Talk:Gamergate (harassment campaign): Difference between revisions

Sanctions enforcement

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

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

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

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

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

As you will see if you open this thread, it has been shown, and not disputed, that the expressed grounds for closing and hiding this thread ("Closing this discussion because it has zero to do about article content and has become a way for editors to pontificate or use as a proxy battle. If you want a discussion to remain open, then participate in that discussion in a productive way") are invalid. As if that were not enough to justify my reopening and showing the thread, neither do these grounds contain reference to any policy. Therefore, I will open it again.

The last time I did this, it was mentioned on my talk page and in the revert edit summary that there are some other, valid grounds that are the real grounds upon which this post was closed and hidden, not the one being invoked above. Therefore, if you, as I expect, plan to close and hide this thread once again, do so under those supposedly valid grounds or some other valid grounds, and contain a valid reference to policy, but do not simply revert to these same policy-referent-linkless-repeadedly-shown-to-be-and-so-far-indisputedly invalid grounds again.

I will wait an appropriate amount of time before showing and re-opening this thread to hear out anyone who would like to urge me not to. Chrisrus (talk) 04:06, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

Would you stop it already? WP:TE ForbiddenRocky (talk) 10:01, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

Will you all restore proper talk page procedure? Chrisrus (talk) 11:15, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

re: procedure. This section was hatted by an admin, with explanatory comment. That is to say an admin agrees that hatting this meta-discussion is ok. I suspect the main reason more admin action hasn't happened is that that admin is away for a few more days. ForbiddenRocky (talk) 15:58, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

You have not disputed that the grounds upon which it was closed were invalid and lacking reference to policy, but seem to be saying that, because it was closed and hidden by an admin, I should not show and reopen this thread because it was hidden and closed by an admin. Therefore, you seem to be saying that, on Wikipedia, admins are allowed to close threads for invalid grounds and without reference to policy. Is that correct? Chrisrus (talk) 04:25, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

In what sense are the grounds for closing this conversation "invalid?" I don't understand your claim here. Dumuzid (talk) 04:51, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

If the thread weren't hidden, your answer would be visible. I will cut-and=paste the previous answer from inside the hidden portion of this thread here below, but most importantly, it was closed and hidden with no reference to policy, no link to a rule or guideline. Here is the entire explanation for the invalidity of the given justification for closing and hiding this thread, cut-and-pasted from above:

Once again, this thread has been closed and hidden on no valid grounds. This time, however, neither was it closed and hidden with any reference to any guideline or rule. Therefore, I will open it again after an appropriate amount of time.

First, this thread was closed and hidden without any reference to any guideline, rule, or long-standing wide-spread practice supporting the closing or the hiding or this thread. For this reason alone, I plan to open and show it once again as soon as appropriate.

Second, this thread was closed and hidden "...because it has zero to do about article content..." Again, here on Wikipedia, article talk page management discussions about a specific article's supporting talk page occur on that talk page and this is on topic. This is the proper place for discussion of how this talk page, which supports this article, has been and/or should deal with common thread types. Article talk pages are the place such "meta-talk page" discussions occur all over Wikipedia. For example, discussion of changes or additions to the FAQs may occur here, even though FAQs only appear on the article's supporting talk page. Therefore, this discussion is on-topic and so this justification for closing and hiding the thread is invalid and also for this reason I plan to undo that as soon as appropriate.

Second, the thread was closed and hidden on the grounds that it "has become a way for editors to pontificate". It is not at all clear what this means in this context, so as clear grounds should accompany closing and hiding threads, I'll be justified in showing and opening it again. However, "to pontificate" in this case seems to mean "to express your opinion about something in a way that shows that you think you are right and others wrong about something." Or perhaps "pontificate" means "to embarrass others by civilly presenting a clear argument with valid evidence and good reasoning, and proper rhetoric" and just doing everything exactly as we are supposed to. But that is exactly what should be done on Wikipedia in such contexts, so the accusation is of doing everything right, but making others defensive and upset by doing so. There is nothing in these words that should stop anyone from showing and opening the discussion again.

Third, this thread was closed and hidden on the grounds that it has become a way for unspecified editors "to carry on a proxy battle". Again, it is not at all clear what this means in this context, so as it is wrong to close and hide threads without giving a clear reason, I will re-open it as soon as appropriate. However, it would seem the editor is of the belief that those editors arguing for a return to standard hatting practice are part of some conspiracy or something. This is not true, at least in my case, as I am a proxy of no one but myself. However, although the burden of proof for such an accusation lies with he who makes it, I can assure you there will be none forthcoming as it's completely false and is a violation of WP:ASSUMEGOODFAITH. Threads closed and hidden on grounds that violate WP:ASSUMEGOODFAITH, should be reopened and shown.

After I open and show this thread again, please don't undo it without replying substantively to these points here first.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Chrisrus (talk • contribs) 13:04, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

Look, if you're just going to come here and demand that threads be opened at your say so we should go to AE now and avoid the headache. It's not like there isn't precedent for this. Talk:Depictions of Muhammad and Talk:Muhammad both have pretty ingrained practices of closing threads and referring people to the FAQ on questions about depictions of Muhammad in the article. Same thing with plenty of other articles which face these kinds of exigencies. Take a moment and assume good faith from your fellow editors dealing with the bullshit on this talk page for months. Maybe when they talk about carrying on a proxy battle instead of just throwing up your hands and assuming it's bullshit, read the talk page archives or the ArbCom decision or the fucking KiA threads about this page and editors on it. Or go and look at what happens to the talk page when it isn't semi-protected. Or just conduct any investigation of what is happening here instead of barging in here and announcing your priors. Protonk (talk) 14:30, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

Apologies for the interruption... While I sense the frustration & empathize with the comments above, I firmly believe that a core principle of Wikipedia is reaching consensus through discussion. I do not agree that involved editors closing discussions facilitates consensus; rather, I believe that it works directly to prevent it.

The guidelines at WP:TALK clearly & expressly prohibit involved editors from closing discussions; these guidelines represent long standing community consensus. This is further reinforced by the explanatory notes for each of the methods which have been used (Template:collapse,Template:archive top,Template:hidden archive top). These state that they should not be used by involved editors to close discussions, and should not be used over the objections of other editors.

We clearly have cases where they are being used both by involved editors, and over the objections of others.

W.r.t the thought that editors wishing to re-open closed threads should apply at WP:AE, I respectfully suggest that the polarity of this is incorrect. Policy, guidelines & long standing community consensus, and the core principles of how we build an encyclopedia are clear - we build consensus through discussion. If editors wish to prevent discussion, it is they who should apply at WP:AE, articulating clear reasons as to why normal processes should not be followed.

There has been some suggestion that this is a case for WP:IAR; similarly, if editors believe this is the case, they should provide clear reasoning as to why & how preventing discussion improves the encyclopedia.

In the interests of allowing the community here to focus on discussion of & improvements to the article, it is my intention to raise this question at WP:ARCA in the next day or so. I will update with a link once I have done so, and invite you each to comment there. - Ryk72 ^'c.s.n.s.' 15:00, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

Look, I don't want to be glib, but this isn't a case where there's one core principle against nothing. We're all having this discussion because core principles are in conflict with each other. So it doesn't really add anything to pull one policy off the shelf and wave it about. If that solved the discussion, we'd be done. Invoking IAR here is pretty simple. It means we know we have conflicting advice from the community and rather than conduct a rarefied debate over which interpretation is the most textually correct we should do something that speaks to the practical problem at hand. The entire point about IAR is to avoid that discussion--because it is useless. And it's meaningless! What's the benefit of arguing over who has the most rule-compliant interpretation of "ignore all rules"? Protonk (talk) 15:06, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

@Chrisrus: I am quite capable of opening closed discussions to see what occurred therein. And I am still confused. I asked on what grounds the closing was invalid, and you pasted a wall of text saying the closing was invalid. Restating a conclusory statement is not supplying a rationale. Where does it say a topic closing must come with a reference to policy? Where is the enumerated list of valid reasons for topic closing? Why have the closing function (and not simply the archive function)? Uninvolved administrators may close discussions, correct? Do you agree that Gamaliel is an uninvolved administrator? This entire conversation seems to me like it would be better had elsewhere, rather than a topic talk page. Dumuzid (talk) 15:22, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

@Protonk: There is no precedent for closing and hiding threads in this way on Talk:Depictions of Muhammad or Talk:Muhammad. Checking those two talk pages found no hidden threads on either of them. Furthermore, not one hidden threads was found anywhere in the archives of Talk:Depictions of Muhammad. Now, admittedly, I did not go through and checked all of the archives of Talk:Muhammad for hidden threads, but I have checked the first ten archives pages and found no hidden threads.

I am very sorry that my "priors" are feeling so emotional at having to deal with so many threads saying little more than "This article seems biased! Please re-write it so that it takes a more neutral point of view", and can imagine how that might lead the to become emotional and impatient and to treat this talk page differently than the rest and close and hide such threads. This is understandable and you have my sympathies.

However, closing and hiding such threads for that reason is not logical, because it does not reduce the chances of another such thread being posted by some other reader tomorrow. Rather, it increases it, because while such threads are visible, people tempted to post such a thread can read them and get their answer that way, so this reason for hiding them does nothing toward alleviating the "problem." Therefore the frustration of my "priors" is no reason for them to close and hide such threads.

Instead, simply ignore them, and they will eventually age off into the archives. Or, direct them to F.A.Q.s, give them an appropriate stock answer or politely explain at length if you you would like to the situation. It's up to you. But do not close and hide such threads because that is not how we treat reader feedback on talk pages on Wikipedia, for important reasons. Chrisrus (talk) 19:23, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

@Dumuzid: We have the ability to close threads for several reasons. For example, requests for comment may stay open for a while but need to be closed to indicate that the comment period is no longer open. These are not hidden, however. The ability to not only close but also hide threads exists for such serious things as serious BLP-type violations, things that could harm people if read by talk page readers. The ability to close and hide threads is used very sparingly because we are not in the business of hiding things. It is not to be used because we are sick of threads that consist of reader feedback that isn't very good or helpful or because it's already been dealt with countless times before and we've just about had it, or because the reader should have just read the FAQs. That kind of thing we leave easily visible until they eventually age off into the archives. Chrisrus (talk) 19:23, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

@Chrisrus: I will not prolong this, but perhaps you are familiar with the term Ipse dixit? Dumuzid (talk) 19:37, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

All one has to do is read the "(and the Topic original can go archive)" section of this header to realise what a complete waste of time this discussion is. Chisrus doesnt seem to believe anything of value was lost by hatting this section, or else he would have discussed the points it raised instead of letting it archive. This is just a pointless argument over idealistic hypotheticals that will only serve to generate heat on the talk page (which is coincidentally what usually emerges when the sort of section usually hatted is left unhatted for a long period of time).Bosstopher (talk) 15:36, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

At this point this discussion is not about GGC. Could you please move it somewhere else? ForbiddenRocky (talk) 17:31, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

@Bosstopher: The thing of value that was lost in closing and hiding that thread was proper treatment of reader feedback, i.e.: communication, courtesy and consideration. Chrisrus (talk) 19:39, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

@ForbiddenRocky: Meta talk page discussions, i.e.: discussions about the talk pages supporting articles, belong on the talk page in question. Otherwise, discussions of such things as what projects the talk page should feature, would not belong on that page. Talk pages do not have talk pages of their own, so there is no better place. Chrisrus (talk) 19:39, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

@Chrisrus: You've been repeatedly told in response to this sentiment to take the matter to ANI or AE if it's so wildly important. Please stop preventing this from being archived by constantly disrupting it and take it to either of those pages, so you can realize that uninvolved editors would tell you the exact same thing everyone here is telling you. Continuing to do this here instead of the proper venues is just hollering from the roof of the Reichstag. Parabolist (talk) 21:22, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

This is a meta-discussion. It doesn't belong here. The original topic archived. ForbiddenRocky (talk) 04:08, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

A Counterpoint to Newsweek's View of Gamergate

I would like to suggest adding next to "Newsweek concluded that it was primarily about harassment rather than ethics....", located under the section "Debate over Ethics Allegations" this counterpoint from David Auerbach.

http://www.slate.com/articles/technology/bitwise/2015/05/google_searches_and_racism_why_big_data_studies_don_t_explain_society_as.2.html

David Auerbach: "None of the big-data analyses of Gamergate showed much of anything about harassment despite attempts on both sides to spin the results. Newsweek’s Taylor Wofford claimed that a Brandwatch study of Gamergate tweets showed that Gamergate was mostly about harassment, except that Brandwatch’s classifier wasn’t able to determine whether 90 percent of the tweets were positive or negative. The study showed nothing, but Newsweek wrote it up anyway."

Ylevental (talk) 05:22, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

If you'd like to include that, you're free to add it yourself, Wikipedia being the encyclopedia anyone can edit and all. PeterTheFourth (talk) 05:35, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

Ok, I included it. Ylevental (talk) 05:43, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

I'm not so sure. Slate says one thing ("[t]he study showed nothing"), while the clear majority of sources (Newsweek, Brandwatch, Andy Baio, Venturebeat, etc.) say the opposite. Giving Slate a greater (or even equal) number of sentences is absolutely undue. (The balance isn't so extreme to exclude Slate entirely, so one sentence is probably fair.) Beyond that, the actual experts in sentiment analysis—Brandwatch and, by extension, Newsweek, since they commissioned the report—are clear that the tweets were about harassment. Unless Auerbach is also an expert in sentiment analysis, we shouldn't present his opinion as if he were. (If he is an expert, that's something we need to state.) And that's where it gets tricky: how do we balance the minority opinion of a (possible) non-expert against the majority opinion of experts who actually ran the study? (Redacted) Right now, I'm of the opinion that we should remove the Slate source, because the only other option is to give a very short summary of Auerbach's opinion and to make clear that it's the opinion of a non-expert. And I don't think that's a good option at all. Of course, just my $0.02. Woodroar (talk) 06:38, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

Auerbach seems to have written a few anti sentiment analysis articles in the past,[1] [2] so it's clearly an area he's interested in but I'm not sure if he's an expert or not. I'm going to ask him on his talk page and see if he gives an answer. Bosstopher (talk) 07:39, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

Not for nothing, but this editor appears to have been involved in trying to perpetrate a hoax on Wikipedia in the very recent past (they created an article for Dixon D. White and then bragged about how stupid Wikipedia was for accepting it on reddit ([3]). They're following the standard pattern of "make enough edits for autoconfirmed and then dive right in". Accordingly, I'm reverting their changes in order for a greater discussion.--Jorm (talk) 08:10, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

In case this isn't clear to other people, when someone creates a page specifically to fuck with the movement ('I tricked SJWikipedia into creating an article for "Dixon White"') and is proud of it and claims the falsehood ('I know that Wikipedia is really leftist so I wanted to see if Wikipedia editors would fall for the hoax. Anything makes it on Wikipedia if you use "approved" sources, which means if those sources lie, then that lie is going on Wikipedia. They almost 100% did (but found out his name was a pseudonym).'), then I don't think it's possible for us to trust that any edit they make in the future is "good faith".--Jorm (talk) 08:14, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

I hope that in this case though, we can set aside differences for the moment, as I genuinely believe that Auerbach's opinion might be worthy of inclusion. Ylevental (talk) 08:29, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

On inspection, I'm not sure Auerbach's opinion is notable enough for inclusion- he's not really a big name in data, making his opinion like that of any other random person. PeterTheFourth (talk) 09:29, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

However, Taylor Wofford of Newsweek also isn't a big name in data. And even he says in his original article "The discrepancies there seem to suggest GamerGaters cares less about ethics and more about harassing women." Also, it would be a good idea to mention that most of the tweets are neutral. Ylevental (talk) 09:49, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

That would be misleading. Those classified as 'neutral' were just tweets that the algorithm couldn't identify as being positive or negative. Of those that could be, the overwhelming majority were negative. PeterTheFourth (talk) 09:59, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

I guess it's alright for now, but we need to see if Auerbach's opinion counts or not for sure. Maybe find another data expert to talk about it. Ylevental (talk) 10:17, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

(Redacted) If he's included, we also need to note the overwhelming weight of sources that disagree -- starting with the Columbia Journalism Review and proceeding through the rest of the world's press. WP:DUE and common sense suggest that we need not discuss each WP:FRINGE opinion. Furthermore, the actual wording of the proposed edit is wildly unencyclopedic and inappropriate, even after the editor had been made aware that their previous bad behavior on Wikipedia had been noted and requested good faith. (Redacted) MarkBernstein (talk) 13:44, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

If we are specifically talking about the criticism or commentary on the Newsweek/Brandwatch study (and not just rote repetition), there's not that many POVs either side to start with. The Newsweek piece is repeated but without commentary about the method/analysis in many sources (for example: [4], [5]), but where there is actual discussion of whether this is good data or bad data or something else, there's little - there's the Slate piece, there's this: [6] (which agrees with the results though states the conclusion may be overreaching), and then I'm sure a handful more; so including Auerbach's opinion would not be FRINGE on that aspect.
That said, I don't think we need to include any analysis on the Newsweek study outside of simply making sure it and the conclusions were attributed properly to them; the criticism or commentary on the methods is an issue all to itself that would weight down the GG at this point. Separately, I am seeing a trend about the media's treatment of GG coverage as a potential future section from a few more recent sources, which Auerbach's bit would be a part of, but this concept is far far far from having any sufficient weight in good RSes to suggest inclusion at this point. --MASEM (t) 13:56, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

Then just drop it. Wofford isn't a data expert, but Auerbach is. Ylevental (talk) 18:15, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

I'm not sure about how to phrase the counterpoint, but I think there are enough sources (including an SPS which might be useful, Brian Keegan's post on the subject) to qualify the assertion. I'm perfectly ok with stating (as we do) that Newsweek and Brandwatch conducted the student, reporting some of the results and noting that there was some pushback against the study. The clearer we can be with the reader the better. We want to state the main objections tersely and in such a way that they're not vague "so and so had a problem" but specifically "this was so and so's problem". Protonk (talk) 14:21, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

Isn't Auerbach a primary source in this regard? ForbiddenRocky (talk) 17:54, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

He wasn't involved in performing the study, so no, his comments on the study are secondary. --MASEM (t) 18:55, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

I was referring to his notions WRT his conclusions re big data. ForbiddenRocky (talk) 07:35, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

If the topic was "Auerbach's opinion of big data" yes, it would be primary. But if we're talking "big data" in general, he remains secondary, commentating on skewing of big data to make points. --MASEM (t) 18:45, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, that's what he's doing. "Studies that explain systemic racism using Google searches are fascinating. Don’t trust them." ForbiddenRocky (talk) 20:04, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

That's his opinion on the topic of big data, and thus a secondary source for the topic of big data, since he is otherwise not connected to the topic directly and offering a transformative take on it. --MASEM (t) 21:37, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

That is his OR on big data. ForbiddenRocky (talk) 18:09, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

Our sources are allowed to do OR, that's why we have them. Seriously though I'm not sure what the big deal is about. We can cite his opinion on the study, he's published in an RS, and that's all that really matters. We just need to be careful of due/undue weight. — Strongjam (talk) 18:23, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

Someone else's original research on a topic is a transformative nature, and thus is automatically secondary instead of primary. Now questions on expert-ness (a known journalist vs a random forum poster), relevance, and weight all apply to whether inclusion is appropriate, but no question at all this is a proper secondary source. --MASEM (t) 18:40, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

Auerbach's response regarding expertise

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

---

I asked Auerbach on his talk page for information WRT any possible expertise in the area. His response was this:

I have a degree in computer science and worked in big data at Google for 5 years, have worked on IETF RFCs, and have a bunch of software patents to my name. I've worked with sentiment analysis design and code--which is how I know it's mostly garbage. Bernstein's claims about me are incorrect and he has criticized me in the past. (I in turn have criticized his company Eastgate's work in the past, though I was not aware of him at the time.) What I wrote is patently true--not that that counts, I suppose. Have fun arguing. Auerbachkeller (talk) 16:57, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

I'd comment but I urgently have to go consume my own body weight in free alcohol. I'll leave this for everyone else to discuss. Bosstopher (talk) 17:16, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

Sounds pretty experienced to me. Ylevental (talk) 18:13, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

(Redacted) I'm far from convinced that the paragraph adds anything significant: we have two studies which we use to report facts that surprise no one (i.e. that Gamergate has been contentious). Why not simply drop the paragraph? MarkBernstein (talk) 18:34, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

(Redacted) If the data is useless however, maybe drop it altogether. Ylevental (talk) 19:00, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

(Redacted) MarkBernstein (talk) 19:32, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

(Redacted) Ylevental (talk) 19:49, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

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

Removing the estimated GG size statement from CRJ

In 2 edits prior to this [7] Mark B. removed the Newsweek statement and the Baio article - both that were statistical analysis of the tweets - which is based on the above discussion and partially I agree with in that because the stats are fuzzy, they don't help that much. But this also removed the statement from CRJ that estimates the size of the GG userbase from the KIA subscription number. I restored just that part of Mark's edit (as Mark's change did not comment on this data piece), but Peter then removed it in the diff above. Arguably it is only a measure of participation at one forum, but it is also much less fuzzy of a stat. It also gives a magnitude of how many people are actually "involved" in the GG side, which is a completely objective piece of data that we should be including simply to give the reader how big this might be; the fact its only 10,000-some people then shows it how minor a point it might be as if it were 100,000 ppl (a more respectable fraction of gamers), or maybe just 1,000 ppl (a extreme minority). I see no reason this number from CRJ should not be included to keep some type of objective discussion of the nature of the GG side in place. --MASEM (t) 21:42, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

Mostly I agree with removing it simply because it's such a meaningless statistic. I know I've heard far larger and far smaller estimates for the size of GG's supporters, and I'm not sure the number of subscribers to a subreddit (especially such an outdated statistic) is meaningful re:support size. PeterTheFourth (talk) 22:33, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

CRJ, a highly RS, thought it was, and it is the only established estimate that we can actually source. We do need to include the time frame because yes, it is outdated, but it was also near the height of when the harassment aspects were in full force, and thus probably the most significant point in time. --MASEM (t) 22:52, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

I agree with User:Masem that the date is less important than that it was near the peak (but "near peak" is not RS'd FWIW). But I agree with User:PeterTheFourth it's so vague as to be meaningless. However, a good RS'd number or perhaps a collection of estimates might be encyclopedic to give a reader a sense of the scope. BTW, 100,000 gamers is not really a respectable fraction of gamers, but as a raw count of people it's large enough to crush a three or four people. ForbiddenRocky (talk) 15:54, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

I feel though that establishing a rough order of magnitude helps to understand the possible scale here, particularly coupled with the million tweets thing. It is obviously original research to say this, but it would be far different if it were 100-1000 ppl contributing to a million tweets (a fanatical , perhaps obsessive level) compared to 10,000 ppl compared to 100,000 ppl (some disinterested level). As long as it is being stated from an RS that this is roughly the size of the group we're talking about, its a fair estimate even with all the caveats on the estimate's strength we have to include. (In face, Deadspin's comment "In terms of actual, demonstrated public interest, this isn't even a tempest in a teapot. What it lacks in scale, though, it more than makes up for in volume." is the type of thing it would be nice to document in terms of criticism of the unorganized/anonymous factors of GG, that its a small number making a of noise). --MASEM (t) 17:43, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

I've tweaked the wording. CJR did not estimate anything, they just said the # is unclear and pointed to the Deadspin article. I'm assuming they were looking at KotakuInAction subscriber counts, but both CJR and Deadspin fail to say what subreddit they were polling so I just went with the wording from the source we cite. — Strongjam (talk) 16:15, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

I could have sworn they mentioned the KIA board but you're right on review (KIA is mentioned in the article but not specific to the count). --MASEM (t) 17:43, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

Let's come to a decision already

The editors here say that we needed to check Auerbach's reliability, but didn't say the same about Wofford. I would like to keep out questionable data, no matter how reliable the source is. Ylevental (talk) 13:12, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

With all due respect, this strikes me as a call for original research, and a bit of WP:VNT. And even then, the question would seem to me to be less about Wofford than about Brandwatch, who according to the article did the analysis reported. While noting Mr. Auerbach's criticism is appropriate, I don't think it can be used to exclude the Newsweek information. Dumuzid (talk) 13:38, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

My dearest apologies. I read the Newsweek article more carefully and it references the harassment with regards to the targets, not whether the tweets are positive or negative. However, the article says "The discrepancies there seem to suggest GamerGaters cares less about ethics and more about harassing women." so let's reword it accordingly. Ylevental (talk) 13:56, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

I reworded the quote to represent the "suggestion" nature of the source. Dumuzid (talk) 14:20, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. Ylevental (talk) 14:22, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

Venture Beat on GamerGate effect

http://venturebeat.com/2015/05/06/gamergates-positive-effect-were-now-talking-about-diversity/ ForbiddenRocky (talk) 23:11, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

Other news while I'm at it:

• http://www.salon.com/2015/05/09/were_all_trolls_now_how_the_internet_lost_its_prankster_lulz_and_found_its_ideological_rage/ ForbiddenRocky (talk) 09:01, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

First paragraph of "Subsequent Harassment"

How much of the harassment described is gamergate-related? I can't find any evidence that gamergate was involved in any incident in the first paragraph via Sarkeesian, but correct me if I'm wrong.

Also, sources 40 and 41 are from 2012, two years before gamergate. Ylevental (talk) 18:18, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

• [8] gives the connection. --MASEM (t) 18:27, 13 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Further, to add, even if the harassment then did not directly tie to GG, it has been since established she is a target of GG at about that time. --MASEM (t) 18:29, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

When I do a search for the term "gamergate" in the article, I only find one instance, and it relates to the harassment of Zoe Quinn. The first sentence after the description of Quinn's harassment states "When Sarkeesian released a new trope video in the weeks after the Quinn incident, the threats against Sarkeesian escalated yet again." But it doesn't officially establish her harassment as a result of gamergate -- I presume that it is vague by Wikipedia policy. Most of the article is about Sarkeesian.

Also, is there a reliable source that officially establishes her as a target of gamergate at this time? Ylevental (talk) 18:38, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

Irregardless of where the threats to Sarkeesian came from specifically as a result of that Tropes vs Women video in August - even if they are not specifically attributed to GG, the combined effect between what was happening to Quinn and others have caused the press to consider the harassment against Sarkeesian to be grouped into the same harassment of Quinn. And then given after the fact she was discussed on GG twitters (per the Newsweek/Brandwatch survey's raw data), it's very hard to make the distinguishing point where harassment towards Sarkeesian was from non-GG and then from GG point. And yes, she's considered a target of GG now per [9] and many many others. --MASEM (t) 18:51, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

The Guardian also points to her being a target of Gamergate harassment: "As well as persistent low-level harassment for the past two years, the attacks stepped up a notch in August 2014 when Sarkeesian was identified as one of the key targets of “#gamergate”. Ostensibly a campaign against corruption in journalism but in practice a grassroots attack on feminist critics in gaming, Gamergate has led to at least three prominent women in gaming having to take action over threats of violence." Kaciemonster (talk) 18:58, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

Alright,makes sense to me. Ylevental (talk) 20:22, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

Which threats do you refer to? <redact per BLP>. When I read the threat it was clear the threat wasn't real, anyone motivated enough to shoot up a college wouldn't just call everything off because the speech didn't occur. A scan of the threat is found here. CR055H41RZ (talk) 22:41, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

Is the new theory that the harassment and misogyny weren’t the fault of Gamergate -- it was completely different people using the same hashtag? Sigh. MarkBernstein (talk) 19:49, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

Were those threats concerning her latest video grouped with the hashtag at all?? Maybe every instance of harassment in gaming as of Fall 2014 is the result of gamergate, and they just all happened at the same time. Sigh. Ylevental (talk) 20:18, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

The proposition that every single instance of harassment in gaming in Fall 2014 is the result of Gamergate is hardly improbable on its face. Threatening to murder or rape software developers is not routine behavior, to say the least. Gamergate used these threats in Fall 2014 in order to achieve its goals. But, yes, many sources ascribe Sarkeesian’s harassment to Gamergate, Sarkeesian has published a list of Twitter harassment which includes Gamergate-affiliated posts, etc etc etc etc. MarkBernstein (talk) 22:15, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

Quoted in Washington Post: "For the record, one [murder] threat did claim affiliation with Gamergate." End of story. MarkBernstein (talk) 22:19, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

To be fair to Ylevental's point, I believe he was speaking to the harassment immediately after the release of the Tropes vs Women video (say, within the week or so). I've been unable to find sources that link GG to her harassment during that brief period (a month out, no problem), though now, what she got was seen as the trend that lead to the GG by September 2014. I think how we have it now is fine: it shows she's been harassed since at least 2012 due to the Tropes vs Women series, and a release of her video near the same time Quinn was targetted soon lead to her being involved in GG as an harassment target within a month. We don't need to worry about the specifics since she's clearly involved now. --MASEM (t) 22:30, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

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

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

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

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