User:JohnWittle/GG Explanation

Gamergate controversy and You

There are many events, facts, accusations, disturbing implications, etc surrounding the 'Gamergate' and 'Zoe Quinn' controversies. If you're reading this page, it's assumed that you are an intelligent EDer/channer/guy who stumbled upon thezoepost, ED's gamergate article, or some similarly damning publication. You came to the Wikipedia article for some reason or another, only to find that the SJWs had already completely seized control of the article, with next to nothing about the rampant corruption in VG journalism and a whole lot of detail about the people prank phone calling Zoe.

You may or may not be aware that there was an Arbcom case surrounding this controversy, and that ArbCom came down hard on everyone involved, on both sides. As such, there is somewhat of a vacuum, with the ArbCom urging new, neutral editors to review the article now that all of the old editors have been either site- or topic-banned. Perhaps this is what inspired you to edit Gamergate controversy; just doing your duty and answering ArbCom's call.

Be warned! You might be banned without warning, and then have your appeal denied without warning! A friend of mine went onto the GG talk page and essentially asked, "Why is this article so ridiculously pro-SJW?" He had, before this comment, been an upstanding member of Wikipedia, averaging a couple edits a year, almost all corrections of Jap->Eng translation. After he posted a couple messages on Talk:Gamergate controversy, he went back to fixing translation issues. However, since he edited Talk:Gamergate controversy, and since one of the editors from the ArbCom case had also been editing the japanese-related page (I assume he found it while looking through the ArbCom case, particularly editors' contribution pages), he was immediately site-banned. Other editors, both legitimate Wikipedians and obvious *chan meatpuppets, expressed mild outrage [1] over this. Maybe he was right, maybe he was wrong (I personally think he was being an idiot), but it just goes to show: you have to act like, you know, a real human being. If you try to be ever-so-slightly disruptive, they will ban you. This is how it should be.

Tactics usually used by channers won't work here. Wikipedia is serious business. If you intend to contribute to the Gamergate controversy article, you have to do it above board.

Now, let's get into the actual issue. There's a discrete set of facts/events that each new anti-SJW person wants to add to the article. Things like Zoe Quinn's sleeping with journalists to get good reviews, or the fucked up shit she did with the charity, or the ridiculous bullshit she pulled with her exbf while all this was going on.

Kotaku's Positive Review of DepressionQuest

You and I both know there's something fishy with