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.

update on arstechnica.com/business/2015/05/gamergate-critic-posts-death-threat-voicemail-after-inaction-by-prosecutor/

One of our sources, http://arstechnica.com/business/2015/05/gamergate-critic-posts-death-threat-voicemail-after-inaction-by-prosecutor/, has been updated. We should edit or delete the sentence which cites this source in light of this update. Chrisrus (talk) 13:50, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

Updated to remove the radio silence bit. Based on the update it looks like there was a miscommunication between Wu & the FBI. — Strongjam (talk) 14:00, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

Now it says that she's expressed frustration, but the authorities have responded that her frustration is not founded and cited evidence, and she has apologetically backed off that assertion. Even if she still maintains face-saving wiggle room that she still thinks her cases have been mishandled by other authorities, she provides no evidence or reason for us to pass such allegations from her along to our readers. Just delete it as a non-event or mistake. Chrisrus (talk) 14:15, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

Miscommunication over one case. Her complaint about lack of action on all of the many threats and harassment against her are still valid. — Strongjam (talk) 14:21, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

They might or might not be valid, but in this citation the only any evidence provided is also contradicted and retracted. What remains is a vague allegation with nothing to back it up. Chrisrus (talk) 14:42, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

The statement as it stands now is both true and verifiable. I don't think there is anything left to discuss. — Strongjam (talk) 14:52, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

While that statement may be true and verifiable, it's not a fair summary of that source. A fair summary of that source would say in appropriate language that that certain allegations were made on a blog that did not check out and were retracted apart from a vague generalization backed up by no evidence. Chrisrus (talk) 16:31, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

Nope. No reliable source has said this, for the very good reason that saying this might arguably be libel. this discussion is quite possibly libelous as well, as one editor appears to be accusing the subject of committing a crime for which she has been neither charged nor indicted, based on that editor'so personal interpretation of something or other MarkBernstein (talk) 21:32, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

Reporting that someone made a mistaken accusation and retracted it is not accusing anyone of a crime.

Don't take it from me, read arstechnica.com/business/2015/05/gamergate-critic-posts-death-threat-voicemail-after-inaction-by-prosecutor/ yourself and you will agree that it reports that certain allegations were made at the Mary Sue that did not check out and were retracted as a misunderstanding or miscommunication or mistake, apart from a vague generalization backed up by nothing. If you don't think that's just what arstechnica.com/business/2015/05/gamergate-critic-posts-death-threat-voicemail-after-inaction-by-prosecutor/ says, what then does it say?

This article merely repeats this unfounded accusation and omits the fact that the specific allegations turned out to be not true and were retracted and apologized for, which is the main idea of the source. If we're going to include this source, we should not just cherry pick a vague accusation and ignore its main idea. It seems better to delete the whole thing, because it's just about something that we thought was real but wasn't so oops nevermind. Chrisrus (talk) 15:21, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

Can you be more specific? Please quote from the article what unfounded accusation is repeated. — Strongjam (talk) 15:27, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

"Wu has expressed her frustration over how law enforcement agencies have responded to the threats that her and other women in the game industry have received.[arstechnica.com/business/2015/05/gamergate-critic-posts-death-threat-voicemail-after-inaction-by-prosecutor/]" This misses the main idea of the source and repeats her accusation that the law enforcement agencies have been remiss in responding, a claim not backed up by evidence in this citation. Chrisrus (talk) 16:12, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

Nope, it's a fair assessment of the source. We don't have to investigate any 'evidence'. Perhaps you'd be better off writing a letter to the editor. — Strongjam (talk) 16:14, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

The House Appropriations Committee has just formally supported the call for enforcement of laws against online harassment and Gamergate: [[1]] [[2]. Let's drop this unproductive discussion and move on. MarkBernstein (talk) 15:57, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

We're not questioning the source so contacting them would not be helpful. This source says she said the response of the authorities has been lacking because of claims to fact that she now says "oops sorry nevermind" about. Chrisrus (talk) 17:04, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

Let's not focus on one a single tree and miss the whole forest. Take it to WP:RSN if you think the source does not back up the statement. — Strongjam (talk) 17:09, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

The updated source still says she is frustrated in general about law enforcement's response to the situation; the detailed issue around the Columbus call was a mistaken choice of which agency to contact, and she apologized for her mistake once she got to the right one. But there's still her general sentimentes from her op-ed that in general, the lack of law enforcement actions on any of these harassment (not just hers) is frustrating. So the statement is fine with the update. --MASEM (t) 17:11, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

You say we shouldn't ignore the forest and miss the trees, but that would mean providing a holistic summary of what this source contains instead instead of just providing one cherry-picked detail. The fact that she finds the response lacking is just an insignificant opinion without something in the source to indicate that she's right about that. Chrisrus (talk) 01:40, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

No, her opinion in this case is not insignificant- it's pretty significant, so we include it. PeterTheFourth has made few or no other edits outside this topic. 03:01, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

This citation is about some allegations that didn't check out. If we use it, we should say that.

This citation is not about the fact that she says she still believes it's lacking anyway.

Her saying that, even though none of this evidence checked out, is in this citation. But there is no evidence here that it is lacking. We have nothing here but unsubstantiated allegations.

If we retain this source we should tell them what's in it: that she made some allegations that didn't check out and she apologized and retracted it but still thinks the response has been lacking.

Or we dump this citation on "Citation Contains Retraction" grounds. As we say, "retraction is strong evidence of inaccuracy." Chrisrus (talk) 05:01, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

Read Masem's above comment re: still frustrated. PeterTheFourth has made few or no other edits outside this topic. 05:21, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

He's right: it says she still believes it anyway. That doesn't address my point: that's not a fair summary of the citation and misses the main point of the citation and amounts to us repeating a baseless allegation. Chrisrus (talk) 06:22, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

Then change it. You can edit wikipedia pages, can't you? PeterTheFourth has made few or no other edits outside this topic. 06:33, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

There's no requirements that when we use a source that we can only use the source's whole content in its entirety. We're summarizing, so using a single fact that is buried in a larger article from a reliable source is not a problem. Yes, it is likely the Mary Sue rant and the subsequent articles regarding that call and her initial failed attempt to get enforcement help would not have happened if she had contacted the proper department first, and we wouldn't have that "frustrated" statement. But it did happen, yet even after the article was updated, that factor still persisted, so its fair game for us to use and ignore the rest of the situation. (Remember, this is coming after the situation at PAX.) --MASEM (t) 12:29, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

You're right, there is no obligation to always summarize a source. However, there is no obligation not to, especially if omitting the main point of a source amounts to passing along a baseless allegation, that's a problem.

To say "Smith was angry that Jones did something wrong" is to pass along Smith's accusation against Jones, something we shouldn't do without proof and important reason to do so. Chrisrus (talk) 05:04, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

So let's summarize the source holistically. Just that she made those accusations, but they turned out to be wrong, so she restracted them, but still nevertheless maintains that the response is lacking. Chrisrus (talk) 05:31, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

No, you have events flipped. Prior to that Columbus call (the one she recorded and had the caller's number for evidence) , she reports she had been trying to get other law enforcement agencies to act on other threats she's gotten, but from that was frustrated with the lack of significant response (eg the PAX situation). Then this call happened, one that she was able to record and get a number for, making it something possibly more actionable than previous threats in terms of enforcement, called the Columbus agency (unaward she was calling the wrong department for those types of matters), got even more frustrated with this specific lack of response, and wrote her opinion for the Mary Sue. And then she was told she did have the wrong department and thus got to the right person. Her frustrations with all other previous attempts still exist and didn't change, what the updated article still presents. --MASEM (t) 14:32, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

Masem is correct -- words I have seldom written! All news reports (including the world's top newspapers) agree that the subject has been exposed to vile harassment and that legal authorities have so far been unable or unwilling to prosecute the offenders. There is absolutely no doubt that the harassment is real or that it has been reported to authorities that range from local police officers to the U. S. Congress. MarkBernstein (talk) 15:32, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

Masem:

You seem to be saying that:

1. She was frustrated because had been trying to get other law enforcement agencies to act on "other", less "actionable" threats, "in terms of enforcement" that she had previously gotten, prior to "the Columbus call".

2. Later she got the "Columbus call" which she recorded and got caller's number, making them more "actionable" in that way.

3. She rightly presented the Columbus Call Evidence to the proper authorities.

4. It was then that she then became "frustrated with the lack of significant response."

5. Then "this call" happened. She also a number for "this call", making it something also possibly more actionable by authorities.

6. She then called "the Columbus agency" who did not respond because it was not their job to respond or pass it on to the proper authorities, because she had the wrong department for those types of matters.

7. She then got even more frustrated with this new specific lack of response, and wrote her opinion for the Mary Sue.

8. She was then learned for the first time that she had had the wrong department and got to the right person, so she's not frustrated by the response to this call anymore.

In short, she isn't saying she is frustrated by the response to the first, number-and-recording-less calls. She is not saying she is frustrated by the lack of response to "this call". She was only saying she was frustrated by the lack of significant response to "the Columbus call".

This is what I understood you to be saying. Is that correct? Chrisrus (talk) 15:32, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

There's only one call, what you're calling "this call" and "Columbus call" are one and the same. If you eliminate your points 3, 4, and 5, then you have the order of events that I see it as described by how the original articles read and the updated stories. And your point is missing what you have as point #1 - that all the previous calls and threats she's gotten and reported (though perhaps without having caller number or recording) had left her frustrated with the general enforcement authorities' responses. --MASEM (t) 15:40, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

Thank you. You now seem to be saying that:

First she got less actionable telephone threats. This fact is not in this citation, so, {{citation needed}}, if you would, but according to this citation, she was and still is frustrated with the inadequate response to these previous threats.

Later, she got the "Columbus call", which was more actionable, because this time the number was captured and the call recorded. She then mistakenly provided this evidence to an unnamed agency, the wrong department. Not hearing back and not knowing why, she then got even more frustrated and so wrote a piece for the Mary Sue complaining about it.

She then learned for the first time that she had had the wrong department and apologized but said but she's still frustrated about the previous lack of response to the earlier, less actionable calls.

Is that correct? Chrisrus (talk) 05:01, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

The Ars Tech article says she's been frustrated before but if you read her Mary Sue op-ed "For this, I’ve had over 100 death threats sent to me by the hate group known as Gamergate in the last nine months.[...] And yet, terrifyingly, nothing has been done." which is unmistakably clear. Otherwise that's correct. --MASEM (t) 05:08, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

Ok, we've been talking just about phone calls. She's saying she is frustrated with the lax response by the proper authorities to "messages" she had received, which we can rightly assume means tweets and/or emails and such. Is this citation the first to establish this fact about her feelings about these messages? Chrisrus (talk) 18:31, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

It's the Mary Sue source which ArsTech refers to. But to eliminate that being an issue, I have added that MAry Sue as a source to that same statement. --MASEM (t) 18:47, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

We could cite that fact about how she feels to citations other than this one. Is that correct? Chrisrus (talk) 19:17, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

No, the Mary Sue essay she wrote is the direct, immediate source. Ars Tech summarizes it, but as it begs where the citation is actually coming from, using the Mary Sue source directly removes any question of this. (It should be noted her essay was also updated to reflect the corrected department contact, but it still keeps her prior frustration). --MASEM (t) 20:06, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

Unless we're going to tell the readers about this incident, I don't see what use this citation is to the article. How she feels about the response is found in other sources and not backed up by anything in this. Chrisrus (talk) 14:51, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

At the end of the day, in talking about how GG is being handled by law enforcement, Wu's opinion on her general frustration with lack of enforcement response is completely appropriate. --MASEM (t) 15:08, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

Has the enforcement response been lacking or not? If we phrase it like "Smith is frustrated that Jones was negligent", we express Smith's feelings as his opinion, but "that Jones was negligent" is presented as fact. If you say "Smith asserted that Jones was negligent", or maybe "Smith was frustrated at perceived negligence on Jones' part", that'd be different. Chrisrus (talk) 15:41, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

We have presented this in the article as Wu's opinion that enforcement is lacking, so we are fine with that. We do state factually that to the best of anyone's knowledge no one has been arrested/etc. due to GG, but without additional comment. --MASEM (t) 23:52, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

I regret now not telling the readers what this source says. People should know not just that she thinks the response is lacking, but, but also that she made and withdrew those accusations. It might be important for them to know this. Chrisrus (talk) 20:32, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

Given that the Mary Sue and the Ars Tech articles were updated after she withdrew her accusation at the enforcement office but left in her general frustration with the lack of activity from law enforcement in general in the overall GG situation, she clearly didn't withdraw that complaint. So summarizing just this is fine. --MASEM (t) 20:44, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

By what standard? Objectively, none of these threats have been found to be credible and even the ones that have identified the threat maker have been passed off as not credible (i.e. the PAX "going for the kill" threat and the comedian that claimed to crash his Prius were both identified by police). Police prioritize cases and part of that is determining whether a threat is physically likely. Local domestic violence threats where they are likely to become real violence will have priority over anonymous threats on the internet. Threats by anonymous people are very rarely carried out and that is juxtaposed against threats by familiar people and prioritized accordingly. We also don't know how many threats Wu has reported or what the disposition was/is. Why didn't she know that she should be calling her local police department until the Columbus prosecutor told her? There is simply nothing to write about the police response except what has already been covered and nothing indicates that the response by law enforcement has been inadequate. Wu may be frustrated but it's the same level of frustration expressed by all victims of lower priority crimes (i.e. a $100 break-in theft from a car may feel very violating and personal. The police will take a report. Don't expect the CSI van to show up looking for DNA evidence, though.) --DHeyward (talk) 23:49, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

The Boston Globe, Boston Magazine, and Rep. Katherine Clark are all unambiguous in reporting that Wu did report threats to her local police department. Kindly redact that mistake promptly. In addition, where crimes were apparently committed in other jurisdictions, as was the case in Ohio, Wu contacted authorities in that jurisdiction. End of story. None of these questions should be mentioned in the article; aside from another failed Gamergate PR initiative, there's no news here. MarkBernstein (talk) 03:28, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

This isn't "prove the negative day." There is no objective view or source that enforcement is lacking. Masem is correct that we should be reporting it as Wu's opinion and one that has evolved especially since the Mary Sue article got the attention of the Columbus prosecutor. Also, its a novel view that the threat she received at her home or business wasn't a local crime. I have no doubt she reported threats including the one to the wrong people in Ohio. As far as I have read she has not made a complaint about local police. Is there a source for that? --DHeyward (talk) 04:02, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

To wit, the namesake of this section updated the original story when it turned out there were errors made. Before Wednesday's op-ed was published, Wu claims her outside legal counsel had e-mailed one FBI agent she had contacted in the past, along with Boston police, but she was unable to reproduce those e-mails for Ars Technica before the holiday weekend. --DHeyward (talk) 06:12, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

That doesn't mean that those emails don't exist - just that she didn't get back to ArcTech in a timely manner. --MASEM (t) 14:13, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

Correct and I didn't mean to imply that they don't exist. The (paraphrased) "my lawyer sent one email to an FBI agent she had contact with in the past" doesn't exactly inspire confidence or support "Radio Silence from the FBI." ARStechnica tone changed, too, in the update as instead of "raising new questions", they use terms like "claims" but that's a bit cyrstalballish. In the MarySue article, after learning that "her staff" didn't actually contact Ron O'Brien (the person she calls out by name multiple times), Wu tweets her supporters to stop harassing O'Brien Everyone I’ve talked to there has been professional and very helpful. You don’t help my case if you attack them. These things happen. What things? O'Brien did nothing wrong and it was an error on Wu's staff or attorney (she blamed both). She later said to the Mary Sue "It’s worth clarifying, my frustration is with law enforcement overall, not with the Ohio prosecutor’s office." yet the Ohio prosecutor is the only one she bothered to call out by name. Maybe if she named her FBI contact or Boston PD contact or federal prosecutor, we could get to the heart of the frustration there as well, just as naming the Ohio prosecutor quickly identified the problem. It's somewhat disingenuous for us to write about her frustration without the Ohio backstory of where the frustration originated - it's why both the Mary sue and ARSTechnica added updates after all - I haven't seen anything since the last update where they were waiting for emails.. --DHeyward (talk) 17:13, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

I think it's clear that while the Ohio situation caused Wu to put her feelings to paper and without it we wouldn't have her "frustrated" opinion. But that said, this source from WaPost [3] just added by Strongjam to support Rep. Clark's bill reiterates the frustration about lack of any followup by any agency, without even mentioning the Ohio situation. And it's hard to ignore that we know Wu contacted Pax and local police and got nothing there. --MASEM (t) 19:09, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

Veering off-course/not a forum

I'm not sure we know she "got nothing" from PAX and local police. They followed up with the "going for the kill" threat and there wasn't anything to do. Whether that was a problem with the law or a problem with the evidence, I can't say. The same is true for the Prius guy. He was not prosecuted even though he was identified. It's obvious to me that such "jokes" aren't excuses for threats and a person should know they are really terrorizing - "knowingly" is enough for a culpable mental state so all these should be prosecutable. So why/how did the Prius guy avoid charges? Did Wu seek and obtain an injunction against harassment against this person (again, this is step 1 in harassment protection)? Clark makes great op-ed's but her legislation doesn't address anything. It's a token and there are literally hundreds of agents and support staff that investigate cyber crimes, including threats. There's no priority in the legislation that would make anonymous threats more of a priority than they already are and credibility as well as prosecutor discretion rule the day. Ross Ulbricht was prosecuted for internet threats and cyber murder-for-hire and he alone would have eaten all the manpower resources allocated in that bill to investigate his threats. The main difference between the rhetorical device of comparing it to domestic violence is that women were/are being killed in domestic violence cases and threat investigations are prioritized in light of all the other crimes against persons. Anonymous threats are simply not known to lead to violence and this is going to be the first comforting words by a police officer that takes a report. DV threats do lead to violence and there are many more protections afforded to people that were in intimate relationships because of that. I'll liken it to an incident my friend went through: person broke into her home and went through all her clothes, stole some of her husbands' clothes and took a dump on the living room floor. For her, it's extremely personal and violating to have someone in their home doing those things. No one was home. Police explain that it is most likely homeless person based on the profile of what was stolen and what was left. They take the report and advise to call 911 if something happens while they are home but most likely this person won't ever return again. It's terrifying for the victim but the cop is going to go to 2 or 3 calls like that per week. And another 2-3 calls of domestic violence. And another 2-3 DUI's. And another 2-3 deaths (suicide, natural causes, etc). In the end, the burglary is low probability of solving and a low amount of tangible losses and a property crime compared to assaults and other crimes of violence. It's definitely a crime, and it's definitely terrifying, but what can be done? More manpower will go to all the cases ahead of a low-value/low-solution crime. Clark was very careful not to use language in the bill that determined priority or changed prosecutor discretion. She also didn't propose new laws to make it easier to charge and convict. Without knowing why the Prius case was not prosecuted, it's extremely hard to say what the problem is or even if there is a problem. Most states have a "Victim's Rights" program and victims should be involved in virtually all decisions for where they are victims even if it's only informational. Victim services [4], Victim's rights [5]. --DHeyward (talk) 21:03, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

There is no question that crimes have been committed, and any passages above that insinuate otherwise are either mistaken (and should be corrected) or libelous (and should be rev-del'd). Issuing threats of harm to an individual, their family, or their property in order to persuade them to leave software development is clearly a criminal act; that the perpetrators remain, at present, either unknown or unidentified does not change the fact of the crime. That the crimes have been reported to appropriate police agencies is also amply reported. The question of the credibility of threats -- repeated endlessly above and in the archives by a few Gamergate accounts -- is relevant only for short-term police response and does not affect the underlying crime or mitigate its severity unless you wish to argue that no reasonable person could possibly find the threats to be frightening or disturbing. Since any number of excellent sources did find the threats disturbing, we can dismiss that line without further discussion. MarkBernstein (talk) 19:17, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

Edit check please - Paste magazine statement in "Gamer Identity"

I readded something from Paste magazine a few months ago, in which that article used the word Balkenization to describe the GG situation. Issue was taken with that word specifically (given how the WP article does not seem to reflect on the usage the author was). As such, I reworded the term to be, based on the author's intent, "broadening of the demographic scope", so there should be no issue with that. The diff is here. --MASEM (t) 22:40, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

Also as a suggestion for improvement, I'm trying to find a way to show the shifting demographs , likely measured from the ESA, to have as a visual aid in that section, but I can't seem to find a good set of data to work from. (As long as numbers are published, we can safely recreate any graphs under a PD license). --MASEM (t) 22:42, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

I don' think Rhodes means that GG was a result of this, but just that it highlighted the differences that were already there "If we’ve long behaved as though there was a community it made sense to talk about in the singular, the divisions sharpened by GamerGate have made it clear that the audience for videogames is far from monolithic. I'm not sure if "broadening of the demographic scope" is quite how I would characterize the authors point. At first read I took it to mean that people who play games are becoming more diverse while the author says "Now, the façade is breaking apart, revealing that what is often referred to as “the gaming community” is, in fact, many communities, made up of people with disparate backgrounds and points of view. It has been that way almost from the beginning.". I would characterize his point as more that GG highlighted the existing diversity of the community and that it's moving away from being a unified identity of itself.— Strongjam (talk) 23:22, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

The narrative that I get (and why he explains the history of the word Balkanization) is that while diversity of gamers was always there, the industry which once opted to focus on the young male gamer demographic, has now decided they need to serve all these various demographic groups at the cost of not producing as many games for the young male gamer - it was, as Rhodes writes, a conscious decision to move the industry in that direction. Rhodes accepts that they needed to be more diverse, but how they chose to do that is what Rhodes believed led to the feedback that created the backlash that GG grew from, and why he compared it to Balkanization. He's critical of the industry's response to GG, though not to their aim for trying to be more diverse. --MASEM (t) 23:37, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

"while diversity of gamers was always there, the industry which once opted to focus on the young male gamer demographic" definitely agree on this point. I'm sure there is a better way to say that then "broadening of the demographic scope" which seems imprecise and open to different interpretation, nothing comes to mind at the moment though. Something like "companies having broaden their focus away from the "core gamer"" maybe?. — Strongjam (talk) 23:49, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

Maybe "seeking to reach a wider range of demographics in the gamer community instead of focusing on core gamers"? (which implies the demog. was there, but they shifted form the core gamer (which the statement does point out). --MASEM (t) 23:59, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, I like that. - Strongjam (talk) 00:02, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

Don't think of it as a zero sum financial issue. It's a growing market along with mobile devices.They are new markets. This isn't robbing Peter to pay Paul, it's a whole new revenue stream that game development companies are tapping but it's not necessarily hurting their existing stream. It's inherently "Balkanized" by platform and platform user growth, not by fracturing the existing community. Understanding that is key to understanding how the industry reacted (and reacts) when they see a new a set of eyeballs ready to buy their product. If a billion potentially new subscribers is considered diversity, there will be a lot of companies lining up to be diverse. I think Rhodes missed it when he lumps them together. There may come a time when a new type of platform disrupts the existing model (like the Doom engine destroyed arcades and made PCs a gaming platform) but right now these are different market segments and that is what makes Rhodes confused/disappointed about the industry. --DHeyward (talk) 14:30, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

Harsh language in the lede?

meta discussion Harsh language in the lede? moved to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Gamergate_controversy/Meta Please continue discussion there, and do not edit this. ForbiddenRocky (talk) 22:49, 3 June 2015 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
With clocklike regularity, a new or zombie account arrives to claim the lede is biased and insist that calling threats of rape and murder exactly that is somehow not neutral. Reposting the question on behalf of the ineligible editor violates the spirit of the 30/500 rule and would render it pointless. When the editor has 500 useful edits, they can return here (but no, not to flog this dead horse which has been discussed many, many times in the archives.) The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. A new participant in the talk page with about one year of Wikipedia experience has provided an evaluation of the lede (at 03:52, 3 June 2015 UTC) and opined that the overall result seems unbalanced. Do you have thoughts about how terms "rape", "misogynistic" may be considered as harsh language and about their neutrality in the lede? (That comment has been removed from the page because of the restriction on participants with less than 500 edits, you're not expected to engage in conversation with that user here). Diego (talk) 11:17, 3 June 2015 (UTC) "Rape threats" may be a harsh language, but they have also been a reality of Gamergate which have been widely recorded. In my opinion the word misogynistic as a subjective value judgement is unnecessary. We can trust our readers to come to their own conclusion regarding whether or not threats of rape are "misogynistic attacks."Bosstopher (talk) 11:32, 3 June 2015 (UTC) Neutrality is achieved when we represent the reliable sources. The reliable sources are quite consistent in their identification of the antics as "rape threats" and "misogynistic" so our depiction of "rape threats" and "misogynistic" attacks as "rape threats" and "misogynistic" attacks is quite appropriately neutral point of view- while not presenting them as "rape threats" and "misogynistic" attacks would be a dire violation of neutrality. The reliable sources focus on the "rape threats" and "misogynistic" nature of the campaign, and so when we focus on the "rape threats" and "misogynistic" nature of the campaign we are providing a neutral presentation of the subject- and not presenting "rape threats" and "misogynistic" attacks as the central issue would be a dire violation of neutrality. The reliable sources, when they cover the inane, untrue and conspiracy theories associated with gamergate, cover them as inane, untrue and conspiracy theories and so our presentation of them as inane, untrue and conspiracy theories is the neutral presentation - and not covering them as inane, untrue and conspiracy theories would be a dire violation of neutrality. So all in all, this "completely uninvolved" perspective of non neutrality is, like all of the other "completely uninvolved" editors who have pushed the same "concern", completely baseless and has been thoroughly covered multiple times in the 38 pages of archives. Can we hat this pointless repetition? -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 12:10, 3 June 2015 (UTC) While the rape threats and misogynistic attacks are truthful to how the majority of RSes present the harassment and thus are elements that should be called out in the lede, we cannot judge this as "inane, untrue and conspiracy theories" as that is not a view taken by the majority of sources. Some (but far from a majority) sources do call GG's ideas as conspiracy theories, but few if any consider them inane or untrue, and that's judgemental language that is not present in a majority of sources that taints discussion. There's no question that the ethics concerns are lost under the weight of harassment and in many sources considered inactionable, but that's a far different stance from "inane, untrue and conspiracy theories". --MASEM (t) 12:58, 3 June 2015 (UTC) We ABSOLUTELY must treat the untrue claims about women's sex lives as untrue - fully loudly and repeatedly. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 14:10, 3 June 2015 (UTC) On that specific claim, yes but that's not what is being called out as a conspiracy theory by sources that use the term; those refer towards things like GG's stance towards GameJournalPro, DIGRA, and the like. --MASEM (t) 14:39, 3 June 2015 (UTC) (e/c) exactly - the the conspiracy theories that there is a massive journalistic conspiracy against gamergate or a massive conspiracy by feminists to take over games are clearly and uncontestedly presented by the reliable sources as nutjob conspiracy theories, and we also present them as such. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 15:30, 3 June 2015 (UTC) I object to closing and hiding this thread on these grounds and plan to undo it after waiting an appropriate amount of time. Chrisrus (talk) 15:36, 3 June 2015 (UTC) Which grounds do you object to? the fact that this is yet again a rehash of claims that have been beaten to death or the fact that the AE decision on how to deal with the unhelpful rehashing is being applied? -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 15:46, 3 June 2015 (UTC) As I see it, the AE decision was intended to avoid that newcomers were bitten ("I don't think anybody would argue that that particular article, in the current environment, would be a great place for a truly new, good-faith editor to start their editing career" was the motivation stated by the admin imposing the ban), not to restrict the topics that could be brought to the talk page. There is no policy that forbids discussing already treated subjects - quite the contrary. Diego (talk) 15:54, 3 June 2015 (UTC) WP:DEADHORSE WP:CRUSH WP:TE -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 16:08, 3 June 2015 (UTC) Surely you know how to distinguish policy from essays? Diego (talk) 16:12, 3 June 2015 (UTC) Surely you can read the policy "Editors may propose a change to current consensus, especially to raise previously unconsidered arguments or circumstances. On the other hand, proposing to change a recent consensus can be disruptive"-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 16:15, 3 June 2015 (UTC) And what makes you or MarkBernstein the arbiters deciding when consensus has been reached and what discusions shouldn't be held? The wording in the lede in particular has always had editors worried about its neutrality and the problems of using loaded terms and judgements of value stated in Wikipedia's voice, as this thread demonstrates; it's far from a settled concern. Diego (talk) 16:22, 3 June 2015 (UTC) Policy. The one that you linked to earlier: "Consensus on Wikipedia does not mean unanimity (which, although an ideal result, is not always achievable); nor is it the result of a vote. Decision-making involves an effort to incorporate all editors' legitimate concerns, while respecting Wikipedia's policies and guidelines." There have been no legitimate concerns that have been raised that have not been repeatedly addressed by the sources and the polices and the guidelines. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 16:32, 3 June 2015 (UTC) Engaging in what amounts to a war of attrition by repeatedly reopening and re-arguing well-covered points (without a significant change in the parameters like sourcing or content policy) until others are simply exhausted, is indeed a form of disruptive editing recognized as tendentious editing. However, for tendentious editing to be actionable, it has to be tied to an individual account over time. The history of this Talk page shows that there have been attempts to exploit a weakness in the Wikipedia open editing model by engaging in tendentious editing without having it tied to a single account. The purpose of the AE page-level minimum qualification is to curtail disruption by making doing this more difficult. So, there is no restriction on established editors from picking up on points made by ineligible editors, but they need to do so under their own responsibility with their established accounts. If every time an ineligible account posts a general, inactionable complaint ("I feel the article is biased!" with no grounding in Wikipedia content policy) an eligible editor reposts it, that may establish a pattern of tendentious editing that can be actionable at WP:AE. Zad68 16:36, 3 June 2015 (UTC) Here you seem to be in clear violation of WP:ASSUMEGOODFAITH, a principle without which everything can fall apart, as you've provided no evidence that anyone in this thread is guilty of belonging to such a disruption campaign. There seems to be another danger here, that we overreact to on-topic reader feedback and violate core principles that we hold most dear, such as The prime values of Wikipedia talk pages: Communication, Courtesy, and Consideration and WP:ASSUMEGOODFAITH. This danger makes the "danger" of repetitive, less-than-helpful talk page threads pale by comparison, because we have normal remedies such as directing readers who provide such feedback to the FAQs, providing stock replies, or just ignore them and let them age off into the archives, until such time they will make it less likely that others will open similar threads again. Closing and hiding this thread in this way make it more, not less likely that another such harmless, if annoying to some, threads will be opened tomorrow. Chrisrus (talk) 17:51, 3 June 2015 (UTC) (edit conflict) Could we at least revisit the banning criterion? Handpolk has been around here longer than PeterTheFourth, yet the former is restricted and the latter is not, merely for being more prolific. That doesn't feel right. Diego (talk) 17:52, 3 June 2015 (UTC) Please take this up at Zad68's talk or at AE. sigh ForbiddenRocky (talk) 18:11, 3 June 2015 (UTC) I concur with Chrisrus (active since 2007, over 12000 edits). If my calculations are correct, in the two or three weeks so far that the ban has been enabled, there have been no more than five comments removed because of it. None of which seemed particularly disruptive, and at least two have triggered civil conversations between established editors. This seems fairly manageable, so the problem doesn't look as severe as those supporting the feature make it appear. In fact the ban seems to have produced more discussion and disagreements about how it should be applied than the amount of problems it has prevented. Diego (talk) 18:18, 3 June 2015 (UTC) (edit conflict) I would request that editors refrained from hatting the thread, trying to stop it every coment of two. Some of the discussion being held here is about how we collaborate to improve the article, you know. I've replied here because here is where Zad68 has posted his clarification. If you want to move the conversation elsewhere, at least first put a note that you're going to do so and wait until we all notice it. Sigh, indeed. Diego (talk) 18:18, 3 June 2015 (UTC) No more than 5 comments...and this is a problem how? Your argument demonstrates how little the actual policy is enacted. Koncorde (talk) 19:23, 3 June 2015 (UTC) I propose that we follow the recent practice and move this meta discussion to its own subpage for those who wish to discuss for the sake of discussion. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 20:24, 3 June 2015 (UTC) I'm OK with moving the discussion to a subpage as was done with other previous threads, please just don't do it without previous warning while the conversation is ongoing. First create the target page and post a link to it, then hide the original thread when people has migrated to the new place. That's common sense. Diego (talk) 20:36, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

Katherine Clark

Speech to the US House Of Representatives, 3 June 2015. CSPAN video and transcript

"THEN THERE'S THE STORY OF MY CONSTITUENT, BRIANNA, A VIDEO GAME DEVELOPER WHO HAD TO FLEE -- FLEE HER HOME WITH HER FAMILY IN THE MIDDLE OF THE NIGHT AFTER SPECIFIC THREATS TO RAPE AND KILL HER AND HER HUSBAND. HER ONLINE ATTACKERS RELEASED HER HOME ADDRESS AND DESCRIBED IN GRAPHIC DETAIL THE ACTS OF VIOLENCE THEY WERE PLANNING."

OK: we just had a long, long thread at Brianna Wu, speculating that Wu had never reported actual threats. Can we finally, definitively, put that to rest?

"THE PRIORITIZING ONLINE THREAT ENFORCEMENT ACT WOULD GIVE THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE AND THE F.B.I. THE RESOURCES AND THE MANDATE TO INVESTIGATE AND ENFORCE THE FEDERAL LAWS ON CYBERTHREATS. IT IS NOT CONGRESS' JOB TO POLICE THE INTERNET, BUT WE HAVE A RESPONSIBILITY TO MAKE SURE THAT WOMEN ARE ABLE TO FULLY PARTICIPATE IN OUR ECONOMY. I URGE MY COLLEAGUES TO SUPPORT THIS CRUCIAL BILL. LET'S KEEP THE INTERNET OPEN AND SAFE FOR ALL VOICES."

We probably should mention the introduction of new legislation specifically intended to curb the abuses of Gamergate. MarkBernstein (talk) 21:32, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

Adding the bill - done (though in the actual language, it does not address GG at all, just all types of cyberharasssment). And while I personally have zero question that Wu legitimately had these threats against her, it should be noted that just because a congressperson says something does not necessarily make that something true. The realness of the threats towards Wu was established long ago. --MASEM (t) 21:41, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

Which didn't stop Wikipedia from spending days on the talk page as people claimed there was doubt, claimed there was controversy, claimed we couldn't say it in Wikipedia's voice. Of course the realness of the threats was established long ago-- but it was a controversy on wikipedia a couple of days ago. Why? Oh, wait. MarkBernstein (talk) 22:13, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

Where was that being said? The only section related to Wu recently has been how to treat the updated articles on how she was frustrated with lack of response in law enforcement (a few sections up). --MASEM (t) 22:54, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

[6] and subsequent sections -- some hatted, some rev-del'd. As to Gamergate not being mentioned in the bill, it can't be: that would be an unconstitutional bill of attainder. The Congresswoman’s speech makes the proximate reason clear, and is, I think, compelling (and only five minutes long). But of course it's really all about ethics, right? MarkBernstein (talk) 23:02, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

Okay, thought it was here at gg page. Agree that the doubts to her claims are inappropriate to consider. --MASEM (t) 23:18, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

Here's the text of the bill [7]. It's pretty general and low budget and I can't imagine it not passing. The language seems broad enough that the money/manpower would include crimes such as the cyber "murder-for-hire" charges against Silk Road founder and now permanent guest at a Federal prison, Ross Ulbricht and possibly even broad enough to include monitoring terrorist threats. As I commented at the other page and tried to mediate a bit with language that removed doubt but also attributed the quantity of threats (I think its 50 now with her last interview so e.g. "Wu disclosed 50 threats...") ), I'll comment here as well. I believe she worked out the issue with Columbus, Ohio. The last source I read on it had really only one takeaway and it was a primer on how to report threats. "Call your local police department" is what the Ohio prosecutor said. That would be at least useful to add to the article as that's how most anonymous crimes are handled. The local PD calls the PD in the other state where the call originated (or the PD where the ISP is located). The remote PD gives info to their prosecutor. In at least most reasonably sized metro areas, there is always an empaneled grand jury that the prosecutor can get a criminal subpoena to identify the IP owner or phone number owner for potential criminal action and takes about 10 minutes. It's then faxed to the ISP person that is the designated recipient who gathers the information and replies to subpoena. It's common enough that it's a well-oiled mechanical process. Local police and prosecutors are well-versed in how to trackdown POTS and regular IPs and respond accordingly. If it's sophisticated, it is nearly impossible anyway without tremendous amounts of resources (i.e. Ulbricht). The legislation introduced is nice, but a token gesture, but the advice/comments from the Ohio prosecutor will help a lot more victims if we are going to add that type of information. It would be very misleading to imply the FBI is or ever will be the first step in dealing with anonymous threats or that ten new FBI agents would address anything the Gamergate threat victims went through at this point. Wu vented her frustration with law enforcement and the good that came out of that venting was the followup by the Columbus prosecutor and his advice - I think Wu expressed appreciation for what the prosecutor did and had to say. I hope he's already completed the subpoena and ID'd the suspect but I haven't heard anything further on that part. --DHeyward (talk) 07:44, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

SCOTUS decision related to GG and online threats being brought more inline with prosecuting other types of threats

Synopsis from Forbes. It is probably relevant to the other section regarding legislation. It seems the decision makes online threat prosecutions closer to other threat prosecutions (i.e. it must be specific and credible) but it did overturn a conviction the court decided didn't meet those requirements (I will get the full opinion to see if it was a remand but it probably wasn't). If nothing else, it makes legislation mentioned in the other section more difficult or moot as the source comments on it. --DHeyward (talk) 05:15, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

Here is SCOTUS decision regarding the Facebook threats made by self-styled rapper that apparently used Eminem lyrics to allegedly threaten and terrorize his ex-wife and co-workers. [8] --DHeyward (talk) 05:20, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

Doesn't tie strongly to GG. ForbiddenRocky (talk) 05:22, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

This makes a stronger link, but I'm not familiar with the source: http://fusion.net/story/142924/elonis-supreme-court-dont-make-facebook-death-threats/ ForbiddenRocky (talk) 05:33, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

Agree, this is more towards cyberharassment in general. The bill introduced by Rep. SmithClark above, on the other hand, was direct fallout from Wu's GG harassment, even though the bill is general to cyber harassment. --MASEM (t) 05:34, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

The Forbes piece I cited juxtaposed it GG and the proposed legislation. I just finished reading the opinion and it's a straight-up mens rea case and the district courts instruction to the jury was more of actus rea and strict liability. It was remanded back to District court. Don't know if they will retry but it's a jury instruction. Legislation can address some of what is a culpable mental state but not too far outside reasonable construction - words like "intentionally", "knowingly" or "negligently" in legislation would clarify it but those are normal constructions. Also, it would be okay to mention Gamergate in the legislation. The Adam Walsh Child Protection and Safety Act for example specifically mentions a victim. A Bill of Attainder would be legislation that declares a person or group to be illegal or tailored to be only enacted to punish a specific person or group rather than an action directed by thought. It could easily be named "The Gamergate Online Harassment Prevention Act" if they wanted. --DHeyward (talk) 06:08, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

On the bill, the language of the legislation is in the Register (the source in the article) for all to read, and they simply don't mention GG, but do focus on any online harassment, though this all follows from what Rep. SmithClark has been doing over the last few weeks in respond to Wu's plight. On the SCOTUS case, I would really like to see something better than a Forbes contributor's opinion (we've rejected Eric Kain for the same reason before) to include. I'm not saying that the decision will impact how GG legal cases will be handled (if they are ever handled), but because it is speculative, we need a good secondary source to avoid a crystal ball effect; let other sources make it clear they see this decision not helping to stop the GG harassment. --MASEM (t) 06:50, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

I read the bill (tell me if this link isn't it and its connection to GamerGate is largely through the connection of Rep. SmithClark and Wu. I think comments by SmithClark are more noteworthy than the contents of her bill which didn't appear to create any new laws other than a money shuffle. I think a secondary source on the bills impact is also necessary because at first glance, it's a token sign of support rather than a bill that would impact federal law enforcement let alone Gamergate in particular - the legislation by itself isn't notable. For the Forbes piece by the "contributor" (I'm not sure how to classify it as they don't describe it as opinion - and Eric Kain is still cited in the WP GG article) but there is Forbes piece by the Forbes journalist is here. What's notable is the decision 8-1 with only Thomas not overturning and the similarity of threats. Elonis (the person convicted, overturned and remanded back to district court) posted his rap/threat on facebook, posted his ex-wife's address and map to her house, posted remake of a stand-up comedy about how he wanted her raped and killed (and the map showed a cornfield and escape route). He posted rap about how the protection order made him want to shoot up a kindergarten class. That last one generated a visit by the FBI. He then posted another rap threat about cutting the female FBI agents throat. These were rape and death threats dismissed by 8 justices, including all the female justices, in favor of free speech. The case is scary similar and he was prosecuted under 18 USC §875 which is the section in SmithClark's bill (Extortion and Threats in Interstate Communication)[9]. Gamaliel for Signpost if you want, even more infamous, Wikipedia was mentioned in the SCOTUS opinion (page 7 in PDF pages). Freedom of speech article was linked in the Facebook death threat which apparently makes everything okay now. --DHeyward (talk) 10:26, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

On the bill - the introduction of the bill is simply following up on the chain of events since the PAX threat, which lead to Rep. SmithClark becoming involved, which led to this legislation. As it is only a bill, there's little else to talk about it since it's not passed yet, and as you say, all it is is giving the FBI more money to enlist more agents to help, but otherwise not creating new legislation that gives them more power. It's completing the thought, to speak - that a congressperson got involved and is trying to help.

On the SCOTUS decision, I don't disagree it will potentially affect prosecution of GG games if that ever happens, but the situation of GG - where you have the same targets being harassed over and over by some people, possibly coordinated - is different compared to one person sending another repeated threats. There's a lot more potential to showcase intent and malice with GG given the scale. As such, while the SCOTUS decision does impact the legal strength of cyberharassment enforcement, its impact on GG is highly speculative, and I would rather see a better analysis or one from a more expert source than a Forbes contributor (such as a legal expert or professor) to tie it in than for us to engage in crystal-balling even with secondary sources. --MASEM (t) 14:14, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

Agree with Masem re: "rather see a better analysis or one from a more expert source than a Forbes contributor". I think making a stronger connection with Forbes is treading toward OR. ForbiddenRocky (talk) 17:05, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

We need secondary sources for both. Both the legislation and SCOTUS relationships to GG are "connecting the dots." It's not clear that either is relevant to GG. --DHeyward (talk) 17:21, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

While a secondary source for the bill would be helpful, it's not required because we just had secondary sources on her getting the House committee to approve her introduction of such a bill [10], for example. So stating the bill that we had clear sourcing was coming is fine. If we didn't know this prior bit, then yes, there would be a need for a secondary source to address the fact the bill was a culmination of events from before. (It looks like we have some now, but at worse, we could have pulled from CSPAN's recording of her introduction of the bill to the House floor.) (And please note, I misstated Rep. Clark's name as Smith instead of Clark and I think your comments picked up on my misnaming; I've edited both yours and my comments above properly to fix this)--MASEM (t) 17:37, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

FYI, I just added a source that makes the connection. — Strongjam (talk) 17:39, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

There are plenty of press pieces that make connection SCOTUS case to GG, especially when the case was heard last fall. Here's the NYTimes and Washington post both connecting the case to GG. [11][12][13]. Contrary to the NY Times and Washington Post's expectation, SCOTUS didn't decide anything about free speech nor is it harder to prosecute after the decision. It seems they cleared up a statutory construction issue in one circuit court of appeals and punted both free speech and minimum level of culpable mental state. --DHeyward (talk) 17:45, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

One other thing is the flow of the current wording will need to change a bit specifically as it relates Gjoni to a crime. There's an implicit synthesis that he started a hate group and committed a crime and to some extent our article reads like the Clark bill would make prosecuting Gjoni easier or "expected". That is certainly false and Gjoni should not be portrayed in that light. --DHeyward (talk) 17:56, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

I'm not sure if Quinn's quote about his targetted posting is a BLP. Given that she did factually get a restraining order placed on him, the courts found something about his activity to give her the order. It doesn't say he started the hate group directly or that he's been charged with a crime. --MASEM (t) 18:24, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

I'll start a new section as it's a bit off-topic. It's not Quinn's quote that caught my eye (I don't think I even saw it), rather it was the proximity and flow of "Gjoni" to "hate group" to "domestic violence" to "death threats" to "more prosecutions." I haven't read the "restraining order" but the court doesn't need to find much of anything to issue a no-contact/restraining order (or whatever her state calls an intimate partner no-contact order) other than one party doesn't want contact. Like a divorce, there isn't much of a finding to grant it if one party wants it regardless of the other party's desire (it's a catch-22 in that if two people can't agree on whether to stay married, it's irretrievably broken - same with two people that can't agree not to contact each other). In fact, here, a judge has to show good cause not to issue it on request and must report denied initial requests to a court of record with a reason why it was denied. The person receiving it can fight it but if there is no pressing need, it usually stands. Note that most of these orders are based on a desire for no-contact and don't express any fear of violence. It's usually a no-brainer for intimate partners that don't have children in common and aren't alleging domestic violence to be given a restraining order on request (they show contact to the judge to show that contact existed in some form). Two unmarried people living in different states without any rights removed would have really no reason to oppose the order. I would not assume that the restraining order is prima facie evidence of the court finding anything more than one party's desire for no contact. --DHeyward (talk) 00:14, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

I would think we'd like to include the SCOTUS case - it's certainly got a potential connection - but I'm trying to find something stronger that the Forbes article. I think I got something, however, let me check. --MASEM (t) 18:04, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

[14] Two sources, Pacific Standard and Fast Company (citing a legal expert), added. --MASEM (t) 18:17, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

The SCOTUS case made a bigger gamergate splash in december (as you can see by the WaPo and NYT coverage). It's very narrow ruling kind of took the splash away. The ruling was 7-2 with all three female court members voting to overturn a federal felony conviction for online death threats. Only very specific groups seemed to take issue with it and it's mostly the result rather than the argument made. PS Mag was one of the cites I listed above next to NYT and WaPo. --DHeyward (talk) 00:14, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

So, what did you want to add? Make an edit to the entry? ForbiddenRocky (talk) 20:59, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

I was going to add what the Forbes, WaPo, NYT and Pacific Standard sources said. I then read the whole decision. The expectation set out in December was either a first amendment ruling that makes it harder to prosecute (i.e. overturn the conviction) or a ruling that reinforces the tools already in place and GamerGate threats would be easier to prosecute (this is what WaPo and NYT said in December). The ruling did neither despite some of the positions taken by interested parties. Three of the 7 justices that overturned the death threat convictions were women and they overturned only on the very narrow "negligence is insufficient" to convict and consistent with a more liberal courts interpretation of culpability. Alito dissented because the court didn't provide guidance on what the minimum culpable state for that statute should be even though they discounted the least culpable. The majority deffered that until someone else appeals. Alito believes the court should have adopted "reckless" as the minimum standard for guidance (the majority simply didn't say, but I suspect Alito's dissent will be guiding instruction and we'll never hear it again - Clark could attempt to ammend 18 USC 875 with a statutory requirement and remove all doubt but that takes longer than an appropriations bill and it doesn't appear there is much interest to create new law). Only Thomas believed the plain interpretation of "threat" was already sufficient to convict. In short there was a bunch of sound and fury in the Reliable Sources but reality fell short of that and this case signifies nothing. Elonis will be retried, the jury will be given mental states from reckless to maliciously to consider. the question will be "Did Elonis recklessy or knowingly or intentionally or maliciously communicate a threat?" instead of "Did Elonis communicate a threat?" That's all that happened. if the jury finds it was at least reckless, it will be appealed but probably not make it up the ladder again. If you want to blindly add stuff the reliable sources said, go ahead but I can't as the ruling/reality doesn't live up to that hype. --DHeyward (talk) 00:41, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

I think go with the RS sounds right. Your concerns sound like trying to guess the future and/or OR. ForbiddenRocky (talk) 01:07, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

Which, using the ones written after the SCOTUS decision, still relate it to what difficulties might come if/when it comes to prosecuting GG harassment, which have been added already about the difficulties of enforcement. --MASEM (t) 01:17, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

I'll look again, but I suspect I'll end up agreeing with Masem on this one. ForbiddenRocky (talk) 01:20, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

There's no dispute. I, personally, wouldn't have added it because I think it's faulty reasoning that's laid out plainly in the decision as a very narrow mens rea opinion, not a "threats vs. free speech" as it was being billed in December. All three female jurists sided with the person convicted of making threats and overturned his conviction but only because of a construction defect in the statute as it related to minimum culpable mental state. I had no problem providing the sources, though, that were upset with the outcome and there is no reason to remove the sourced material. Usually, SCOTUS decisions breakdown along ideological lines according to the type of case and this was no different. It turned into a straight law and order case, not a vulnerable person protection decision. In other words, in terms of gamergate/anti-gamergate - in this decision, Samuel Alito and Clarence Thomas sided with anti-gamergate/social justice concerns while Elena Kagan, Ruth Ginsburg and Sonia Sotomayor sided with the concerns of pro-gamergate/misogynist threat makers. I hope it makes sense as to why it's hard to write it in a way that's meaningful in this article's context regardless of who is upset and got media coverage. --DHeyward (talk) 04:19, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

While there may be no dispute (I haven't had a chance to investigate Masem's point thoroughly yet), I am wondering what point you might be trying to make with so much commentary. Also, from what I've read so far, I think perhaps your claims about alignment (alito/thomas/pgg kagan/ginsburg/sotomayor/agg) are stretching the analysis considerably. ForbiddenRocky (talk) 06:53, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

There's no analysis. Elonis didn't align on GamerGate as it ended up being a straight up mens rea case that only narrowly defined what wasn't a culpable mental state for conviction under 18 USC §875(c) ("negligence" wasn't enough). That's why the court in majority with all the liberal members overturned the conviction of a man making death threats to his ex-wife on social media. I take the time to explain it because news sources often a) get it wrong (especially if they are not generally covering cases) b) sensationalize or c) manufacture conflict. The original story I saw didn't match the decision. Coupled with a few other incorrect assertions made in other sections regarding law, it seems there is quite a variance in understanding which makes picking wheat from chaff difficult. We don't have a deadline though so being accurate is desirable. --DHeyward (talk) 09:25, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

You have RS to back this up? What you're saying looks like OR and/or SYNTH. ForbiddenRocky (talk) 14:44, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

Justice Thomas: Lower courts are thus left to guess at the appropriate mental state for §875(c). All they know after today’s decision is that a requirement of general intent will not do. But they can safely infer that a majority of this Court would not adopt an intent-to-threaten requirement, as the opinion carefully leaves open the possibility that recklessness may be enough. (elonis, pg. 30). Justice Alito: Why is recklessness enough? My analysis of the mens rea issue follows the same track as the Court’s, as far as it goes. I agree with the Court that we should presume that criminal statutes require some sort of mens rea for conviction. (Elonis, pg. 23). ROBERTS, C. J., SCALIA, KENNEDY, GINSBURG, BREYER, SOTOMAYOR, and KAGAN, Elonis’s conviction was premised solely on how his posts would be viewed by a reasonable person, a standard feature of civil liability in tort law inconsistent with the conventional criminal conduct requirement of “awareness of some wrongdoing,”...The Court declines to address whether a mental state of recklessness would also suffice. Given the disposition here, it is unnecessary to consider any First Amendment issues....[Conviction] reversed and remanded. (Elonis, page 3). This is pretty basic stuff FR. --DHeyward (talk) 22:36, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

Looks like a lot of SYNTH and OR to me. The facts are one thing, but the conclusions are not coming from the RS. ForbiddenRocky (talk) 09:10, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

Lead is missing something very fundamental

The lead[15] is missing the hashtag #GamerGate and it's origin. I propose organizing the lead into three main parts:

1. Sexism in videogame culture before the hashtag and August 2014 when the harassment wasn't connected.
2. The hashtag created by Baldwin who alleged wrongdoing by journalists.
3. The hashtag became a banner for anonymous harassment using doxxing, rape and death threats mainly involving Quinn, Sarkeesian and Wu - and gave a single name to all harassment in gaming

The hashtag creation is what galvanized the harassment into a single thing. Before that, harassment of Sarkeesian was seperate from Wu, Quinn, et al. The hashtag creation is the seminal event and the namesake of the controversy. I don't think we can leave it out of the lead despite "but journalism." --DHeyward (talk) 10:05, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

No, we cannot (and will not) argue that Gamergate is not responsible for its threats against targeted women because some other people threatened women before Gamergate. No source consensus supports this innovative and highly original theory. MarkBernstein (talk) 10:25, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

Strawman as that's not argued or proposed. --DHeyward (talk) 19:44, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

I do not support this proposed change to the lede, as I don't believe it's reflected in the article or the reliable sources we use. PeterTheFourth has made few or no other edits outside this topic. 11:43, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

(slightly off-topic) I'd suggest that editors be especially careful of the article's tendency to ascribe actions to "the hashtag." A hashtag can’t rape, assault, or murder anyone. A hashtag can’t threaten anyone with dire consequences if they don’t quit their job or if they don’t give up their writing. Ascribing these actions to a hashtag is thus a convenient fig leaf for those people -- whoever they are -- who did so. (While we do not know who issued the threats, it is a truth universally acknowledged that the threats were made.) It’s also bad writing practice. MarkBernstein (talk) 14:33, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

I'd suggest that editors be especially careful of the article's tendency to ascribe actions to "the hashtag." and No, we cannot (and will not) argue that Gamergate is not responsible for its threats against targeted women seem inconsistent. --DHeyward (talk) 20:30, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

You have RS to support this kind of change? ForbiddenRocky (talk) 14:43, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

Yes. Since it's a proposal at temporal ordering of events of "before," "creation", "after" , a calendar will suffice. --DHeyward (talk) 20:30, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

Your second point is already wrong. ForbiddenRocky (talk) 09:12, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

• the above proposal fails WP:LEAD as an appropriate summary of the contents of the article/appropriate summary of what and how the reliable sources have covered the topic. Baldwin's coining of the term might merit mention in the lead on purely historical basis, but other than passing mentions "the term was first used by Baldwin..." the sources really do not pay any significant coverage or analysis on that specific incident. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 15:33, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

Sources also don't back up that as the summary for the hashtag creation. Reason and Ars say it was used tweeting links to a video critical of Quinn. — Strongjam (talk) 15:40, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Very important to note- the second point is wrong. The hashtag was created by Baldwin when he was referring to one of Internet Atheist's Quinnspiracy videos. So, not really about 'ethics in journalism' after all. PeterTheFourth has made few or no other edits outside this topic. 15:43, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

Baldwin critiqued the media for trying to "enforce arbitrary 'social justice' rules upon gamers & the culture" and described the events that followed as "a skirmish in the long culture war". straight from our article. The important point and moment was that it became the tag/cause associated with harassment and threats. Prior to that, there was no connections. After that, "gamergate" was used for virtually all threats. It gave a name to theats against women in gaming when before it was topical. Prior, Sarkeesian fighting tropes in gaming and Quinn fighting radical feminism in game jam were not similar. After, they are all galvanized under the name "gamergate." --DHeyward (talk) 19:44, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, that's not even close to "alleged wrongdoing by journalists" — Strongjam (talk) 20:13, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

Yes, it is. Journalists consider it an accusation of unethical behavior. But it's the structure that I'm proposing. Word choice is not particularly germane. --DHeyward (talk) 20:35, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

No reputable organization has taken that position. We'd need a source to summarize as such, otherwise we risk putting words in Baldwin's mouth and run afoul of BLP policy. The actually naming of the controversy is hardly covered at all in our sources, and mostly it seems like this would give it undue weight. — Strongjam (talk) 00:04, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

The wording at its genesys is not particularly important. We don't have hardly any sources that refer to it as "GamerGate controversy" yet it's an apt, descriptive summary. It's notability is derived from various sources alleging various things that it represents. One thing that is overarching, though, is that it galvanized a number of disparate elements into one point of interaction. It's still the rallying point for so-called "gamergate" and "anti-gamergate" elements that, previous to the phrase, were not identifiable as two opposing factions and didn't clash on a clean boundary. That's apparent in how gaming culture is now portrayed in all of our sources. The term framed the debate. --DHeyward (talk) 00:45, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

I'd argue that we're not talking about its wording at its genesis, but its description in reliable sources full stop. None of them seem to take this peculiar position you do. PeterTheFourth has made few or no other edits outside this topic. 02:03, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

I dont see any sources talking about "galvanizing" - in fact the sources cover it the opposite way: after the harassment became noticed there was a mad scramble to the four corners of the earth to try to find some some cover to hide behind "we are ethics in journalism" "we are against social justice warriors" "we are revolting consumers" "we are objective reviews" "we are people of color who dont care that video games are all [elite Caucasians]" . That's not galvanization. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 02:53, 7 June 2015 (UTC) (previous comment edited per request) -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 11:05, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

They do in the sense that what was once a multi-faceted issue involving sexism in gaming culture that had various components: female tropes, sexism in game development, sexism in game play, LGBT discrimination, etc, etc - after "gamergate" it all became "gamergate/anti-gamergate." That's in all of our sources. Nobody "scattered" or it wouldn't be 10 months old. PtF's point about the overall description is accurate but the elements of gamergate existed prior to gamergate terms without cohesion. The sexism issues facing Wu, Quinn and Sarkeesian were not necessarily treated as a single issue. After genesys, all the recipients of threats became a single entity - bonded by their shared experience of threats under a single banner. It didn't matter that before gamergate, they were treated as different issues - gamergate unified them. We certainly have sources that discuss Wu's company addressing tropes and Sarkeesian addressing other sexism/feminist/discrimination issues besides tropes after "gamergate" galvanized them. Even the evolution of "quinnspiracy" to "gamergate" illustrates how these groups aligned and galvanized into very simple sides. --DHeyward (talk) 04:50, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

wait wait - i thought it was all ethics? -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 11:02, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

Ah yes, it's all about sides. The side that makes death threats to women because they want to be able to speak, and the side that thinks that's not okay. I mean, it's all just politics right? PeterTheFourth has made few or no other edits outside this topic. 05:07, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you're babbling about but it's not about anything I wrote. Would you like to comment on the differences in video game culture pre- and post- GamerGate genesys in August 2014? --DHeyward (talk) 09:07, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

Dude, seriously, it's spelt genesis. PeterTheFourth has made few or no other edits outside this topic. 09:12, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

Dude, seriously, did you have anything to add? --DHeyward (talk) 11:28, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

He just did. --Calton | Talk 15:48, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

Let's remember that Adam Baldwin is an expert in (a particular province of) character acting. He's not an authority on contemporary journalistic practice, and as it happens we do have authorities -- CJR -- on contemporary journalistic practice. This proposal has scant merit and scant support. MarkBernstein (talk) 03:34, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

We aren't debating whether he was right or wrong or taking sides. Just the timing and genesys of what is now a 10 month old controversy that is known by the name Baldwin gave it and alignments that take labels like "pro-gamergate" and "anti-gamergate". --DHeyward (talk) 04:50, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

However, there seems to be some injection of SYNTH meaning attempted here, and that is being opposed. ForbiddenRocky (talk) 09:14, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

You think I synthed a number into the calendar? --DHeyward (talk) 11:28, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

I synthed a date into the calendar?

A date? That's unlikely. More likely significance upon that date. ForbiddenRocky (talk) 15:22, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

Charles Darwin and Abraham Lincoln were born on the same date. That fact alone is not synthesis; attempting to link Darwin and Lincoln via that fact to anything else, is and persistence in the face of that led to consequences. --Calton | Talk 15:48, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

Unproductive WP:NOTAFORUM/soapboxing closed per general agreement
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
I cannot support any changes to the lead. I think it is perfect as-is. Besides, if you read the archives we've probably discussed this before, and we are not allowed to discuss things more than once per the five pillar policy WP:DEADHORSE. I don't believe we should attempt to define the "Gamergate" group or describe its origin or stated goals in the lead. In fact, we shouldn't discuss the group at all, other than to vaguely assert that they are comprised primarily of men who are in favor of harassment, doxing, and misogyny. It's our job to focus on the word "controversy," not the word "Gamergate," because readers do not come to the Gamergate controversy article to try to understand the history and context of the Gamergate controversy. They come here to be outraged at the horrible sexism and harassment perpetrated by Gamergate. I would recommend an involved non-admin editor immediately close this section because nothing has ever been achieved through discussion, and talk pages should have a maximum of 37 pages. At the very least this comment should be hatted because of WP:FORUM or WP:POINT, or, I don't know, I'm sure you can find something in WP:BLP. ColorOfSuffering (talk) 20:01, 8 June 2015 (UTC) Very funny. Unfortunately, you're right about WP:FORUM. It’s not Wikipedia's fault that Gamergate is an anonymous and amorphous organization without officials or spokespeople, which prevents us from knowing much about them beyond their activities -- and be far the most notable of those, as judged by our sources, are harassment, doxing, and misogyny. MarkBernstein (talk) 20:16, 8 June 2015 (UTC) While I cannot suggest anything new to change the lede at this time, I will say that the argument that " They come here to be outraged at the horrible sexism and harassment perpetrated by Gamergate." is absolutely the wrong way to approach an encyclopedic article and leads to non-neutral coverage. We're supposed to teach the controversy, not comment on it. The sources are doing a fine enough job to be critical about the GG movement so we don't have to worry about how the controversy is seen or the validity of the GG claims (or lack thereof). But we objectively should be trying to find out how to cover the nature of the reasoning of why GG exists in a neutral manner using reliable sources, as part of teaching the controversy. We can't do anything else at the present time simply because there are very little reliable sources that we haven't already sed that have dug into the background of the situation from the perspective of the GG supporters (and considering any possible case from being truly earnestly about ethics or being a coordinate harassment campaign from the start) to be able to write anything more, but I personally do keep watching for anything that's usable. I would suspect that until the inevitable arrest and trial of someone shown to be part of the harassment, we will never really know. --MASEM (t) 20:26, 8 June 2015 (UTC) "teach the controversy"?? Some people think anonymous misogynist harassment harassment campaigns are bad. Others participate in them. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 20:38, 8 June 2015 (UTC) It's the difference between keeping to an academic neutrality, verses soapboxing on the issue. We have more than enough sources that get onto a soapbox that we already use and attribute/quote extensively on the nastiness and immorality of the harassment aspects, but as an educational resource, we should be seeking to be able to document and explain motivation for the GG side, even if, in reality, they are morally corrupt. We don't have anything we haven't already used that we can do that, it's something to watch for in the future. --MASEM (t) 20:45, 8 June 2015 (UTC) What exactly is the "motivation" for the harassment? "girls are smelly - send rape threats!" "a girl designed a game we don't like - send rape threats!" "a girl got her game reviewed - send rape threats!" "a girl said sending rape threats is bad - send death threats!"-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 21:32, 8 June 2015 (UTC) There is no reliable sources to explain why harassment has been used (though plenty of theories and explanations of why they turned to harassment), and it could simply be "girls are icky" reason. Even if it is a morally degrading reason , if we can source it to a high quality source we better try to include it, and let the reader come to the conclusion that it's morally degrading themselves. We may never get any type of direct explanation and may never be able to answer that, either. That's fine. I'm just saying that we should be seeking to try to identify high quality sources that would allow us to fill this out as to be "teaching the controversy", instead of simply scorning the GG side. We cannot do anything now to change the article to reflect this, clearly, but we need to keep a healthy attitude about what might come in the future. --MASEM (t) 21:40, 8 June 2015 (UTC) Masem, you can live in a world where you hope the heavens will open up and provide a reason why a campaign of death and rape threats is not morally reprehensible. However, Wikipedians must go by what the reliable sources actually state. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 21:48, 8 June 2015 (UTC) Since WP is non-judgemental, yes, that is an attitude we are required to take. We have plenty of sources that explain the moral problems with harassment to do that for us, but we need to avoid the soapboxing of this moral stance in WP's voice. --MASEM (t) 21:58, 8 June 2015 (UTC) No Masem, it is not "neutral" to hope for sourcing that will magically appear sometime that will provide a justification that sending rape threats is not morally reprehensible. We go by what the actual sources say. THAT is being "neutral". -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 22:44, 8 June 2015 (UTC) It's not about looking for sources that "accept" the harassment - it's simply keeping an open mind to look for sources that determine the philosophy behind the GG supporters. The harassment might be explained by these, and if so, more than likely will be for amoral reasons, no question. But there may be reasons for the "but ethics" side too. I don't know if we'll ever get these, but it fully within neutrality policy to watch for these from RSes so they can be included as to teach the controversy. --MASEM (t) 23:26, 8 June 2015 (UTC) Again you can keep hoping for some kind of sourcing to fall from heaven that will provide a moral justification for campaigns of rape and death threats, but we actually write the article on the sources that actually exist. the multiple multiple multiple sources. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 23:30, 8 June 2015 (UTC) I never said that I am only looking for such a source. I'm looking for any sources that get the motivations directly from GG's mouth. And it s very likely that if such sources do come along (consider Singal's piece), there will be criticism towards these motivations that would also be included. We just need to keep a more neutral mind in trying to write an article that teaches the controversy, and not prejudge. --MASEM (t) 23:40, 8 June 2015 (UTC) Masem, are you in some kind of timewarp? There is no "prejuding" going on. Reprehensible events happened. Sources, all of them, have POST-Judged them as reprehensible. We portray them as reprehensible. We do not wait expectantly for some heavenly sea lion to present us with the 11th Commandment "Thou Shalt look kindly upon internet trolls who send death threats for their justifications are valid and pure." It aint gonna happen. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 00:10, 9 June 2015 (UTC) It is not what reliable sources have said, it is what we say as editors on WP, a non-judgemental source. I don't care if all the RS have condemned GG and consider the whole group guilty - there is zero legal case law that lets us take that same attitude. We certainly won't do it if there were living persons involved, and while being a anonymous group means that we don't treat them with BLP issues (though given that Milo and Christina are now officially part of GG, we have to be careful), we don't cast judgement in WP's voice. We should not , in WP's voice, be treating GG as reprehensible, but make it clear that that is the attitude taken by the bulk of reliable sources. --MASEM (t) 00:26, 9 June 2015 (UTC) I thought we'd promised to stop this after WT:NPOV. So much for that. Wikipedia does not, in its majesty, treat fringe science and real science as if they were equivalent. Similarly, we do not approach a group of anonymous misogynist harassers and their targets with even-handed detachment. "Teaching the controversy," is, of course, far from an academic attitude -- and "watching for data that has not been observed but that we hope will appear" is hardly a scientific approach! As for the motivation of the people sending rape and death threats, we can hardly know that until they confess -- and even then, we may have reason to doubt their word. What else could possibly inform Wikipedia? But yes, Masem, if you discover such a confession published in reliable sources, with a credible motivation attributed to a specific Gamergate agent, then I expect we'll all be delighted to find space for it in the article. MarkBernstein (talk) 21:44, 8 June 2015 (UTC) In terms of usable sources, yes, we need to stick to RS per the NPOV discussion which is why I'm not suggesting any changes at this point. But we're never going to have a healthy attitude on this page if we don't detach our personal feelings about the GGers and keep open to new high quality sources that cover the GG side better. Editors can dislike GGers for all they want but we shouldn't let feelings discredit any information about them; let RS policy decide what is includable or not --MASEM (t) 21:54, 8 June 2015 (UTC) We already have a healthy attitude based on our reliance on reliable sources! As I said, if Gamergate prosecutions result in convictions, that might lead to new insights into the motivations for Gamergate harassment. If that happens, I'm sure we'll find space. Otherwise, what could possibly emerge? It’s hard to say what else is possible, but speculation is pointless. Until these sources emerge, this discussion is fruitless, contrary to policy, and over.' MarkBernstein (talk) 22:21, 8 June 2015 (UTC) Keeping a healthy attitude on talk pages by avoiding strong positive/negative judgement on a topic as editors is policy per WP:NOT#SOAPBOX, which was my point above to ColorOfSuffering's comment. Editors sticking to strongly praising or strongly criticizing GG in their own voice is not a healthy place in proper discussions here. --MASEM (t) 22:33, 8 June 2015 (UTC) We do not distort, and should not deceive ourselves. We can (and should) designate crimes by their right name. Threatening to rape or murder someone because they work in a given industry is a crime, and we discuss it as a crime. To pretend it might not be a crime -- that it might be perfectly OK, for example, to conspire to cripple someone if they attend an industry conference -- is not impartiality and is unhealthy and improper, in Wikipedia or elsewhere. MarkBernstein (talk) 22:51, 8 June 2015 (UTC) This isn't about dismissing harassment as a crime (as it is a crime), but condemning GG supporters as WP editors or in WP's voice simply because harassment has been done under the GG hashtag. (Same applies to elevating GG supporters with positive praise). If a discussion is already tainted by assuming GG supporters have done something legally wrong when no legal case has been established, that's soapboxing and should be avoided. --MASEM (t) 23:16, 8 June 2015 (UTC) There is no "assumption". Sending death threats IS legally and morally wrong. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 23:24, 8 June 2015 (UTC) But assuming this has been done by GG supporters (not the GG hashtag) without any legal case against any specific one is prejudgemental, and what we should be avoiding. --MASEM (t) 23:28, 8 June 2015 (UTC) Assuming that those using the GG hashtag are 'not real GG supporters' is original research, which we should be avoiding. PeterTheFourth has made few or no other edits outside this topic. 23:50, 8 June 2015 (UTC) We have many RS sources that assert the strong likelihood that there are people using the GG hashtag that have zero interest in supporting GG (aka the third-party trolls), and that the harassers are a vocal minority of the overall GG supporter group. So no, it's not original research to make the distinction. At the end of the day, it could be that every so-called GG supporter is legally determined and tried as an harasser, at which point we would write the article to reflect that, but right now, there's no legal case to assume that all GG supporters are guilty of harassment. --MASEM (t) 23:58, 8 June 2015 (UTC) As has been repeatedly pointed out in the sources, there is NOT a "gamergate" - merely anons posted about a gagillion different things. the one core thing attributed directly to those posting under "gamergate" is harassment. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 00:15, 9 June 2015 (UTC) No, the ethics aspect (even if their concerns are dismissed) is also called under the "gamergate" hashtag by reliable sources, as well as a contingent of "the GG conservative" which have been said to be fighting the harassment as well as Milo Y. and Christina Hoff Sommers as named members of GG. Yes, the anonymous nature causes more than enough problems for any message GG may want to try to give, but the point is that there are multiple activities and groups that all use the hashtag so saying it is only or all devoted to harassment otherwise (until the courts prove otherwise) is prejudgement and will never lead to healthy discussion. This is in no way trying to minimize the impact of harassment or deny it is coming from the GG hashtag since that is clearly the most notable facet of GG. --MASEM (t) 00:23, 9 June 2015 (UTC) Enough nonsense: Is there a specific item in the article that someone thinks should be changed? or can this be closed as yet another rant attempting the futile task of trying to convince experienced editors that we shouldnt follow the sources as printed? -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 00:46, 9 June 2015 (UTC) Support closing this. ForbiddenRocky (talk) 05:04, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

<title redacted> (essentially a call for collaboration on removing inappropriate comments and content)

thread veered off into yet more unproductive sniping. Fut.Perf. ☼ 20:52, 9 June 2015 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Some frequent editors of this page have asserted that they are privy to the inner thoughts and motivations of Gamergate and have perspective on what Gamergate really wants. If this is true, it would be greatly appreciated if those editors would kindly pass the word that the constant incursions of brigaded newbie editors is tiresome and unproductive. Just today, we've had a baby edit war here with an editor who doesn't pass the 30/500 qualification, and another attempt by a new editor to use Wikipedia to talk about Brianna Wu’s sex life on her page (by now, I trust, revdel'd). Even if you're a great Gamergate fan, this is simply annoying and tiring your colleagues without prospect of any benefit to the encyclopedia, or any legitimate benefit to Gamergate. It's been going on constantly for months on end. If you were going to achieve a favorable consensus, you would have done so, and if your critics were going to grow too tired to detect and remove the BLP violations, that too would have happened by now. Nothing is being achieved beyond the waste of time and effort that could more profitably be applied to other things. What last year might have been a content dispute is now mere spite. Some of your fellow editors have important commitments and meaningful work to do. These efforts are not doing Gamergate any good, they do not benefit the encyclopedia, and they waste our time. If you really do have the connections of which you boast, would you kindly use them to stop this? MarkBernstein (talk) 19:48, 9 June 2015 (UTC) (P.S. I really would like to see some of these Gamergate-inspired BLP violations redacted by the experienced pro-Gamergate editors so active here. Why leave all that to TRPoD and PeterTheFourth and NBSB and Aquillon and Bosstopher and me? Just saying!MarkBernstein (talk) 19:48, 9 June 2015 (UTC)) This is a personal attack. I've stated many times before I do not interact at all with any of the GGers, so expect me or any other editor to "call them off" is a direct affront to this. --MASEM (t) 20:03, 9 June 2015 (UTC) There are other editors, Masem, who claim to know the real story of Gamergate, and I'm talking to them. In the past months, you've written what -- 100,000 words? 200,000? -- on this page alone; I'm sure you're intimately familiar with them, but I’ve only read them once and I might well have overlooked something you once said. However, it would be nice to see that Masem had deleted the most recent scurrilous sex post, just occasionally. You're certainly watching these pages, and you certainly post prolifically: do you never happen to notice these posts? They're not in short supply; why do we always have to clean up the mess? And, when push comes to shove, how do you propose stopping this waste of time? MarkBernstein (talk) 20:16, 9 June 2015 (UTC) *cough* (although I guess it could be considered insufficient depending on your point of view) Bosstopher (talk) 20:21, 9 June 2015 (UTC) I don't know about personal attack. Is it a personal attack to be linked to a comic about a boorish and stubborn marine mammal harassing a couple who made a careless and harmless derogatory remark in public? Personally I think this comment is a fantastic contribution to Wikipedia! Thank you, Mark, for your tireless dedication to the project. Why not sit down and discuss all of these pesky sea lions (if you're already sitting then you can continue to sit). First, we need to identify them. Can you help with that? Is it fair to say that you're something of an expert, due to the fact that you keep bringing up the reference on talk pages? Anyway, we could start here: [16] Would you conclude that the top 30 contributors are these mythical sea lions of which you speak? I say we reach out to them all, personally, and ask them to keep their friends in line and redact all BLP violations that occur in any Gamergate-related article. Unfortunately some of them are already banned, but I'm sure the rest can pick up the slack. Of course, this section might be a little bit too meta for the article talk page, so should we move it to a new section? Perhaps a more experienced editor can help with this. I feel like this is an incredibly important discussion that should not be closed by an involved non-admin editor. ColorOfSuffering (talk) 20:26, 9 June 2015 (UTC) I will remove BLP when I see something that I can clearly see fails BLP (but remember that BLPTALK also exists, and BLP violations can be in the eye of the beholder so it may not be immediately obvious). And by saying that there are editors involved here that can talk to GG to ask them to stop their attempt to interact on WP is still not assuming good faith with those editors. --MASEM (t) 20:37, 9 June 2015 (UTC) Good thinking, @Bosstopher:! I hadn't thought of that. Four times is more than I expected -- thanks for that, Masem. Of course, many of us have done far more (under greater restrictions and onerous scrutiny, I might add). But, again, look who took care of the cleanup today? MarkBernstein (talk) 20:28, 9 June 2015 (UTC) You're talking about (for example) the reversions of this editor [17] which occurred while I was asleep and only was a violation of the 500/30 rule and not BLP? Remember that everyone is expected to assume good faith and not comment on contributors but content. --MASEM (t) 20:37, 9 June 2015 (UTC) If you come across anything that needs to be rev-del, email Wikipedia:Oversight at oversight-en-wpwikipedia.org. They're usually quite quick about removing such material. I've already emailed them twice today and received prompt replies. As for the rest, I don't see much good coming from this talk page section, suggest it be closed and if anyone has an issue with as specific editor take it to email or their talk page. — Strongjam (talk) 20:38, 9 June 2015 (UTC) Masem, do you think the biweekly incursion of the "I am neutral and this article is not covering the subject neutrally." post is beneficial to the project? If so how? If not, Based Masem making a clear statement that "Guys, all you are doing is making yourselves into disruptive idiots" would go a long way to, if not stopping the biweekly incursion of sea lions, establishing your good faith as someone who is not actively enabling the pointless disruption. Although I do understand that making such a statement would turn you from a GG favorite into someone they consider a legitimate target for their next "operation" and understand why you might consider such an act something that you would not want to do. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 20:41, 9 June 2015 (UTC) edit conflict My understanding, which may be flawed, is that oversight is reserved for emergencies and egregious violations (such as today’s Brianna Wu situation, about which I contacted oversight earlier today) . These pages have been such a snarl that one often has to gauge whether an undoubted BLP violation rises to that level; perhaps I am too cautious about this, but I have been contacting admins interested in these pages rather than oversight for anything that I regard as "not an emergency" -- which is to say, anything which seems unlikely to incur charges of negligence if not removed in the shortest possible time. I did hope that some good would come of this section, some gesture of collegiality or at least of concern from the Gamergate crowd, something like what TRPoD suggests from each of Gamergate's fans might help. But that's not to be, it seems -- I second Strongjam in suggesting we close this and give up. MarkBernstein (talk) 20:51, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

Natalie Zed

http://www.vocativ.com/tech/internet/gamergate-newest-nemesis-phd-student-natalie-zed/ ForbiddenRocky (talk) 06:25, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

These Women Are Using Industry Discrimination To Change Tech

http://thinkprogress.org/culture/2015/06/05/3661042/women-using-gamergate-industry-discrimination-change-tech/

What's the RS status of thinkprogress.org? ForbiddenRocky (talk) 08:31, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

Relevant WP:RSN discussions:

• Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 153#thinkprogress.org as a generally accepted WP:RS
• Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 184#Cambridge University Press and Washington Post on Islamophobia in Steven Emerson article

— Strongjam (talk) 13:21, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. I did a quick check on thinkprogress in the GGC references and didn't see anything. ForbiddenRocky (talk) 16:05, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

My awful life inspired Law & Order, Gamergate dev says

http://www.cultofmac.com/325789/brianna-wu-gamergate-inspires-law-order/ Another one I'm not sure about RS. ForbiddenRocky (talk) 05:05, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

GamerGate's latest target is the most uplifting gaming documentary yet

http://www.pcauthority.com.au/Feature/405118,gamergates-latest-target-is-the-most-uplifting-gaming-documentary-yet.aspx ForbiddenRocky (talk) 05:07, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

Coke vs Pepsi

another repetitive thread without any realistic prospect of a consensus for change. Fut.Perf. ☼ 11:46, 11 June 2015 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
I'd like to use an analogy to demonstrate this point. Please bare with me for a moment. Say there is a controversy about whether Coke is better than Pepsi. And we created an article about it. The lede was two paragraphs. The first explaining why people feel Coke is better. The second explaining why people feel Pepsi is better. The only difference being that at the end of the paragraph explaining why Pepsi is better, a long sentence is added explaining how 9 different reputable publications feel that the claims that Pepsi is better are inaccurate. There is no sentence like this in the Coke paragraph. It is my opinion such a lede would not be neutral -- and it would be biased for Coke. This is exactly how this lede is worded. As such, it is my opinion that the last sentence of the second paragraph of the lede should be removed. Handpolk (talk) 06:00, 11 June 2015 (UTC) That's not how "neutral point of view" works. The sources are pretty clear: Gamergate isn't about ethics in journalism. You don't get to remove that.--Jorm (talk) 06:08, 11 June 2015 (UTC) Whatever your opinions on my proposed edit, I would caution you to improve your tone. Your edit summary of "Uh, no." combined with 'You don't get to remove that' indicate that you feel some authority or ownership here, when you have neither. You are one editor sharing their opinion and seeking to build consensus for that opinion. Nothing more. Handpolk (talk) 06:25, 11 June 2015 (UTC) The RS support the inclusion Jorm added back. Such removal would not reflect what the preponderance of RS are saying. So, no you don't get to remove that - because RS. ForbiddenRocky (talk) 09:08, 11 June 2015 (UTC) Correction, it is your opinion that RS supports the inclusion Jorm added back. Thank you for your opinion. However I also caution you against telling me what I do and do not get to do. You are one editor sharing their opinion. Nothing more. You have no authority or ownership over this article nor the consensus building process. Handpolk (talk) 10:49, 11 June 2015 (UTC) Hi Jorm, Core policy WP:NPOV clearly mentions both tone and structure; so achieving a "neutral point of view" is not just a matter of repeating what sources say, no matter how reliable we might consider them. W.r.t this particular point, the essay, WP:HOWEVER, also seems like it might be relevant. - Ryk72 'c.s.n.s.' 06:37, 11 June 2015 (UTC) Your analogy is worthless to this discussion, in my opinion, Handpolk, because truly independent reliable sources pay no attention whatsoever to whether Coke or Pepsi are "better" since there are no objective criteria to make such a judgment. On the other hand, we have ample reliable sources that evaluate the "Gamergate movement" and its claims. Accurately summarizing those sources is exactly what an encyclopedia article ought to do. We do not "repeat" sources, we summarize them. That is clear to experienced editors. So, if you truly believe that we have not accurately summarized the reliable sources, then please explain why, and be precise. This has all been discussed at great length previously, and experienced editors here yearn for new reasoning. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 06:42, 11 June 2015 (UTC) I disagree that my choosing a subjective example rather than an objective one makes the entire analogy worthless. The concept was simply "A vs B: A. B + criticisms." That structure is inherently biased and non-neutral. Handpolk (talk) 06:59, 11 June 2015 (UTC) RS guides what is presented. ForbiddenRocky (talk) 09:09, 11 June 2015 (UTC) The issue here is that there aren't 9 reputable publications that think Gamergate is better, but there ARE (at least) 9 that think the opposite. At most you have one that thinks it's ok but contains some misogynist ringleaders (Reason), one that thinks it would be ok if it ignored Zoe Quinn and focused solely on Gawker (Slate), and one that thinks it's not entirely crap but has little grasp of what it wants (Forbes). In these sorts of situations we really have to stick with the weight of sourced opinion. Bosstopher (talk) 06:44, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

Quick revert comment

On this revert I did [18] , I will note that the validity of these sources have been discussed on this talk page before, even if they aren't the highest RSes. Also, the removal of them was stated because they were duplicative, but duplicate sources are not a bad thing; in one case, the original Mary Sue article written by Wu was removed in favor of the Ars Tech article that summarized her comments, but there's absolutely nothing wrong with including both. --MASEM (t) 21:49, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

Has the reliablity of APGNation been discussed before? PeterTheFourth has made few or no other edits outside this topic. 21:56, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

The archive search shows it coming up several times, primarily because it is an interview with TFYC, and less trying to be a "factual" aspect. --MASEM (t) 22:09, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

To add, I'm not saying we can't rediscuss the reliability of these sources, but before they are removed from the article, that should be rechecked for each of the sources in question. --MASEM (t) 22:11, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

Phil Fish

I couldn't find any discussion about this in the archives. The article currently reads: "Among those singled out was fellow video game developer Phil Fish, who was hacked and doxed after he defended Quinn and referred to those attacking and harassing her as 'ball-less manboobs' and 'essentially rapists'; Paste magazine said that these 'were fairly common statements from the combative [Fish].'" Here are the references used: [19][20][21][22][23][24]. The references generally agree that Phil Fish was hacked after defending Zoe Quinn, but none of the contemporary articles ascribe the attack to Gamergate, probably because the name Gamergate was not attached to the movement until several days after Fish left the industry. Can we retroactively assign blame to a group that didn't even exist at that point? There were no "Gamergate supporters" when Fish was hacked. The Phil Fish incident might be more appropriate for the Phil Fish, Zoe Quinn, or 4chan articles, but unless there is a reliable source that clearly links the Gamergate movement to the hacking incident (the current articles do not) then I don't see a justification as to why it should be included. Either that, or we should rewrite the paragraph to clarify that the hacks occurred before Gamergate had a name, perhaps as part of the "background" to the creation of Gamergate. 4chan ≠ Gamergate, and Gamergate was not the sole perpetrator of harassment targeted at Zoe Quinn. ColorOfSuffering (talk) 00:15, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

Paragraph should probably be split up. The bit about Fish moved up a paragraph or two, and the bit explaining the use of "white knight" and "SJW" somewhere else. — Strongjam (talk) 00:51, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

Agreed. It's fairly obvious the harassment/hacking is related, but the timeline is a bit off. I'm done editing for the day, but if someone else wants to take a shot at it then be my guest. ColorOfSuffering (talk) 01:02, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

I am pretty confident that there is zero OR to take, for example, "Fez developer Polytron hacked in ongoing game developer harassment effort" from Kotaku on Aug 22 to consider Fish's harassment part of GG even though the term hadn't been developed. In the hacked info from Polytron, the hackers used a term associated with Quinn specifically coming from Gjoni's post (no need to repeat here). And while Fish might have existed before GG started, his connection to trying to defend Quinn after Gjoni's post is still a sign of what the harassment became. --MASEM (t) 01:33, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

I don't think it's a big deal, I just think we can do a better job of the organization of it here. It's definitely all part of the same controversy. — Strongjam (talk) 01:54, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

"virulent and often misogynistic harassment campaign"

From the history section "After the blog post, Quinn and her family were subjected to a virulent and often misogynistic harassment campaign. Commentators both in and outside the video game industry condemned the unfounded attacks against Quinn" -- "virulent and often misogynistic harassment campaign" is not anywhere in the sources. The word virulent never appears and the word misogynistic does not appear in this context. With enough written about this in the sources, I think we can reasonably ask for editors to not be phrasing things in their own words and just stick to what is in the sources, no? Handpolk (talk) 09:23, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

No. "Phrasing things in their own words" is exactly what Wikipedia editors are expected to do. It's a process called "writing", which is what we are doing here. If you have some point to make that what Quinn experienced was not a virulent campaign, you can make it; otherwise this thread is closed and doesn't deserve any more discussion. Fut.Perf. ☼ 09:50, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

It's only necessary to use our own words for the purposes of brevity or when words that describe the same thing are not in the source. When we go against the source and say something else entirely, which the source does not support, that is not encyclopedic, it is editorializing. "what Quinn experienced was not a virulent campaign" -- according to the sources, it was not. My opinion is not relevant. Handpolk (talk) 11:04, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

Take your [www.diplomaticourier.com/news/topics/security/2499-when-the-internet-breeds-hate choice] . Or we can use torrent or vicious or aggressive -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 11:27, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

As long as it's in the source you can use whatever you like. The sources are already editorialized, we don't need to move even further away from what actually happened by editorializing ourselves. Handpolk (talk) 11:36, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

Are you really so unfamiliar with the subject that you were unaware of the fact that there was indeed a plethora of sources describing the attack in terms similar to the phrasing of which you objected so that we need to start addressing your understanding of the topic at baseline zero or were you merely being "purely neutral"? -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 11:42, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

My understanding of the topic is at 'baseline zero.' That's not a bug, it's a feature. I care about the encyclopedia, not this controversy. If you include a source at the end of that section that backs up "virulent and often misogynistic harassment campaign" I think the encyclopedia would be improved. Handpolk (talk) 12:10, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

Well, then as the FAQ's suggest, and I will repeat the suggestion, that you take a few moments and read through some of the multiple pages of archives to bring yourself up to basic familiarity. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 12:16, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

This has been resolved to my satisfaction with the new sources. "misogynistic" is not directly stated in that way but it was used twice generally in a way that is close enough for me. Thank you Future_Perfect_at_Sunrise for not following through on your threat of hatting this discussion before we could improve the encyclopedia. And thank you TRPoD for finding sources to verify that sentence. Handpolk (talk) 12:52, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

Now it's been changed and I disagree very strongly. It's attributing "virulent and often misogynistic harassment campaign" to the Washington Post, a very reputable publication, when that isn't even close to what the Washington Post says. That sentence needs to be backed up by sources. At the end of the sentence. Handpolk (talk) 16:00, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

The Washington Post’s lede reads, "Rape threats. A hacking attempt on her Web site. The online publication of personal information, including her phone number and home address. Countless comments on her Tumblr calling her a “slut” and worse, including one that read: “Are you reading this? Of course you are. I will kill you.” It strikes me that "virulent and misogynistic" is a reasonable and even rather mild characterization. The article continues, "The post sparked a virulent campaign against Quinn." Misogyny? This writer uses "sexist" in its place: “Sexism in gaming is a long-documented, much-debated but seemingly intractable problem. It’s also the crux of the industry’s biggest ongoing battle being waged on Twitter under the hashtag “#GamerGate.””

This sort of last-ditch hair-splitting was responsible for the originally lost reference. Now it's back. Do you really want to argue about sexism vs misogyny here? We can spend a few thousand words discussing that if you like, with the possible (though unlikely) result that we change misogyny to sexist here ( but not elsewhere, as the misogyny of Gamergate is very well attested in the sources. MarkBernstein (talk) 16:15, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

Taking the WaPost lede as quoted above and coming out with "virulent and often misogynistic harassment campaign" is original research/synthesis. We can pull "harassment" from that, but we should never try to characterize a source with subjective and/or controversial adjectives/adverbs like "virulent" and "misogynistic" when they aren't stated. Mind you, I'm 99% sure we can find one or more sources to support the statement "virulent and often misogynistic harassment campaign", it's just that the WaPost source alone isn't sufficient for that. --MASEM (t) 16:26, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

That's why I put virulent in quotes; it's directly from the WaPo article. Also, I'm a bit concerned about the nybooks.com source because it uses the exact same word, virulent, which makes me concerned it took that word from this very article. That's why I removed it as a source. —Torchiest ^talk_edits 16:35, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, if it's in the body of the WaPost, that's fine and quoting it helps, and I'd agree the NYbooks source is likely borrowing the language. --MASEM (t) 16:39, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

Absolutely not. The intent here is to insert quotation marks which readers will mistake for scare quotes, or at least as an indication that virulence is a personal opinion. It is in fact used in the news coverage of bother sources. One uses "misyogynistic" and the other uses "sexist". If the Gamergate fans prefer, we could reword to say "virulent, sexist, and misogynistic" using the language of bother sources, but I think that's redundant. We have plenty of reliable sources attesting to the virulence and misogyny; this is simply an attempt to dredge up this question one more time. MarkBernstein (talk) 16:46, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

Oh -- and for those of you who are (apparently) unfamiliar with The New York Review Of Books, it is among the most highly respected and influential journals of letters published today, The likelihood that Michael Massing -- former executive editor of the Columbia Journalism Review -- borrowed "virulence" improperly or thoughtlessly from the Washington Post is risible, both on its face and because, if you read the article, you'll see he uses it for a rather nice echo (toxicity) in the following paragraph. MarkBernstein (talk) 16:51, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

I don't think it's necessary to reword anything, just properly source it. Right now it's implied the WashingtonPost said that and they did not. Also I brought this up and I am not a 'gamergate fan' -- in fact, I consider that a personal attack and an unfounded accusation. I demand that you retract that, apologize and not make future personal attacks or accusations like that or similar to that. Handpolk (talk) 16:55, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

We do need to be careful if we are picking subjective terms from sources and speaking them in WP's voice. There's clearly no issue with pulling "misogyny" (and variants) from sources and stating that without attribution/quotes - nearly every mainstream press reporting on GG uses the term. "Virulent" is a bit less used (and when used, it sometimes used to refer to the actions of Gjoni or other individual actors but not to the harassment/supporters), but I can find at least two sources (WaPost and Wired) that use it to describe the harassment that way, so as long as both of these are sourced, that's fine. But if at the end of the day there was only one source that used the word "virulent" in describing the harassment, that would definitely be a case of quoting the singular source or making sure the word was attributed in prose. --MASEM (t) 16:58, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

{ping|MarkBernstein} Please tone down the nastiness and bad faith assumptions. I explained my reasoning; it's as simple as that. —Torchiest ^talk_edits 17:05, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

We are asked (again and again) to discuss the word "virulent" by perfectly neutral people of good faith who just happen to ask about this at frequent intervals, and who are (of course) completely unaware of the boards urging precisely this sort of time-wasting and repetitious stonewalling, and who have not troubled to review the archives or even to read the references. It's so much easier to suggest that a former editor of the Columbia Journalism Review plagiarized a newspaper in the New York Review of Books.

We've got the word "virulent" itself (so far) in The Washington Post, Wired [25], and The New York Review Of Books. You know this. So what can you mean when you write “if at the end of the day there was only one source that used the word virulent? ”

In case we want to delve further, here is some more “virulence” in Gamergate: Journal Of Gender, Race, and Justice, Feministing, Slice, Geek Feminism, Vox, The Guardian Online, Daily Dot, Forbes.

Is that enough for you? Would you like more?

Come now. Assume Good Faith is not a suicide pact. Why are you all continuing to waste the valuable time of your colleagues and the patience of the project? MarkBernstein (talk) 17:17, 12 June 2015 (UTC)