 (UTC) WP:NOTFREESPEECH only applies if someone claims Wikipedia has violated his/her legal right to free speech, such as the First Amendment of the Constitution, by not allowing an edit or banning them from the project or something. WP:NOTFREESPEECH doesn't justify silencing anyone, but rather say that if we have already done so for some other, non-WP:NOTFREESPEECH reason, free speech rights are not grounds for reversal of that decision, and the person has no legal rights apply to the State, not to Wikipedia, so they can't sue. No one is using such arguments here, so it does not apply. I'm going to have to ask you how you think WP:NOTTHERAPY justifies the closing of the thread in question. By invoking WP:IGNOREALLRULES in this way, you seem to mean that exceptions should be made in this case because it's different from other articles' talk pages. But there are many articles' talk pages on which the same objection comes up repeatedly and frequeently, so this article is not unique. Take for example the article Persian Gulf, the constant threads about how the proper name is "The Arab Gulf" are not routinely closed and hidden against the rules, they are instead generally left alone for others to see and be discouraged from starting another. The decision was made long ago to instead have such things as FAQs and stock responses for those objections that recur frequently, because this is effective and in concordance with the three C's of WP:TALK: Communication, Courtesy, and Consideration. Chrisrus (talk) 05:29, 10 May 2015 (UTC) Well, quite frankly I am surprised that you are not aware that this page IS different than the majority of other pages. It is the target of organized offsite disruption. It became the subject of an ArbCom case within 4 months of its existence. It has Thirty six seven pages of archives generated in less than 10 months (as compared to 7 for Persian Gulf over 10 years ) So, yes, in the interest of actually improving the encyclopedia measures that may not apply other other pages are completely appropriate here. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 12:17, 10 May 2015 (UTC) The widespread criticism of and attention to this article is more reason for us to be particularly vigilant about treating everyone fairly and strictly according to the rules. We must be extra careful to maintain strict adherence to the rules and to treat everyone fairly and courteously. There are other explanations for the large archives other than "organized offsite disruption", and therefor no reason to resort to conspiracy theories and emotional overreactions to normal on-topic reader feedback. This article should stand as a proud example of how we treat people fairly, as many eyes are on it. Sorry dude. we are not here to "treat people fairly" - particularly organized disruptive campaigns. We are here to create an encyclopedia. IAR is the POLICY which is the basis for improving the encyclopedia by not wasting anyone's time, actual contributing editors or sea lion meat puppets, by re-re-re-re-re-hashing discussions that have no basis in policy or sources and will never actually impact the article. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 23:15, 10 May 2015 (UTC) Hi TheRedPenOfDoom. I must respectfully disagree on this point. Per WP:5P4, we are here to treat people fairly, with respect and civility. I do not concur that the burden of showing that the encyclopedia is substantively improved by ignoring the rules has been met. - Ryk72 'c.s.n.s.' 23:36, 10 May 2015 (UTC) where do you see "fairly"? Hatting repetitive discussions that have no basis in policy our sources and not dragging out yet another pointless repetition is the way to treat everyone with respect and civility. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 23:42, 10 May 2015 (UTC) Dude, what's your goal here? For real? You've provided exactly zero suggestions for improving the article except for "Listen to every idiot who comes around and sea-lions the living shit out of us and wastes our time". Are you trying to white knight for the pro-gamergate crowd and aren't willing to dive into the actual article? Is this the best you have?--Jorm (talk) 05:57, 10 May 2015 (UTC) Please be WP:CIVIL, WP:ASSUMEGOODFAITH and either stay on-topic or open another thread in an appropriate place. Chrisrus (talk) 13:17, 10 May 2015 (UTC) I'm pretty sure this falls under WP:NOTAFORUM ForbiddenRocky (talk) 07:22, 10 May 2015 (UTC) Talk pages don't have talk pages of their own to discuss them. Discussion of talk pages management belongs on that talk page. Chrisrus (talk) 13:19, 10 May 2015 (UTC) No, we should be discussing content. More than half of this huge massive pointless discussion is discussion of the discussion of whether or not we should hat topics that are going nowhere fast. Please just take it to ANI or something. PeterTheFourth (talk) 13:21, 10 May 2015 (UTC) WP:NOTAFORUM "Talk pages are not for general discussion about the subject of the article, nor are they a help desk for obtaining instructions or technical assistance. Material unsuitable for talk pages may be subject to removal per the talk page guidelines." & The discussion Chrisrus is trying to have belongs at: the talk page for talk page guidelines ForbiddenRocky (talk) 17:34, 10 May 2015 (UTC) That would be a good place to discuss ways of changing the talk page guidelines to allow exception to usual talk page governance in cases where a different user every day seems to open a new thread saying something like "This article is biased. Please redo it so that it's less biased." to the point that usual remedies such as archiving, FAQs, recommended stock answers, and so on are not enough, and where most regular talk page editors are becoming so overworked that they would like to resort to closing and hiding all such threads as they appear. I am not making such a proposal. Meta-talk page discussions, by which I mean discussions on a talk page that are focused on improvement to that talk page itself, are supposed to take place on that talk page. If that weren't the case, none of the meta-talk page topics could be rightly discussed on talk pages: Discussion of whether and which disclaimers should be posted on the top of the talk page. Discussion of which projects the talk page should have, and in which order they should appear. Discussion of whether to have FAQs and how they should be worded and edited. Discussion about the press coverage box. And so on. If what you are saying were true, all of these "meta-talk page discussions" would be considered "off-topic" and not allowed on talk pages, so some other place would have to be used for meta-talk page discussions, such as the establishment of talk pages for talk pages. But as such discussions occur all the time on such talk pages and as there is no other place for such discussions, it is clear that what you are saying is not true, and that meta-talk page discussions are indeed considered on-topic. So please refrain from closing and hiding meta-talk page discussions on the grounds that they are off topic and instead belong somewhere else, because, given the facts, that is demonstrably untrue. Chrisrus (talk) 20:59, 10 May 2015 (UTC) @Gamaliel: Hi. Sorry to bother you, but seeing as you were the last administrator to step in this is your punishment for your good deeds. What dispute resolution steps could I take re: Chrisrus being disruptive by constantly unhatting and posting in a long, useless section on the talk page? It seems just minor enough to not really be actionable, but it is incredibly annoying and it also seems to be done for no real reason other than to be irksome. PeterTheFourth (talk) 21:08, 10 May 2015 (UTC) I think we're going to have to go to WP:AN/I.--Jorm (talk) 21:36, 10 May 2015 (UTC) Chrisrus is correct w.r.t hatting of discussions. The Talk Page guidelines, and the instruction/explanation for each of the methods being used to close discussions are clear that discussions should not be closed by involved editors. WP:TALK - Any uninvolved editor may close most discussions, not just admins; however, requests for closure may be made to an uninvolved administrator for discussions that have been open at least a week and are particularly contentious or unclear. Template:Archive top - When used on a talk page this template should only be used by uninvolved editors or administrators in conjunction with the talk page guidelines and relevant advice at refactoring. It should not be used by involved parties to end a discussion over the objections of other editors. Template:Hidden archive top - This template should only be used by uninvolved editors in conjunction with the talk page guidelines and relevant advice at refactoring. It should not be used by involved parties to end a discussion over the objections of other editors. Template:Collapse - This template should only be used in accordance with the Wikipedia:refactoring guideline; it should never be used to end a discussion over the objections of other editors, except in cases of unambiguous disruptive editing. All emphasis directly copied from the sourced pages. It is not disruptive to discuss the inappropriateness of involved editors closing discussions. What is disruptive is the continued use of these methods to prevent discussion of the article content. If a discussion offers nothing substantive, simply allow it to age out to the archive pages naturally. - Ryk72 'c.s.n.s.' 23:03, 10 May 2015 (UTC) Ryk72, should we also rewrite the lede? Do you have any thoughts on whether the article is biased? Dumuzid (talk) 23:48, 10 May 2015 (UTC) Judging by their comments here, I think they might. PeterTheFourth (talk) 00:15, 11 May 2015 (UTC) Once again, this thread has been closed and hidden on no valid grounds. This time, however, neither was it closed and hidden with any reference to any guideline or rule. Therefore, I will open it again after an appropriate amount of time. First, this thread was closed and hidden without any reference to any guideline, rule, or long-standing wide-spread practice supporting the closing or the hiding or this thread. For this reason alone, I plan to open and show it once again as soon as appropriate. Second, this thread was closed and hidden "...because it has zero to do about article content..." Again, here on Wikipedia, article talk page management discussions about a specific article's supporting talk page occur on that talk page and this is on topic. This is the proper place for discussion of how this talk page, which supports this article, has been and/or should deal with common thread types. Article talk pages are the place such "meta-talk page" discussions occur all over Wikipedia. For example, discussion of changes or additions to the FAQs may occur here, even though FAQs only appear on the article's supporting talk page. Therefore, this discussion is on-topic and so this justification for closing and hiding the thread is invalid and also for this reason I plan to undo that as soon as appropriate. Second, the thread was closed and hidden on the grounds that it "has become a way for editors to pontificate". It is not at all clear what this means in this context, so as clear grounds should accompany closing and hiding threads, I'll be justified in showing and opening it again. However, "to pontificate" in this case seems to mean "to express your opinion about something in a way that shows that you think you are right and others wrong about something." Or perhaps "pontificate" means "to embarrass others by civilly presenting a clear argument with valid evidence and good reasoning, and proper rhetoric" and just doing everything exactly as we are supposed to. But that is exactly what should be done on Wikipedia in such contexts, so the accusation is of doing everything right, but making others defensive and upset by doing so. There is nothing in these words that should stop anyone from showing and opening the discussion again. Third, this thread was closed and hidden on the grounds that it has become a way for unspecified editors "to carry on a proxy battle". Again, it is not at all clear what this means in this context, so as it is wrong to close and hide threads without giving a clear reason, I will re-open it as soon as appropriate. However, it would seem the editor is of the belief that those editors arguing for a return to standard hatting practice are part of some conspiracy or something. This is not true, at least in my case, as I am a proxy of no one but myself. However, although the burden of proof for such an accusation lies with he who makes it, I can assure you there will be none forthcoming as it's completely false and is a violation of WP:ASSUMEGOODFAITH. Threads closed and hidden on grounds that violate WP:ASSUMEGOODFAITH, should be reopened and shown. After I open and show this thread again, please don't undo it without replying substantively to these points here first. Chrisrus (talk) 08:02, 11 May 2015 (UTC) Once again, this thread has been improperly closed and hidden without the same invalid grounds explained just above in detail. No one has yet replied substantively to any of those points. Please do not close it again without doing so or providing valid grounds with valid reference to rules or guidelines, or just leave it alone and it will age into the archives as usual. Chrisrus (talk) 03:00, 12 May 2015 (UTC) <popcorn.gif> --Jorm (talk) 03:20, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

Zad68 has imposed restrictions on this page preventing new accounts from editing it. Given that, it seems that the discussion regarding whether or not to hat discussions involving new accounts is moot. Gamaliel (talk) 20:17, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

As you will see if you open this thread, it has been shown, and not disputed, that the expressed grounds for closing and hiding this thread ("Closing this discussion because it has zero to do about article content and has become a way for editors to pontificate or use as a proxy battle. If you want a discussion to remain open, then participate in that discussion in a productive way") are invalid. As if that were not enough to justify my reopening and showing the thread, neither do these grounds contain reference to any policy. Therefore, I will open it again. The last time I did this, it was mentioned on my talk page and in the revert edit summary that there are some other, valid grounds that are the real grounds upon which this post was closed and hidden, not the one being invoked above. Therefore, if you, as I expect, plan to close and hide this thread once again, do so under those supposedly valid grounds or some other valid grounds, and contain a valid reference to policy, but do not simply revert to these same policy-referent-linkless-repeadedly-shown-to-be-and-so-far-indisputedly invalid grounds again. I will wait an appropriate amount of time before showing and re-opening this thread to hear out anyone who would like to urge me not to. Chrisrus (talk) 04:06, 13 May 2015 (UTC) Would you stop it already? WP:TE ForbiddenRocky (talk) 10:01, 13 May 2015 (UTC) Will you all restore proper talk page procedure? Chrisrus (talk) 11:15, 13 May 2015 (UTC) re: procedure. This section was hatted by an admin, with explanatory comment. That is to say an admin agrees that hatting this meta-discussion is ok. I suspect the main reason more admin action hasn't happened is that that admin is away for a few more days. ForbiddenRocky (talk) 15:58, 13 May 2015 (UTC) You have not disputed that the grounds upon which it was closed were invalid and lacking reference to policy, but seem to be saying that, because it was closed and hidden by an admin, I should not show and reopen this thread because it was hidden and closed by an admin. Therefore, you seem to be saying that, on Wikipedia, admins are allowed to close threads for invalid grounds and without reference to policy. Is that correct? Chrisrus (talk) 04:25, 14 May 2015 (UTC) In what sense are the grounds for closing this conversation "invalid?" I don't understand your claim here. Dumuzid (talk) 04:51, 14 May 2015 (UTC) If the thread weren't hidden, your answer would be visible. I will cut-and=paste the previous answer from inside the hidden portion of this thread here below, but most importantly, it was closed and hidden with no reference to policy, no link to a rule or guideline. Here is the entire explanation for the invalidity of the given justification for closing and hiding this thread, cut-and-pasted from above: Once again, this thread has been closed and hidden on no valid grounds. This time, however, neither was it closed and hidden with any reference to any guideline or rule. Therefore, I will open it again after an appropriate amount of time. First, this thread was closed and hidden without any reference to any guideline, rule, or long-standing wide-spread practice supporting the closing or the hiding or this thread. For this reason alone, I plan to open and show it once again as soon as appropriate. Second, this thread was closed and hidden "...because it has zero to do about article content..." Again, here on Wikipedia, article talk page management discussions about a specific article's supporting talk page occur on that talk page and this is on topic. This is the proper place for discussion of how this talk page, which supports this article, has been and/or should deal with common thread types. Article talk pages are the place such "meta-talk page" discussions occur all over Wikipedia. For example, discussion of changes or additions to the FAQs may occur here, even though FAQs only appear on the article's supporting talk page. Therefore, this discussion is on-topic and so this justification for closing and hiding the thread is invalid and also for this reason I plan to undo that as soon as appropriate. Second, the thread was closed and hidden on the grounds that it "has become a way for editors to pontificate". It is not at all clear what this means in this context, so as clear grounds should accompany closing and hiding threads, I'll be justified in showing and opening it again. However, "to pontificate" in this case seems to mean "to express your opinion about something in a way that shows that you think you are right and others wrong about something." Or perhaps "pontificate" means "to embarrass others by civilly presenting a clear argument with valid evidence and good reasoning, and proper rhetoric" and just doing everything exactly as we are supposed to. But that is exactly what should be done on Wikipedia in such contexts, so the accusation is of doing everything right, but making others defensive and upset by doing so. There is nothing in these words that should stop anyone from showing and opening the discussion again. Third, this thread was closed and hidden on the grounds that it has become a way for unspecified editors "to carry on a proxy battle". Again, it is not at all clear what this means in this context, so as it is wrong to close and hide threads without giving a clear reason, I will re-open it as soon as appropriate. However, it would seem the editor is of the belief that those editors arguing for a return to standard hatting practice are part of some conspiracy or something. This is not true, at least in my case, as I am a proxy of no one but myself. However, although the burden of proof for such an accusation lies with he who makes it, I can assure you there will be none forthcoming as it's completely false and is a violation of WP:ASSUMEGOODFAITH. Threads closed and hidden on grounds that violate WP:ASSUMEGOODFAITH, should be reopened and shown. After I open and show this thread again, please don't undo it without replying substantively to these points here first.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Chrisrus (talk • contribs) 13:04, 14 May 2015 (UTC) Look, if you're just going to come here and demand that threads be opened at your say so we should go to AE now and avoid the headache. It's not like there isn't precedent for this. Talk:Depictions of Muhammad and Talk:Muhammad both have pretty ingrained practices of closing threads and referring people to the FAQ on questions about depictions of Muhammad in the article. Same thing with plenty of other articles which face these kinds of exigencies. Take a moment and assume good faith from your fellow editors dealing with the bullshit on this talk page for months. Maybe when they talk about carrying on a proxy battle instead of just throwing up your hands and assuming it's bullshit, read the talk page archives or the ArbCom decision or the fucking KiA threads about this page and editors on it. Or go and look at what happens to the talk page when it isn't semi-protected. Or just conduct any investigation of what is happening here instead of barging in here and announcing your priors. Protonk (talk) 14:30, 14 May 2015 (UTC) Apologies for the interruption... While I sense the frustration & empathize with the comments above, I firmly believe that a core principle of Wikipedia is reaching consensus through discussion. I do not agree that involved editors closing discussions facilitates consensus; rather, I believe that it works directly to prevent it. The guidelines at WP:TALK clearly & expressly prohibit involved editors from closing discussions; these guidelines represent long standing community consensus. This is further reinforced by the explanatory notes for each of the methods which have been used (Template:collapse,Template:archive top,Template:hidden archive top). These state that they should not be used by involved editors to close discussions, and should not be used over the objections of other editors. We clearly have cases where they are being used both by involved editors, and over the objections of others. W.r.t the thought that editors wishing to re-open closed threads should apply at WP:AE, I respectfully suggest that the polarity of this is incorrect. Policy, guidelines & long standing community consensus, and the core principles of how we build an encyclopedia are clear - we build consensus through discussion. If editors wish to prevent discussion, it is they who should apply at WP:AE, articulating clear reasons as to why normal processes should not be followed. There has been some suggestion that this is a case for WP:IAR; similarly, if editors believe this is the case, they should provide clear reasoning as to why & how preventing discussion improves the encyclopedia. In the interests of allowing the community here to focus on discussion of & improvements to the article, it is my intention to raise this question at WP:ARCA in the next day or so. I will update with a link once I have done so, and invite you each to comment there. - Ryk72 'c.s.n.s.' 15:00, 14 May 2015 (UTC) Look, I don't want to be glib, but this isn't a case where there's one core principle against nothing. We're all having this discussion because core principles are in conflict with each other. So it doesn't really add anything to pull one policy off the shelf and wave it about. If that solved the discussion, we'd be done. Invoking IAR here is pretty simple. It means we know we have conflicting advice from the community and rather than conduct a rarefied debate over which interpretation is the most textually correct we should do something that speaks to the practical problem at hand. The entire point about IAR is to avoid that discussion--because it is useless. And it's meaningless! What's the benefit of arguing over who has the most rule-compliant interpretation of "ignore all rules"? Protonk (talk) 15:06, 14 May 2015 (UTC) @Chrisrus: I am quite capable of opening closed discussions to see what occurred therein. And I am still confused. I asked on what grounds the closing was invalid, and you pasted a wall of text saying the closing was invalid. Restating a conclusory statement is not supplying a rationale. Where does it say a topic closing must come with a reference to policy? Where is the enumerated list of valid reasons for topic closing? Why have the closing function (and not simply the archive function)? Uninvolved administrators may close discussions, correct? Do you agree that Gamaliel is an uninvolved administrator? This entire conversation seems to me like it would be better had elsewhere, rather than a topic talk page. Dumuzid (talk) 15:22, 14 May 2015 (UTC) @Protonk: There is no precedent for closing and hiding threads in this way on Talk:Depictions of Muhammad or Talk:Muhammad. Checking those two talk pages found no hidden threads on either of them. Furthermore, not one hidden threads was found anywhere in the archives of Talk:Depictions of Muhammad. Now, admittedly, I did not go through and checked all of the archives of Talk:Muhammad for hidden threads, but I have checked the first ten archives pages and found no hidden threads. I am very sorry that my "priors" are feeling so emotional at having to deal with so many threads saying little more than "This article seems biased! Please re-write it so that it takes a more neutral point of view", and can imagine how that might lead the to become emotional and impatient and to treat this talk page differently than the rest and close and hide such threads. This is understandable and you have my sympathies. However, closing and hiding such threads for that reason is not logical, because it does not reduce the chances of another such thread being posted by some other reader tomorrow. Rather, it increases it, because while such threads are visible, people tempted to post such a thread can read them and get their answer that way, so this reason for hiding them does nothing toward alleviating the "problem." Therefore the frustration of my "priors" is no reason for them to close and hide such threads. Instead, simply ignore them, and they will eventually age off into the archives. Or, direct them to F.A.Q.s, give them an appropriate stock answer or politely explain at length if you you would like to the situation. It's up to you. But do not close and hide such threads because that is not how we treat reader feedback on talk pages on Wikipedia, for important reasons. Chrisrus (talk) 19:23, 14 May 2015 (UTC) @Dumuzid: We have the ability to close threads for several reasons. For example, requests for comment may stay open for a while but need to be closed to indicate that the comment period is no longer open. These are not hidden, however. The ability to not only close but also hide threads exists for such serious things as serious BLP-type violations, things that could harm people if read by talk page readers. The ability to close and hide threads is used very sparingly because we are not in the business of hiding things. It is not to be used because we are sick of threads that consist of reader feedback that isn't very good or helpful or because it's already been dealt with countless times before and we've just about had it, or because the reader should have just read the FAQs. That kind of thing we leave easily visible until they eventually age off into the archives. Chrisrus (talk) 19:23, 14 May 2015 (UTC) @Chrisrus: I will not prolong this, but perhaps you are familiar with the term Ipse dixit? Dumuzid (talk) 19:37, 14 May 2015 (UTC) All one has to do is read the "(and the Topic original can go archive)" section of this header to realise what a complete waste of time this discussion is. Chisrus doesnt seem to believe anything of value was lost by hatting this section, or else he would have discussed the points it raised instead of letting it archive. This is just a pointless argument over idealistic hypotheticals that will only serve to generate heat on the talk page (which is coincidentally what usually emerges when the sort of section usually hatted is left unhatted for a long period of time).Bosstopher (talk) 15:36, 14 May 2015 (UTC) At this point this discussion is not about GGC. Could you please move it somewhere else? ForbiddenRocky (talk) 17:31, 14 May 2015 (UTC) @Bosstopher: The thing of value that was lost in closing and hiding that thread was proper treatment of reader feedback, i.e.: communication, courtesy and consideration. Chrisrus (talk) 19:39, 14 May 2015 (UTC) @Chrisrus: I disagree strongly with you on that. A hat that politely explains why the talk page post is a non starter and informs the reader of policies, is the most courteous approach that I can think of in these sorts of scenarios. If these sections are not hatted they instead become angry WP:FORUMs in which editors insult eachother and dont discuss anything that actually improves the article. I think the defining example of this for me was early on, when an IP editor proposed something stupid that clearly showed they hadnt read the FAQ. I simply left a comment saying "Read the FAQ" and another editor hatted it per my comment. This was a good resolution that civilly dealt with the problem. Or it would have been had the editor in question not then unhatted the comment and instead gone on a mini-rant about how the IP was stupid and should go back to reddit. Hatting is the most courteous and drama-free approach to uninformed non-starter claims made on the talk page. Bosstopher (talk) 13:03, 15 May 2015 (UTC) @ForbiddenRocky: Meta talk page discussions, i.e.: discussions about the talk pages supporting articles, belong on the talk page in question. Otherwise, discussions of such things as what projects the talk page should feature, would not belong on that page. Talk pages do not have talk pages of their own, so there is no better place. Chrisrus (talk) 19:39, 14 May 2015 (UTC) @Chrisrus: You've been repeatedly told in response to this sentiment to take the matter to ANI or AE if it's so wildly important. Please stop preventing this from being archived by constantly disrupting it and take it to either of those pages, so you can realize that uninvolved editors would tell you the exact same thing everyone here is telling you. Continuing to do this here instead of the proper venues is just hollering from the roof of the Reichstag. Parabolist (talk) 21:22, 14 May 2015 (UTC) It takes two to tango! Replies from one side is no more the cause of the continuation of a thread than those from the other. Similarly, if you find someone continuing to reply substantively to points being addressed directly to him in a thread somehow wrong, you also are capable of taking the matter to another appropriate forum. Also, it's not clear why the continuation of threads is a problem, except maybe that someone doesn't like where they are heading. Chrisrus (talk) 12:38, 15 May 2015 (UTC) This is a meta-discussion. It doesn't belong here. The original topic archived. ForbiddenRocky (talk) 04:08, 15 May 2015 (UTC) Meta-talk page discussions are not off-topic because, as has been said before, if they were, talk pages FAQs, projects, disclaimers, and so on, would be off topic. And they are not because such discussions take place on talk pages all the time all over Wikipedia. So a thread cannot rightly be closed and hidden on the mere grounds that it's a meta-talk page discussion and therefore off-topic. Therefore, please do not state that this thread is off-topic again without substantive refutation of this counterpoint to that incorrect idea. Where would we talk about such things as improvement to FAQs if meta-talk page discussions were off-topic? Talk pages don't have talk pages of their own, you know. Chrisrus (talk) 12:38, 15 May 2015 (UTC) This is off-topic. Dumuzid (talk) 16:11, 15 May 2015 (UTC) This is on-topic for some topic, but not for the topic of this page. The flowers that bloom in the spring (tra la!) have nothing to do with the case, and this has nothing to do with, or prospect of, improving the article. MarkBernstein (talk) 16:22, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

@Gamaliel: What new accounts? What does your closing and hiding of this thread have to do with new accounts editing the article? The thread had nothing to do with new accounts editing the article or not editing it. We were talking about how people respond to reader feedback on the talk page, not editing the article. What kind of grounds for closing and hiding a thread is this? As the grounds given for closing and hiding this thread make no sense whatsoever, I will open it again after waiting an appropriate amount of time. Chrisrus (talk) 20:40, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

You seem to have missed half of the changes. They're not allowed to edit the talk page either now. That's why this conversation is redundant Bosstopher (talk) 20:50, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

Chrisrus again unilaterally declares that "the grounds given for closing and hiding this thread make no sense." They make sense to the rest of us. This is simply disruptive editing. Will someone please take the appropriate steps already? Thanks! MarkBernstein (talk) 21:23, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

I'm curious. Under what conditions do you think it would be appropriate to hat a discussion on this particular talk page? Gamaliel (talk) 22:03, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

You ask me this about "this particular talk page", but I thought it was clear that the request was for threads to be treated here no differently than any other talk page. It is especially important for this particular talk page, because it's so widely watched, that it should stand as a positive example and avoid even the appearance of impropriety. Chrisrus (talk) 03:44, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

The question was investigating the basis for your opposition to the hatting of this section—do you think a section on this talk page should ever be hatted? under what conditions? Are you saying "never"? Or are you saying "just like other talk pages"? If the latter, that's not very helpful because what is wanted is for this section to stop, so please say what condition would need to apply for that happen. Ultimately, a disgreement over hatting on this talk page is irrelevant because (as I noted at your talk), an administrative decision on hatting will have to be made. Johnuniq (talk) 04:00, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

The question was about "this particular talk page".

My answer to your questions is "Just like other talk pages". Restore standard operating procedure.

Close threads as per usual, such as for example RfCs whose time is up, off-topic discussions, and the like.

Closing AND hiding threads is not the same. That's quite a bit more serious because it looks really bad, we at Wikipedia are not in the business of hiding things, and we only do that in cases of serious BLP-type violations or harassment and so on. We are all about openness, not closing and hiding unless we have no choice.

We're all about openness, but we are also about verification and undoing what doesn't check out. Here threads were routinely being hidden and closed that pn any other talk page are just allowed to age off into the archives, and with justifications that contained claims of fact that didn't check out, even make sense, or even constitute a justification at all. Who does that? Where else is this done? It's unprecedented and I fear for the future of Wikipedia if it this precedent spreads to other articles and areas of Wikipedia. Chrisrus (talk) 04:54, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

In sum, the usual. You should know; just look at some other busy talk pages. When closing and hiding threads, cryptic ipse dixit justifications are not used, but rather clear justifications with reference to specific policy that we can verify and if it doesn't check out reopen and show.

The way that this talk page is being run in positively un-Wikipedian and should be nipped in the bud before it spreads. Chrisrus (talk) 04:54, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

That is not necessarily true. I've seen discussions that stray from the topic of improving editing of the article and wander into forum-style chit chat be hatted although, personally, I'd prefer that they not be collapsed. But discussion threads are hatted for reasons other than BLP violations. Of course, the hatting can be challenged by any editor but if the consensus is to hat the discussion, then it should be hatted. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 12:09, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

@Liz:The fact that discussions which have gone off topic are sometimes closed does not contradict off-topic discussions being a good example of they type of thread that is sometimes closed.

Offering BLP-type violations as an example of the type of thread which is not only closed but also hidden is not the same as saying that only threads with BLP-type violations are hidden.

This cannot be treated like "any other talk page" because of the many months of conflict, the Arbitration case, the discretionary sanctions, and the specific restrictions placed on this article and talk page. Hatting threads is not "hiding things". Those threads and archives that are hatted and removed from this page are not deleted, they are permanently preserved for all to see. But this page is a work space and it must address the needs of the editors actively working on this article and should be used for discussions about proposed edits to the article, not the thousandth iteration of a drive-by complaint or long manifestos about principles of openness. I have yet to see how any of your comments relate to how this space should function in the former way, and unless you are willing to address how your demands would facilitate editing on this particular article and in these particular circumstances, future remarks from you should remain off this page. Gamaliel (talk) 17:13, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

What did you mean by "drive by complaints"?

What is the connection between "drive by complaints" and that case?

For example:

Reader: "I think this article is not as good as it could be. Please improve it somehow."

Established Editor: "Can you give us something more specific? You're not really giving us much to work with here."

Reader: (says no more, because it's a "drive-by complaint".)

On this talk page, will you close, not just close but also collapse, or allow this type of thread to age into the archives?

Also, how might you word the statement that accompanies a close or a close and collapse? Chrisrus (talk) 04:55, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

"harassment campaign" -> "pre-Gamergate harassment"

Uh, no. This completely softens the language and implies that "gamergate" didn't exist until after the harassment started, which isn't a claim that is true. I'd revert but I'd run afoul of 1RR.--Jorm (talk) 06:01, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

I agree and made the change back to "the harassment campaign." Dumuzid (talk) 06:23, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

When Zoe Quinn was being harassed though, it started under "The Quinnspiracy" or so I think Ylevental (talk) 07:15, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

I honestly think this page should be named "Gamergate Harassment Campaign".--Jorm (talk) 06:25, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

It'd certainly be more accurate to the more recent articles which take a broader look at the event. PeterTheFourth (talk) 06:31, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

This could be a win-win situation for both sides actually. The pro-gg side would be told that this page only describes the harassment associated with gamergate. Ylevental (talk) 07:15, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

It's not about sides so much as it's about accurately reporting what the reliable sources say. PeterTheFourth (talk) 07:19, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

Nevertheless, I also agree with you there after carefully reviewing the data. Ylevental (talk) 07:52, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

And no sources have identified a gamergate supporter that has harassed anyone. They are all anonymous. IRL persons that actually are identified with GamerGate (i.e. Milo, Sommers, Baldwin, etc) aren't involved in harassment. This dichotomy is not trivial and splitting it into the anonymous harassment vs. the named movement will help define the article. By not splitting it, the line is blury and we fuel misinformation. Milo in particular has faced a lot of the same threats/fear/hatred that were thrust upon gamergate victims. The bomb threat in DC was only the latest. I'd go so far as to say anyone that has been named is a victim of harassment whether pro-GG or against-GG. --DHeyward (talk) 07:53, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

I would <BLPREDACT>, but the article I'm thinking of that he's published contains BLP violations. PeterTheFourth (talk) 07:59, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

Funny, that never stopped anyone before. More specifically, only you think it is harassment. Find a reliable source that calls it harassment and we'll talk. I could say the same thing about all the named anti-GGers too. "I would link to some of the harassment performed by <insert name here>, but the article I'm thinking of that s/he's published contains BLP violations." See how hilariously and grotesquely hollow that sounds? --DHeyward (talk) 08:24, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

I'm going to ignore the baiting- I have no interest <redact BLP violation and PA> PeterTheFourth (talk) 08:30, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

It simply should be renamed to reflect that it's anonymous harrassers attacking living people. That's what the article chronicles. --DHeyward (talk) 08:39, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

"Gamergate Harassment Campaign"- a harassment campaign orchestrated by those who use or support the gamergate hashtag. PeterTheFourth (talk) 08:41, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

"Gamergate Harassment Campaign"- a harassment campaign orchestrated by anonymous people using the #GamerGate hashtag against public figures fighting sexism in gaming. It spurred a similar response by anonymous people opposing GamerGate by harassing public figures that believe sexism in gaming is not the biggest cultural issue of the 21st century." --DHeyward (talk) 09:46, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

Even if you consider Quinn's IRC logs that she claims she had to show when GG started, the timing of everything is so muddled between the posting of Gjoni's post, the initial accusations about Quinn + Grayson, the calls for ethics, and Adam Baldwin introducing the term that we don't know the chicken from the egg here. However, I do understand that if someone say "pre-GG harassment" they are talking about anything pre-August 2014, such as the cited cases in 2012 of Sarkseeian being harassed, or the earlier stuff Quinn had for the initial release of DQ. Nearly all sources treat the "start" of GG as August or last August 2014. (Mind you, I agree with reverting the addition of "pre-GG harassment" in the article as it was done so, irregardless of when GG started, Quinn is universally considered the first target of harassment within GG, even if she was harassed before). --MASEM (t) 12:41, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

it's fairly easy to delineate. Pre-GG there was no galvanized criticism. Sarkeesian was relatively unknown but had her set of detractors for the Tropes series. Quinn was trying to get a twine game released by steam which drew some criticism (twine is widely considered to be a progressive space). The only intersection between them were progressive causes. Gaming journalists, too, were criticised for funding twine games. This was all pre-GG. Gjoni unleashed his post. There were two reactions. One was from Baldwin, et al, that highlighted Grayson's role as journalist but the apparent lack of distance from someone associated with a cause (i.e. depression awareness/DQ) trying to shape gaming. As far as I know, Baldwin had never commented before on Sarkeesian but generally opposed exteral influences on gaming. The second thing that happened was harassment of Quinn which galvanized Sarkeesian (then later, Wu, et al). I think it's very clear distinction and not muddled at all. For Baldwin, the Gjoni post was largely an affirmation of how game journalists were tied to progressive causes. For others it was simply an excuse to harass and threaten Quinn. The harassment and threats fit in with Sarkeesian's views of gaming culture and she pointed it out. For those like Baldwin that want to keep politics out of games, it never strayed from criticizing attempts to influence games and game development. For those like Sarkeesian, it never strayed from being an extension of the sexism in gaming culture. What I think is being convoluted is the various responses to Gjoni's post being dumbed down into "Quinn was criticised for..." when in fact, it's pretty clear from the investigations that followed and the history of Baldwin is that he was criticising Grayson. We muddle it by either being vague about it, or always describing it as if Quinn's behavior drove all the fallout. That's simply not the case. The allegation we recite that <redact BLP violation> It's like we wrote about a bank robbery with "A bank teller allegedly traded money for her life." --DHeyward (talk) 18:15, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

I can't believe some folks are still discussing Quinn's sex life. It's funny how the focus was never on who other video game journalists slept with, they were never put under this ridiculous microscope and online scrutiny. Either way, sex is only important in the minds of Gamergate conspiracy theorists, not in this article. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:35, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

So you realize that I am proposing we take it out and talk about Grayson instead as it is his actions that came under scrutiny, not Quinn's. <redacted > --DHeyward (talk) 06:19, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

There is no reason to skirt so close to BLP like this. ForbiddenRocky (talk) 07:04, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

Draft a sentence or two w/o mentioning previously identified BLP issues . Don't get meta on the talk page, just draft the sentences that might address Grayson w/o wandering into the mentioned BLP issues and w/o using RS that have BLP issues, also. I suggest you post the sentences here on the talk page rather than be too BOLD, but at least show us. And stop bringing up the BLP issue on the talk page. ForbiddenRocky (talk) 17:55, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

Here's the article edit I made. [1]. I already made other edits a couple days ago.[2]. Why anyone has a reading comprehension problem that it was a discussion about anyone's private life is beyond me. Read people. --DHeyward (talk) 20:10, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

Please remember to assume good faith about fellow editors and remain civil, DHeyward. PeterTheFourth (talk) 00:42, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

Actually, @Liz:, I have to disagree with you about this: sex is very important because it is so very useful. Every time we get dragged into discussing the details of the sex lives of female software developers, that’s another warning that helps keep women out of the field. Develop games while you're female, and they’ll write about your sex life here and send the clippings to your aged mother, or your kids’ classmates. It’s interesting, too, how we're so scrupulous about redacting a mistake that credited a male journalist with a B.A. rather than a B.S., but when we start talking about the right way to discuss Zoe Quinn’s sex life, well, that’s fine and dandy. (I'm wondering whether the "investigation" was some kids sending emails between rounds of Call Of Duty, or something substantive but unreported...) MarkBernstein (talk) 21:47, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

The sarcasm, it is thick in here. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:56, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

You see, @Liz:, I was right. Not only did we need to discuss Quinn’s sex life, but now we're edit-warring an additional long paragraph that argues in detail that we've got to discuss it -- but in a completely different way. Not the way our sources discuss it, because they're sexist! Nasty New Yorker! Bad Boston Magazine~! In fact, we need to go through the whole article, apparently, and examine every little bit of sex again from multiple angles, because .... tanks tops and short shorts, or something. Sigh. MarkBernstein (talk) 20:03, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

Well, then I think we should examine the sex lives of journalists like Grayson and Milo to make sure they aren't asking for sex for positive media coverage...I've read these "allegations" online so who knows if they are false or unproven?! It's really about ethics in journalism, isn't it? So, let's put these dudes private lives under a microscope to make sure they are ethical. I mean, that's the heart of GamerGate, right? It's essential to this piece to include the truth. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:40, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

New page-level sanctions in place

NOTE Pursuant to an Arbitration Enforcement request, only accounts with at least 500 edits and are at least 30 days old may edit this article and its Talk page. Edits from accounts that do not meet these minimum requirements may be removed (without counting toward any "revert-rule" counting), but please leave a courteous edit summary indicating why the edit is being removed. Zad68 19:49, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

• This is a "starting now, going forward" page-level sanction (for both the article and this Talk page). Edits made previous to this placement of this notification are not retroactively affected by it. Zad68 20:57, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

Why did you do this? Chrisrus (talk) 12:46, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

This makes little sense to me - it is some sort of new protection level, which can only be manually enforced, and doesn't seem to address any existing problems on the page. In particular, it seems problematic to prevent people from commenting on the talk page - it is uncomfortable enough to say that only autoconfirmed editors can express an opinion here, but the more we restrict that without clear evidence of a problem, the further we move away from the core philosophy of Wikipedia. - Bilby (talk) 13:00, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

Agreed. I cannot concur that preventing editors from commenting on article talk pages aligns with our core principles. I believe that we would be better served applying the policies & guidelines with rigorous impartiality.

Please note that I have asked a procedural question regarding this page level restriction on Zad68's Talk page here. - Ryk72 ^'c.s.n.s.' 13:34, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

The history and reasons for these page-level sanctions can be found at this WP:AE request. They are indefinite, not infinite, and a request to lift them may be made in the future. Zad68 14:05, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

I can't see adequate justification for this additional level of protection. Has there been a significant problem of accounts under this limit editing on the talk page? Looking back over the last month, I can only find three editors with accounts less than 30 days old, and none of them were difficult to handle or engaged in anything that warranted revdel. - Bilby (talk) 14:28, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

I can't either. Those issues were can't be blamed on reader feedback, but improper established editor reaction to it. Because of all the attention to this article, its talk page should be a shining example of how things are properly done on Wikipedia. Chrisrus (talk) 23:49, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

I've made a VPM post to discuss the decision over here. I do not have 500 contribs; I have 439 en.wiki contribs at time of writing and 487 Wikimedia project contribs in total. Nonetheless, I'd appreciate administrative discretion in leaving this post up (assuming the removal isn't automated) Thanks, Riffraffselbow (talk) (contribs) 01:39, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

Hugo awards

I don't know much about Gamergate, but the "In other media" section on the Hugo Awards seems to have been written in a way meant to bias readers learning about what happened during this year's nominations, specifically: the use of the word "hijacked," only mentioning Vox Day, who is easily the most odious Puppy, and relying solely on an opinion article written by a virulent detractor of the Puppies as a source. I don't want to touch the article myself, but here is a possible rewrite of the section on the Hugos:

Nominations for the 2015 Hugo Award nominees was "strongly influenced by co-ordinated politcal campaigns" lead by science fiction authors Vox Day, Larry Correia, and Brad R. Torgersen. Although participants claimed that their goal is to oppose the promotion of low-quality works for political purposes, they have been accused of expanding the Gamergate controversy into science fiction.

I think some of the wording is awkward, but is a fairer summary of the incident. Eladynnus (talk) 20:29, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

Breitbart cannot be used as a reliable source, and Brad Torgerson’s weblog is only usable for Torgerson’s personal opinion. This leaves us with pretty much the current language. In the opinion of reliable sources (and of the community outside the puppies and gamergate), "hijacked" is fair. MarkBernstein (talk) 20:44, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

Vox may be the "most odious puppy", but he's also the only of the three who is an open gamergate supporter and therefore the most relevant to the article. Your rewrite would be worse than the current version from a BLP standpoint, because it portrays Torgeson and Correia as of one group with Day, when (as can be seen in the very blogpost by Torgeson you cited) they're stating loudly that they want nothing to do with him. Bosstopher (talk) 20:57, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

References

false vs. unproven

Can we discuss the substance of this edit on the talk page please? Even if editors are under an IBAN they can post separate statements in this section that are solely about article content. Gamaliel (talk) 23:04, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

As discussed in the archives at immense length, a false allegation is one which, as here, is factually incorrect. An unproven allegation is capable of being true. The claim that sexual favors were exchanged for favorable coverage -- or that favorable coverage was bestowed under the influence of sexual favors -- was not true. Anyone making this claim either knew it to be untrue -- in which case it is a false claim -- or failed to ascertain whether it could conceivably be true by failing to confirm that favorable coverage had appeared. To make a claim with reckless disregard for the truth is to make a false claim. We have been over this, time and again. MarkBernstein (talk) 23:27, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

My interpretation of the wording (although this is very controversial, apparently) is that false means untrue, and is therefore fine to use describing something as untrue. PeterTheFourth (talk) 00:46, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

"Alleged" implies that correct/incorrect has not been asserted. "Falsely alleged" implies intent or else we would describe it in temporal order. (i.e. "X alleged Y, which was later determined to be incorrect."). By placing "false" before "alleged", we imply intent. Consider the fictional case where a person convicted of rape was released after DNA evidence exonerated him; we would not describe the victims courtroom testimony as "She falsely swore that he raped her." The use of "falsely" in that placement implies an intent to deceive more than the veracity of the statement and we wouldn't allow it. This is pretty basic comprehension and we should not be using "falsely alleged" unless we have a source that describes an intent to make a false allegation. It's too easy to write it temporally correct than to imply an unsourced intent at any level of English comprehension. --DHeyward (talk) 06:23, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

In this particular case, the source itself uses "unproven". gamers grew angry over the unproven accusations her relationship with Grayson led to positive coverage of her game.[3] I edited and paraphrased from that to Early users of the term "gamergate" believed the lack of media coverage regarding the unproven accusations that Grayson gave positive coverage of Quinn's game was an unethical conspiracy amongst gaming journalists. Before that edit, the article discussed it as "Quinn's private life" which seems to perpetuate speculation about her private life. The reason is more to highlight the gossipy nature of twitter/internet as some of the "unproven allegations" that were made were proved true while others were false (e.g. at the time, the allegation that Quinn and Grayson were even in a relationship was an "unproven allegation" and our edit logs show it. That relationship was confirmed. We simply don't need to keep bringing it up or put modifiers like "correctly alleged a relationship" - it was still unproven when made and therefore not good publishing material). The allegations, however, were simply repeated without verification and continued after the Kotaku review, which we cover in depth. --DHeyward (talk) 04:42, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

We know that the allegations are false, as it was shown that Grayson only wrote about Quinn prior to their relationship. "Unproven" leads to the suggestion that it might be true, and per BLP we need to be clear that this is not the case. - Bilby (talk) 05:48, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

It's only in the narrow context of the beginning of the hashtag. No one is arguing those allegations were true or that was the only allegation flying around. The source uses "unproven" because its describing a point in time. A bunch of people tweeted portions of Gjoni's blog. At the time, everything was unproven. What we learned later was Grayson had a relationship with Quinn. We also learned that Grayson only wrote about Quinn prior to their relationship. We cover both of those allegations and emphatically state that Grayson did not review Quinn's games. It doesn't change the fact that a number of allegations were unproven when they were being tweeted.

But "unproven" doesn't add much and I'm happy to drop it. Changing it to false, though, changes the meaning by establishing intent. Example: "John Doe alleged that he received a credible threat from anonymous. Police later determined there was a threat made but it was not credible." We don't in hindsight say "John Doe falsely alleged that he received a credible threat...." The first is a temporally accurate depiction that includes the findings, while the second example reads as if there was a motive. Lastly if 20,000 of hist closest twitter friends repeated "John Doe received credible threats", the accurate way to describe a large number repeating an unproven allegation is to use "unproven" as the professional writer did in the source. --DHeyward (talk) 11:03, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

People, that sentence is a mess either way: Early users of the term "gamergate" believed the lack of media coverage regarding false/unproven accusations that Grayson gave Quinn positive coverage as the result of a relationship was an unethical conspiracy amongst gaming journalists. I know folks have been edit-warring endlessly over "unproven" versus "false" before, but neither of the two works here. The reason is simple: the whole clause is semantically within the scope of "early users... believed...". But those early users believed neither that the accusations were false nor that they were unproven, so the sentence ends up making an untrue assertion (about what those people believed) either way. Incidentally, the sentence is also a stylistic nightmare with its doubly centre-embedded "that" clause. What you need to do here is to reword the whole thing. Why not, at this point, simply leave out the details of what the allegations were about? It's been explained multiple times further up in the article. Why not simply: Early users.... believed that the lack of media coverage regarding Quinn and Grayson was due to an unethical conspiracy amongst gaming journalists? If that's not acceptable, the alternative is to rip the sentence apart in such a way that the explanation of what the allegations were about are moved outside the syntactic scope of "believed". Fut.Perf. ☼ 12:09, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

This works for me. I fully agree with the proposed wording. - Bilby (talk) 13:01, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

Seems like it'd be fine. PeterTheFourth (talk) 13:45, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

some people can believe in things that are contradictory. Some can dream of things that never were. Oliver Wendell Holmes and Bobby Kennedy appear to disagree with you. MarkBernstein (talk) 14:55, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

I think the sentence should be removed entirely as it is redundant. It is covered clearly unambiguously earlier in the article: "Statements in the post led Gamergate supporters to allege that the relationship had induced Grayson to publish a favorable review of Depression Quest. The claim was quickly investigated and determined to be false;". ForbiddenRocky (talk) 17:27, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

Alternately, Early users of the tag justified their false accusations of Grayson and Quinn with a discredited conspiracy theory. ForbiddenRocky (talk) 17:32, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

Fut Perf's wording is great. FR's wording is worse than what's there now. --DHeyward (talk) 20:01, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

Reminder: 1RR for GGC

I'm just putting this here, because more than a few people are getting sloppy about this. ForbiddenRocky (talk) 19:09, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

I also wonder about the new restriction, Also, the article and this Talk page may not be edited by accounts with fewer than 500 edits, or by accounts that are less than 30 days old. Edits made by accounts that do not meet these qualifications may be removed. This prohibition would apply to some accounts who've recently posted to this talk page and article. Does this mean any editor can remove these comments and alert the editor to the changing rule? Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:29, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

As it notes, it is a "going forward" rule, so any existing comment by such editors should not be removed. However, if they are still under 30/500, then I read that restriction that any subsequent comment is a violation. --MASEM (t) 19:47, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

Personally, I'm not willing to enforce that restriction. How other people handle it is their call. I would, though, like to know where people with concerns about this article and who do not meet the unusual requirements are permitted to express them. - Bilby (talk) 22:14, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

I suspect the arbcomm (?) wanted to prevent new people touching GGC | per the closing here ForbiddenRocky (talk) 00:40, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

I posted it a few sections up as well, but this is the bottom section and relevant to the topic, so: I've put up a Village Pump thread to discuss the restriction here, for those of us who cannot discuss the restriction on the only correct talk page for doing so. I do not have 500 contribs; I have 439 en.wiki contribs at time of writing and 487 Wikimedia project contribs in total. Nonetheless, I'd appreciate administrative discretion in leaving this post up (assuming the removal isn't automated) Riffraffselbow (talk) (contribs) 02:04, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

Who Judges Which Is A Viable Source Or Not?

(rm per editor not having 500 edits) — Preceding unsigned comment added by J0eg0d (talk • contribs) May 18, 2015, 4:27 AM

Hi J0eg0d. I'm aware of the report, and the report would be regarded as reliable. The problem is that it is also a primary source, so generally we would have to wait for secondary sources to evaluate its findings. As it stands there isn't much we can say through using it other than perhaps noting that WAM found incidents of reported harassment that they identified as coming from Gamergate supporters, simply because any further analysis of the findings is original research, which we are not permitted to do. - Bilby (talk) 04:36, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

There's no requirement to wait on secondary sources to include a primary source. We actually have already alluded that WAM was doing this study already (that was noted by third-party sources), so it's fair to include it. We can report what they claim without any problems (stuff like their finding that only 12% of the tweets they monitered were GG related.) --MASEM (t) 05:12, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

Just as a note, however, outside of how they describe GG in a more neutral tone, the only data I see that really applies immediately to the GG is this 12% number ("During a study performed by WAM from (date to date) on harassment engaged on Twitter, they found that Gamergate-related events accounted for 12% of their total activity.") The bulk of the rest is about online harassment in general and/or Twitter. --MASEM (t) 05:24, 18 May 2015 (UTC)