Page semi-protected

Talk:Gamergate (harassment campaign)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search

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.

The Fine Young Capitalists - Merge or delete?

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
The result of this discussion was merge. Artw (talk) 14:32, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

The Fine Young Capitalists, a GamerGate spin-off article that's a bit of a weird fossil from back of the time of peak GamerGate activity, is seeing some edits again. It basically went nowhere and did nothing of any notability outside of GamerGate so I'm wondering if, with that historical perspective, we should look at merging or deleting it? Artw (talk) 23:35, 25 April 2022 (UTC)

I don't think there's much of value there - it's largely the sort of blow-by-blow minutiae that we've been trying to trim on this article now that we have the benefit of hindsight - but we could merge what there is and redirect it here. --Aquillion (talk) 07:36, 2 May 2022 (UTC)
Merge the TFYC. Most all the details are already in this entry: missing the porn star angle (if it's noteworthy). ForbiddenRocky (talk) 07:57, 3 May 2022 (UTC)
Belatedly added the merge templates, since this has settled on being a merge discussion. Shouldn't be too controversial but this article being this article it seems right to see if anyone objects. Artw (talk) 15:43, 27 May 2022 (UTC)
I also agree with merging. Woodroar (talk) 22:13, 15 June 2022 (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.

Studies regarding attitudes of GamerGate supporters

One user linked a study above that claims GamerGate supporters are actually more left-wing. However, the study notes limitations like self-selection bias, meaning those with left-wing views participated, while those with right-wing views did not. However, I also found this study that completely contradicts the previous study that suggests that Gamergaters on Reddit are defined by right-wing extremism [1]. The former study was also conducted from December 2015 to January 2016, before Trump and the alt-right really started taking off. Should both be included? X-Editor (talk) 01:43, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

Yes, I think timing and sample selection can explain some of those differences, and I think both are perfectly usable. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 01:57, 13 June 2022 (UTC)
The second study also notes that "The GamerGate community as it currently stands did not begin as a site for right wing extremists to discuss politics". Since the first one took place before Trump and the alt-right took off, it's possible that the right-wing stuff wasn't there to begin with, but happened later on. I'll go ahead and add the info X-Editor (talk) 02:00, 13 June 2022 (UTC)
Also I think there's a notable difference in that the first study said they drew from Twitter generally as well as Kotaku in Action, while the second was focused on the Reddit community. But yes, I also agree that time may have skewed things to the right. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 02:03, 13 June 2022 (UTC)
True, the studies are different in nature and conducted at different times. It seems like Gamergate might not have started out as right-wing, which is why I removed the "right-wing backlash" descriptor, but instead hijacked later on. Cheers to you too. X-Editor (talk) 03:02, 13 June 2022 (UTC)
That is completely untrue. You can’t say it was “before Trump and the alt-right really took off” because that’s original research, giving a false label to the period became that’s 6 months after Trump announced candidacy.CreecregofLife (talk) 03:36, 13 June 2022 (UTC)
That doesn't change the fact that the two studies I added both dispute that it was right-wing or alt-right to begin with and one of them saying it became right-wing later on and the other suggesting it was more left-wing in January 2016. Your explanation also doesn't justify removing perfectly reliable studies from the article. X-Editor (talk) 03:48, 13 June 2022 (UTC)
Misrepresenting the context misrepresents the data and therefore become unreliable studies. Someone else has to revert the edit, because you then lied in your edit summary claiming no reason was given for the removal. I’m not going to be sanctioned just because you chose to lie to give undue weight to studies you misrepresentedCreecregofLife (talk) 03:57, 13 June 2022 (UTC)
That's not how it works. The studies back up everything I put in the article and me saying that it was “before Trump and the alt-right really took off” was just me speculating here on the talk page. Don't confuse that for what I actually put in the article, which is the info from those studies. What I was trying to say is that no reason was given for the removal in the edit summaries. X-Editor (talk) 04:03, 13 June 2022 (UTC)
A reason for removal was still given. You are making excuses when you're still giving undue weight to these studies. GamerGate used women members all the time to claim they weren't misogynist. That doesn't mean they were actually left wing. CreecregofLife (talk) 04:06, 13 June 2022 (UTC)
I didn't revert the fact that they were misogynist, I only reverted the right-wing part. Adding the study would also not be undue weight considering it is one of the only sources to actually survey Gamergate. Since most other sources label Gamergate right-wing, i've decided to compromise by keeping the right-wing descriptor in the lede, but still keeping the study's results in the article alongside another study that calls it right-wing. I also noted that the study that says it is left-wing has several limitations, so that would be due weight. X-Editor (talk) 04:08, 13 June 2022 (UTC)
The Glasgow thing has been discussed before and has some pretty bad flaws. The Pickford article is an undergraduate paper that was part of a self-published ebook of papers from a particular session of a criminology class - it is not a reliable source. MrOllie (talk) 12:02, 13 June 2022 (UTC)
So, X-Editor, I didn't envision so much coming from these two sources, and I think your additions were a bit much. That said, I believe the Pickford paper, as published, even though from an undergrad class is reliable enough to be used, though again, I don't believe at such length. I'd be curious to know what the flaws are with the Glasgow paper--while it seems like an outlier, it appears to me to be in a highly reliable journal and directly on point. I can imagine places where I think it might have gone wrong, but there's a reason I am not a reviewer for the American Psychological Association. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 12:48, 13 June 2022 (UTC)
Christopher Ferguson is a highly published and peer reviewed psychologist and Brad Glasgow is an award winning journalist and researcher. A data study which actually poses questions to hundreds of GamerGate supporters is invaluable. One of the big flaws of this wiki page is there's really nothing at all from the point of view of the GamerGate supporters, and when GamerGate supporters do have their say, as in the data study, in the hundreds, with PEW political alignment questions, it conflicts with other sources that use alt-right which this discussion establishes is a term that didn't even exist at the start of GamerGate.
The Brad Glasgow/Christopher Ferguson study has my vote for inclusion on the page as a source. It's about time. Kainedamo (talk) 22:30, 18 June 2022 (UTC)
@MrOllie: I saw a comment in an archive saying that Glasgow "has a limited data set which we know has excluded a very particular set of individuals (or they lied, which he denies)." How exactly is this the case and what is wrong with the study he published? The burden of proof is on you to explain, since you're the one saying it is wrong. X-Editor (talk) 20:28, 13 June 2022 (UTC)
@Dumuzid: The undergrad paper claims that the alt-right later hijacked Gamergate, but seems to not provide any evidence to support this claim. X-Editor (talk) 20:28, 13 June 2022 (UTC)
Rather than explaining myself, I'll let Glasgow do it: [2] : This was an opt-in survey. As a result, one cannot claim scientific representation. GamerGate is an online, anonymous movement, and I do not see a feasible way to conduct a truly scientific poll. While the survey may not meet scientific standards, the sample size is clearly enough to help us better understand the people involved in GamerGate. It may not meet scientific standards, but does meet market research standards, where scientific methods are often bypassed to cut costs. - MrOllie (talk) 12:30, 14 June 2022 (UTC)
That's all well and good, but it's a scholarly paper published in a reliable and relevant source. I don't think that means we have to pay a lot of attention to it, but it's a fair data point to consider. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 12:32, 14 June 2022 (UTC)
@Dumuzid: How would we incorporate the study into the article in a way that is appropriate? X-Editor (talk) 02:52, 15 June 2022 (UTC)
Seems at most we could say "someone did an X, but the author said it wasn't exhaustive and had limitations", not least some of his descriptions seem... naive? Of the few people who do support GamerGate on the chans, it is unlikely that many of those do not also use Twitter and/or Reddit to show support. POL was particularly significant, and 4Chan ultimately booted all mention of the organisation because of its harassment campaigns (the wealth of sources covering 4Chan and the splits to the other Chans are extensive). Meanwhile the discussion point raised by other articles/coverage is about how the movement itself was hijacked to push Alt Right and generally promote extreme Libertarian type attitudes - that doesn't require a person to subscribe to traditionally Right Wing views in order to support otherwise misogynist behaviour. The conflation of agitators like Milo with the general population of Gamergate is likely something that did happen, but the support of Milo did happen.
Separately as a comment on the Study itself; the self selection bias is going to be pretty extreme, but even still some of the commentary is odd. 89% male, 74% Hetero, 74% white, 91% non-hispanic = White, male, and heterosexual, individuals in that category were, indeed, in the majority, such majorities were not necessarily overwhelming but Although individuals fitting the constellation of Caucasian, male, heterosexual, and non-Hispanic were more common than other categories, only 303 (41.8%) of the sample identified as all of these categories, suggesting that this stereotypical association with GamerGate is true for only a minority of actual participants. reads like having your cake and eating it. Koncorde (talk) 13:52, 15 June 2022 (UTC)
Yes, sorry, meant to return to this and got distracted. I basically concur with Koncorde on this. The study is usable, but doesn't merit an entire section or anything of the like. One sentence or a quick per contra seems like the way it should be incorporated. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 13:54, 15 June 2022 (UTC)
@Dumuzid: What should the sentence look like and where should it be incorporated? I also have no problem with you taking your time. X-Editor (talk) 22:17, 15 June 2022 (UTC)
So, one thought for me would be mentioning it in the sentence about opposition to "social justice warriors" in an introductory clause -- something like
Though one early study found that Gamergate supporters were more likely to be politically left of center[FN], Gamergate is particularly associated with opposition to the influence of so-called "social justice warriors" in the gaming industry . . . .
Happy to hear from others with concerns or better suggestions, as ever. Happy Friday Eve. Dumuzid (talk) 12:54, 16 June 2022 (UTC)
@Dumuzid: Do you have any sources that back up the latter claim, because that sounds like OR. X-Editor (talk) 23:19, 17 June 2022 (UTC)
About "social justice warriors"? I took that from the current incarnation of the article. Dumuzid (talk) 00:27, 18 June 2022 (UTC)
@Dumuzid: That still seems like WP:SYNTH. X-Editor (talk) 00:54, 18 June 2022 (UTC)
Despite the fact that it is cited to two sources? Dumuzid (talk) 00:58, 18 June 2022 (UTC)
@Dumuzid: What is the second source? X-Editor (talk) 01:09, 18 June 2022 (UTC)
HATing off-topic pro-GG commentary by a now indef blocked editor. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 11:45, 25 June 2022 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Christopher Ferguson and Brad Glasgow co-authored a study based on a 55-item survey to determine the attitudes and beliefs of 725 GamerGate supporters, as well as demographic data. The study found that GamerGate supporters tend to hold more liberal beliefs than the general population and that the image of GamerGate is based on stereotypes than accurate portrayal. The study expresses that caution be used in making negative attributions about GamerGate individuals.
I vote for something more than a sentence, especially when half the sentence that was initially suggested is nothing to do with the study. People would be better informed with a more detailed description of the study. Kainedamo (talk) 23:08, 18 June 2022 (UTC)
If you compare this data with random samples of a white majority country, GamerGate is more diverse than a random selection of the population. 74% heterosexual, that's a lot of gay people. Do you think if you picked an equivalent number of people at random it'd less?? The data is significant, when taking into account demographic factors the figures are interesting and further can be learned from them. Maybe someone can do a follow up or try to repeat the study. It does contradict stereotypes, and has my vote for inclusion into the page. Kainedamo (talk) 22:48, 18 June 2022 (UTC)
The Ferguson/Glasgow GamerGate data study was peer reviewed and published in the journal of Psychology of Popular Media by the American Psychological Association. They didn't write this stuff with chalk on the sidewalk, dude. The study has my vote for inclusion into the wiki page. In order to actually inform people, at some point you actually have to show what GamerGate supporters say they believe from their own pov. This page is so biased it's uninformative. Time to actually tell a fuller picture. Kainedamo (talk) 22:37, 18 June 2022 (UTC)
The study's results were inserted into the article "a survey conducted from December 2015 to January 2016 found that Gamergate supporters identified as being more politically liberal", but it also mentions afterwards that Gamergaters wanted to preserve traditional gaming culture, since there are many sources that don't agree with the liberal characterization, and emphasizing this study over all of the other academic sources would be false balance. You've also failed to consider that people can lie in anonymous online surveys. X-Editor (talk) 04:11, 19 June 2022 (UTC)
What are your qualifications exactly that you think you have authority to dismiss the study?
Wtf is 'traditional gaming culture' supposed to be? Where is that defined? It's not in the study. What article are you referring to?
> many sources that don't agree with the liberal characterization
Many of those sources, like Leigh Alexander with her connections to The Guardian, were people GamerGate supporters were calling out for cronyism and bad ethics. Sources considered reliable by wikipedia, push absurdities like trying to link GamerGate to the perception of the Johnny Depp/Amber Heard trial (Aja Romano, Vox). The Ferguson/Glasgow study helps to provide a fuller picture from the pov of GamerGate supporters. Your goal is to inform people, or at least should be. It's not to badger them over the head with what you believe the consensus is, on an incredibly subjective culture topic. It's very arrogant to attempt to maintain that when there's a more interesting discussion to be had, if you were willing to just bend a little. Your idea of what a consensus is is kind of twisted, tbh imho, similar for the usual editors here - it's not a real consensus, when you constantly forbid a whole other side of the story from being told. Kainedamo (talk) 22:06, 19 June 2022 (UTC)
I mean this with all due respect, but is there something that prevents you from looking at the article? The language you are asking about has been present since time immemorial (in Wikipedia terms) and the sources are noted and hyperlinked there. Dumuzid (talk) 01:12, 18 June 2022 (UTC)
@Dumuzid: I see what you're talking about now that I've looked at the article. Sorry for being lazy. I've added the requested text. X-Editor (talk) 02:37, 18 June 2022 (UTC)
@MrOllie: Thanks for explaining. X-Editor (talk) 02:52, 15 June 2022 (UTC)
  • I strenuously disagree with this addition. The "although" phrasing is straightforward WP:SYNTH that comes across as using the study to try and rebut or dispute what comes after it, and per WP:SCHOLARSHIP we should not be placing significant weight on isolated studies, especially in situations where secondary sources are available, and especially ones that contradict the available secondary sources or which have no meaningful followup or secondary coverage themselves. --Aquillion (talk) 04:05, 19 June 2022 (UTC)
  • This has similar problems; it's cited solely to a single WP:PRIMARY source that only mentions Gamergate in passing. The article is already massive-bloated with blow-by-blow minutiae; we don't need to devote entire paragraphs to flash-in-the-pan events from 2014 with no sustained coverage. If it's a significant event in the history of the topic as a whole, there ought to be more than one primary source from 2014 mentioning it. --Aquillion (talk) 04:08, 19 June 2022 (UTC)
@Aquillion: Is there any way the 2020 study can be mentioned in a way that is not undue or WP:SYNTH? I do agree though that the latter 2014 incident is insignificant as a whole. X-Editor (talk) 04:42, 19 June 2022 (UTC)
@Dumuzid: Since you were involved in this discussion regarding the study. X-Editor (talk) 04:44, 19 June 2022 (UTC)
Hmmm. Aquillion is certainly not wrong that there's a bit of WP:SYNTH going on with my formulation; for me, I think it falls within the normal bounds of Wikipedia's editorial remit. I was trying in fact to downplay the study a bit, as it is an outlier, but for me, its provenance means some kind of mention is WP:DUE. Happy to hear if there are other thoughts on how it can be used, or, X-Editor, we may just not have any kind of consensus. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 15:46, 19 June 2022 (UTC)

My thoughts are that the Ferguson and Glasgow study is of little value as a primary source, is also UNDUE, and its implementation was SYNTHy. It's tempting to compare a primary scientific study against secondary analysis, like it's some triumph of facts over feelings, but we're talking about one primary survey source against hundreds or thousands of secondary analysis sources. General guidelines like WP:SCHOLARSHIP (as Aquillion mentioned above) and specifics like WP:BLP and WP:MEDRS point out how problematic primary sources can be, especially single primary sources. That's not to say BLP/MEDRS are at play here, but they're both concerned with getting the article right. Maybe the Ferguson and Glasgow survey is right. Or maybe some people known for deception and false fronts, coordination, astroturfing, sockpuppetry, scripted campaigns, and automated social media tools skewed the results. Who's to say? But I don't need to interpret the primary source to know that our policies and guidelines suggest we ignore it unless more studies—or, even better, a systematic review of those studies—comes along. Woodroar (talk) 17:00, 19 June 2022 (UTC)

I am fine with all of the above, but have to note a pedantic point (otherwise I wouldn't be me): while indeed, the Glasgow study results themselves are a primary source, I would consider the article he wrote about them to be, strictly speaking, a secondary source. That doesn't change the fact that it is certainly an outlier or really anything about its status as WP:DUE; as I say, just a point of terminology stuck in my craw. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 17:14, 19 June 2022 (UTC)
@Aquillion: Has the Ferguson and Glasgow study been cited elsewhere? If so, then it might be DUE to include somewhere in the article. X-Editor (talk) 19:09, 19 June 2022 (UTC)
>but we're talking about one primary survey source against hundreds or thousands of secondary analysis sources.
Hunderds of thousands? No. Do you know of a singular source outside of the Ferguson/Glasgow study that even attempts to talk to talk to GamerGate supporters directly and with such a big data set? It's the actual information in the study that is beneficial to the public, not whether or not it comports with 44 Aja Romano articles or Brianna Wu marketing fluff pieces. Kainedamo (talk) 21:43, 19 June 2022 (UTC)
I don't think you need to necessary talk to GG supporters directly to figure out their ideology. Another way is to simply analyze what they say and compare that to the main ideas of different political ideologies until you find a match. X-Editor (talk) 23:27, 19 June 2022 (UTC)
This is a methodological complaint about sourcing, and not really something we deal with on Wikipedia. If you have sources to suggest, please do. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 22:02, 19 June 2022 (UTC)
Unfortunately, the kind of sources wikipedia considers reliable are far more likely to push connections with the controversy of the day (Aja Romano, Vox - Johnny Depp/Amber Heard trial), than they are to cite a study that cautions against such sweeping conclusions. You guys already have a whole entire section about the January 6th 2021 riot on the GamerGate wiki page, but ya can't have the Ferguson/Glasgow study 'cause mainstream press is a shitshow of moral panic that won't report something that undermines their shitshow. That's what it comes across like to me. Therefore, wikipedia as it's currently used is inadequate in regards to informing people.
Maybe over the years it'll change but for now the topic is at a constant dead end. Kainedamo (talk) 22:25, 19 June 2022 (UTC)
Okay then! Have a nice day. Dumuzid (talk) 22:36, 19 June 2022 (UTC)
How are Aja Romano articles unreliable? X-Editor (talk) 23:10, 19 June 2022 (UTC)
Watch out everybody, the Johnny Depp/Amber Heard court case section of the GamerGate wiki page is on the way! Viva la "reliable sources" ! Kainedamo (talk) 23:18, 19 June 2022 (UTC)
Just a reminder that this is a WP:NOTAFORUM. Cheers, and Happy Sunday everyone. Dumuzid (talk) 23:24, 19 June 2022 (UTC)
And you still haven't explained why the Johnny Depp/Amber Heard source is unreliable, nor have you explained why the Aja Romano sources are unreliable. X-Editor (talk) 23:36, 19 June 2022 (UTC)
And since a 2020 review has suggested a link between right-wing extremism and Gamergate based on an analysis of thousands of posts on r/KIA, I don't think we should only mention the results of the Ferguson/Glasgow study. X-Editor (talk) 23:43, 19 June 2022 (UTC)
When near every meme on the Internet is framed as a "dogwhistle", there's going to be a lot false conclusions you're going to come to about a wide amount of people. I do not take moral panic narratives seriously. The biases are in that review when you look at the innocuous phrases termed as "dogwhistles".
" the blatant use of dogwhistles is probably the most concrete and concerning evidence of a connection between GamerGate and RWE". Ashley Peckford wrote that in the link you cited.
That's the best she's got. That's nothing. The first thing that comes up when searching this paper through google is "clown world".
You can assert just about anything about the internal beliefs and attitudes of the widest amount of people that you want, but it doesn't make it true. This epistemology is a sure fire way to find the alt-right in the shadows when you're alone in your room. That's what you'd rather cite, than just citing a study talking directly to GamerGate supporters. Kainedamo (talk) 00:02, 20 June 2022 (UTC)
I mean, what you're talking about is the fundamental way Wikipedia has chosen to organize itself. You may not like it, which is fair, and perhaps it doesn't achieve the best results (I think it's the worst solution except for all the others so far proposed). But your complaint is a bit like saying "this atlas is worthless. It just relies on maps when people could be out there surveying." Okay, I guess? Not sure what to do with that. Dumuzid (talk) 00:20, 20 June 2022 (UTC)
Dogwhistles aren't the only thing the 2020 review examines. The review also examines "racism, misogyny, homophobia and transphobia" as indicators of right-wing extremism. One problem with the Glasgow study that I haven't mentioned is that it only looks at GG supporters on Twitter, which seems like self-selection bias, a bias that even the paper itself acknowledges as a limitation. Regardless, I did still add a brief mention of the Glasgow study to the article along with the 2020 review. X-Editor (talk) 00:37, 20 June 2022 (UTC)
One of you got featured in Washington Post and was given a pat on the back for editing this page when all it really comes down to is copy/pasting and not digging deeper. I envision a better future version of an online, living encyclopaedia in which the editors are encouraged to be more investigative and in which the discussions are more interested in the details rather than a beurocracy of what counts as "reliable" or not, as if people are incapable of deciphering a topic without the biased filter of media. It's usually "reliable sources" or "consensus" that gets thrown at me when I suggest changes and I don't find either convincing. This topic is far too nuanced and interesting for wikipedia in its current incarnation. I will comment from time to time in the Talk page if there's something I want to say. Kainedamo (talk) 00:30, 20 June 2022 (UTC)
What is it you don't find convincing? Consensus and reliable sources? Dumuzid (talk) 00:33, 20 June 2022 (UTC)
As in I don't think it's a consensus and I don't think the sources are reliable. It's not a consensus, it's cronyism. It's not a consensus when a whole other side of the story is not told. It's not a consensus when information is hidden that could drastically upset the narrative of the whole page (obvious ethics transgressions like the Leigh Alexander and Sunset game coverage ethics issues, Zoe Quinn scamming 85k), and the connections such unethical actors have had with the press. This page is a circle jerk. You launder bad ideas. What you do is you take spurious, unscientific bullshit like reference 172 - " the blatant use of dogwhistles is probably the most concrete and concerning evidence of a connection between GamerGate and RWE". And you pack it in with hundreds of other sources, and then you call that a consensus. I am here to point out the gaping holes and the absurdity. Maybe eventually somebody will notice and fix this mess. You're welcome. Kainedamo (talk) 01:04, 20 June 2022 (UTC)
As I already pointed out above, you're cherrypicking the 2020 review by claiming that it only focuses on dogwhistles, when that is not the case. The problem is that no sources outside of the kickstarter itself show that Quinn supposedly scammed people and to use the Kickstarter as a reference for this claim would be original research, which goes against Wikipedia's rules. Wikipedia is not here to right great wrongs and we cannot control how the media covers certain issues. X-Editor (talk) 01:33, 20 June 2022 (UTC)
Kainedamo, if this is helpful for you, I am happy to listen on my talk page, but I think we've gone plenty far here. If you have concrete suggestions for the article (starting small is always wise), then please make them. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 01:38, 20 June 2022 (UTC)
Agreed. Please talk to Dumuzid about concrete changes on his talk page, as I'm done with being involved in this discussion for now. X-Editor (talk) 01:45, 20 June 2022 (UTC)
Don't accuse me of cherry-picking and then proceed to edit out my reply comment in which I go over 172 in detail. Real emperor has no clothes situation going on here. I will archive this comment so there will be a record. And Just for trying to hide that, I now exactly what my next change suggestion is going to be - the removal of 172. Kainedamo (talk) 12:21, 20 June 2022 (UTC)
Does the 30/500 protection extend to talk pages? If so, all of Kainedamo's comments should be stricken. The last one removed was particularly trollish and baiting anyways. ValarianB (talk) 11:45, 20 June 2022 (UTC)
Seems blatant WP:NOTHERE. Koncorde (talk) 20:28, 20 June 2022 (UTC)
In the past they've been starting arguments here to screenshot and post to their Twitter, that account seems to be suspended now but it is highly likely this whole performence is intended for an audience that is literally NOT HERE. Artw (talk) 20:40, 20 June 2022 (UTC)
Ah. It's that kind of situation. Literally climbing a soap box the size of the WP:REICHSTAG. Koncorde (talk) 21:47, 20 June 2022 (UTC)
Probably time to dust off the old discretionary sanctions. Artw (talk) 20:10, 21 June 2022 (UTC)
I mean every word I say here. I want this place to actually be a better encyclopaedia. Kainedamo (talk) 12:23, 22 June 2022 (UTC)
No, you want it to reflect your opinion from an incredibly narrow POV. Koncorde (talk) 16:41, 22 June 2022 (UTC)
I want to widen the POV.
Did it ever occur to you how weird it is that the wiki page on nazis is not even as negatively worded as the GamerGate page? Kainedamo (talk) 19:49, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

I just reverted another version of this content. The straw poll stuff is unreliable junk. Instead of including it and then needing to spend a paragraph debunking it, it is better to just leave out the unreliable junk in the first place. MrOllie (talk) 21:44, 10 July 2022 (UTC)

  • Yeah, as I said above, this is exactly the sort of source that WP:SCHOLARSHIP says we should not use - a primary study of a single poll, with no significant secondary coverage, which produced WP:EXCEPTIONAL results that contradict essentially all other available sources. The sources describing Gamergate as a right-wing movement are overwhelming and we would need similarly strong sourcing to suggest that there is disagreement on this point, not one primary study with no followup. --Aquillion (talk) 21:56, 10 July 2022 (UTC)
    That seems like a gross misreading of WP:SCHOLARSHIP. Certainly, when there are secondary sources available they should be preferred to primary ones, but if a topic isn't blessed with such abundance, you use the best sources you have. This isn't a topic with MEDRS standards. This article is in a peer reviewed journal from a reputable publisher and a qualified author, which are rarefied qualities compared to the newspinion that carries a lot of this material. If the study methodology has limitations, so be it. Having a methodology at all is a cut above. As for followup, there seems to be some WP:USEBYOTHERS: [3]. There's also secondary coverage of Glasgow's self-published data from Amy S. Bruckman in First Monday (journal): [4] Sennalen (talk) 01:45, 7 August 2022 (UTC)
    if no reliable secondary sources cover it, we probably shouldn't use it as it is also UNDUE. is First Monday a RS? — Shibbolethink ( ) 12:34, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

chopping discussion: glasgow and peckford

Should an RfC be done on the inclusion of content from both refs to settle this debate? And if an RfC is done, be sure to ping all the major contributors to the WP article for discussion in the RfC. X-Editor (talk) 18:17, 20 June 2022 (UTC)

I would like to be included if possible. Kainedamo (talk) 19:36, 20 June 2022 (UTC)
I don't actually think an RFC would result in any changes. We'd be going through the motions for no real gain. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 19:42, 20 June 2022 (UTC)

@HandThatFeeds: If both ref 171 and 172 have been disputed, then how come one gets to stay in the article until consensus is reached, while the other gets removed until consensus is reached? This seems inconsistent. I would also like a good explanation of why a peer-reviewed study published in the APA (Glasgow) is not allowed to be mentioned in the article, while less reliable coverage from mass media is allowed to be mentioned. I'm not saying that the entire article should get an overhaul as Kainedamo seems to be suggesting using this one study as a source because that would obviously be undue weight. I'm simply arguing for a brief mention of the study like what I added to the article before it was reverted, along with another study that notes the opposite for balance. X-Editor (talk) 23:18, 20 June 2022 (UTC)

I'm going to point out the including Glasgow is ridiculously UNDUE. That's like entertaining the idea that this was about ethic in journalism. Including Peckford seems redundant.
"for balance" we don't include things for balance. we include things justified by RS. - ForbiddenRocky (talk) 03:33, 21 June 2022 (UTC)
@ForbiddenRocky: And how is Glasgow not an RS? However, I do agree with you that including Peckford is a bit redundant. I guess we'd both agree on removing Peckford? X-Editor (talk) 05:18, 21 June 2022 (UTC)
Peckford source isn't scientific and is full of holes. I vote for its removal in the spirit of accuracy. Kainedamo (talk) 09:25, 21 June 2022 (UTC)
Off-topic discussion
It is about ethics, the information that would show it was (Alexander/Sunset controversy, Quinn/Kickstarter scam, etc etc), are missing from the page - It's a bit of an empereror has no clothes situation. I keep pointing out that the way this page is run ends up hiding key information from people that may lead them to a different conclusion, than the current narrative of the page. The Glasgow/Ferguson study is the only study I'm aware of in which GG supporters are actually questioned directly. It should be included, despite Vox articles that disagree, despite an incredibly questionable essay that asserts "honk honk" means "heil hitler", but because the study itself contains valuable information. Kainedamo (talk) 09:22, 21 June 2022 (UTC)
No, it was about harassing a woman because her boyfriend had a public meltdown and then a very public shitstorm. After the fact some people tried to make it about ethics, but the reality is real obvious per all reliable sources. Trying to re-litigate what Gamergate was without reliable sources is dead and buried. Give it up. If you want to make changes - stay on topic. Koncorde (talk) 10:43, 21 June 2022 (UTC)
The GG advocates lost the "but ethics!" debate a long time ago. That someone here is still carrying water for this shows why the 30/500 protection is still needed, and honestly should be applied to this talk page too. ValarianB (talk) 11:23, 21 June 2022 (UTC)
If you think the talk page deserves higher protection, then please start a discussion here. X-Editor (talk) 16:37, 21 June 2022 (UTC)
You can't lose a debate that wasn't had. You can't have a consensus when you permit only one point of view.
Leigh Alexander/Sunset video game controversy in which her journo friends cover a game she's paid to work on but with no disclosures, covered in this article with direct evidence for each claim: deepfreeze.it article titled Unfair Advantage, and Leigh Alexander has her own page full of evidence of lacking ethics in her journalism.
This is the same Leigh Alexander that took part in 'Gamers are over', and she worked for The Guardian to boot. Alexander is all over the "reliable sources" in the references of this page, with zero mention of her ethical transgressions.
Zoe Quinn scammed 85k. Look at Zoe Quinn's Kickstarted in the Butt project, look at the money raised, look at the date last updated, read the comments from backers. There's a kickscammed article about it too.
Wow, it's about ethics and video games!
You don't permit evidence that would drastically change the narrative of this page. Someone will reply saying wikipedia is incapable of permitting anything I've just said. Someone may even reply trying to dismiss me without dealing with the points raised.
The Emperor Has No Clothes. Kainedamo (talk) 18:48, 21 June 2022 (UTC)
To quote a wise man: cool story, bro. Dumuzid (talk) 18:50, 21 June 2022 (UTC)
To quote the sealion, in order to defeat me you'd have to show which of my positions are wrong. Kainedamo (talk) 19:51, 21 June 2022 (UTC)
Again, not how Wikipedia works. Dumuzid (talk) 19:53, 21 June 2022 (UTC)
But "cool story bro" is. Kainedamo (talk) 19:55, 21 June 2022 (UTC)
I already have an idea for another change, may take a couple days to research and prepare. This current conversation has hit a dead end. Kainedamo (talk) 19:56, 21 June 2022 (UTC)
They're the same reply, just in different vernacular. Dumuzid (talk) 19:57, 21 June 2022 (UTC)
The problem with the Alexander/Sunset controversy and the supposed Quinn/Kickstarter scam is that none of these claims are backed up by reliable sources and seem to be mostly original research on your part, which is not allowed on Wikipedia under any circumstances. X-Editor (talk) 16:21, 21 June 2022 (UTC)
There's that Orwellian usage of reliable again.
Zoe Quinn's kickstarter project's last update was August 30, 2018 for a project that raised $85,448. Do you acknowledge that as a fact? Do we really need the filter of media to acknowledge facts?
If your sources can't or won't report on this, then it is those sources that are unreliable. Comments from backers:
"It's 2022, time for an update!"
"If this is dead can you just confirm it's dead? At this point I'll just accept having paid $30 for a mug but if the game is never coming out I don't want to keep waiting and hoping"
"I paid $170 for a mug & a t-shirt"
"The hardest part I can't warp around my head is that she is active on social media but ignores all her backers on this project. An explanation and apology would suffice."
"At this point I just want closure. An admission of failure. Maybe partial refunds. Something."
"Why has there been radio silence for such a long period of time? Please either post an update or offer refunds, because this otherwise has the unfortunate appearance of being a scam at this point… I would be really surprised if Kickstarter allowed this too."
Etc, etc, etc. Kainedamo (talk) 18:54, 21 June 2022 (UTC)
WP:NOTHERE, WP:SOAPBOX, WP:FORUM etc, no discussion will stay on topic while Kaine is here because he cannot function within the parameters of an encyclopedia and has almost a decade of off-wiki behaviour to this effect. Koncorde (talk) 20:51, 21 June 2022 (UTC)
Do we really need the filter of media to acknowledge facts?
Yes. A fundamental principle of Wikipedia is citing reliable sources. You cannot just claim "facts" with no citation, or look at two sources and come to your own conclusions. No one is going to accept the angle you're trying to play. Frankly, you're likely to get blocked from this page if you continue, if not the whole site. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 21:53, 21 June 2022 (UTC)
I didn't claim facts with "no citation". Go look at Zoe Quinn's kickstarter page. It exists. You can read.
Zoe Quinn's kickstarter project's last update was August 30, 2018 for a project that raised $85,448. Do you acknowledge that as a fact? A source that insists it was never about ethics and yet cannot or will not cover ethical issues around video games, is not a reliable source, and your continued usage of reliable is Orwellian.
Comments from backers:
"It's 2022, time for an update!"
"If this is dead can you just confirm it's dead? At this point I'll just accept having paid $30 for a mug but if the game is never coming out I don't want to keep waiting and hoping"
"I paid $170 for a mug & a t-shirt"
"The hardest part I can't warp around my head is that she is active on social media but ignores all her backers on this project. An explanation and apology would suffice."
"At this point I just want closure. An admission of failure. Maybe partial refunds. Something."
"Why has there been radio silence for such a long period of time? Please either post an update or offer refunds, because this otherwise has the unfortunate appearance of being a scam at this point… I would be really surprised if Kickstarter allowed this too." Kainedamo (talk) 10:16, 22 June 2022 (UTC)
I rest my case. Can an Admin Hat and close this forum. Koncorde (talk) 12:14, 22 June 2022 (UTC)
How am I wrong? I want this place to be a better encyclopaedia. Kainedamo (talk) 12:24, 22 June 2022 (UTC)

@ForbiddenRocky: You didn't answer my question about why Glasgow isn't an RS. X-Editor (talk) 16:21, 21 June 2022 (UTC)

i didn't say it wasn't RS, I said it was UNDUE, even as RS. pointing out that trolls claim to be left-wing is silly. also, I am advising you against using "balance" as a criteria for inclusion. - ForbiddenRocky (talk) 22:23, 21 June 2022 (UTC)
maybe create a section of gamergate claims that have been debunked. but that wanders down BLP and all kinds of other stuff that are better off summararied: as "claims were widely dismissed as trivial, conspiracy theories, baseless, or unrelated to actual issues" - ForbiddenRocky (talk) 22:26, 21 June 2022 (UTC)
You mean the the section on January 6th of course. Kainedamo (talk) 10:22, 22 June 2022 (UTC)
Are you seriously claiming that Jan 6 has been "widely dismissed as trivial"? — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 14:31, 23 June 2022 (UTC)
Any claim to a connection with GamerGate is trivial, conspiracy theory, baseless, unrelated to GamerGate as a topic. Kainedamo (talk) 16:17, 23 June 2022 (UTC)
There were literally people with KEK flags there. Artw (talk) 16:22, 23 June 2022 (UTC)
Indeed, and there are numerous sources that draw a connection. One is free to disagree, of course. Dumuzid (talk) 16:24, 23 June 2022 (UTC)
I'm not really interested that there's 'numerous sources' when the reasoning is bad. It's hysteria. January 6th was seven years on from GamerGate. If you were to poll the Jan 6th protestors and rioters, would most of them have any idea what GG is? How many GamerGate supporters are still active as GG supporters, and of those is there even a consensus on what they make of Jan. 6th? Sometimes institutions, press, media lie. It sort of seems to me that wiki can't distinguish the truth from hysteria. I'll post my next suggestion soon to really hammer this home, and it will be full of "reliable sources". Kainedamo (talk) 17:25, 23 June 2022 (UTC)
I'm not really interested that there's 'numerous sources' when the reasoning is bad.
So you've made up your mind that no source is good enough to override your personal opinion. This is pure WP:IDHT and WP:NOTHERE. At this point, I think it's best you step away from the article before you wind up with a block. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 17:34, 23 June 2022 (UTC)
Tbh 'refusal to get the point' is more applicable to our conversation in which you don't understand freedom of speech and why people standing up for free speech isn't an indicator of RWE. Kainedamo (talk) 19:00, 23 June 2022 (UTC)
Certainly, free speech advocacy and right wing extremism can overlap. One need only think of the Nazis marching in Skokie. I think the ACLU was there for righteous reasons, but I think the reasoning of their clients was vile. Dumuzid (talk) 19:12, 23 June 2022 (UTC)
Who is standing up for freedom of speech? I'm getting lost in this wall of text. EvergreenFir (talk) 19:23, 23 June 2022 (UTC)
GamerGate supporters. Specifically members of the subbreddit KotakuInAction. There was a source that disingenuously argued that KiA members talking about free speech was a Right Wing Extremist dogwhistle, when there's really no good reason at all to assume that over assuming a more innocent motive for the support of free speech. Kainedamo (talk) 20:07, 23 June 2022 (UTC)
My apologies, as I should take my own medicine, as it were. We are pretty far afield again (me included) and should try to steer back from forum territory. Dumuzid (talk) 20:10, 23 June 2022 (UTC)
The hostility towards 'freeze peach' (sic) expressed on sites like Reddit started an entirely different flamewar with left wing free speech supporters that is sometimes conflated into gamergate and has them misidentified as being alt-right gamergaters. which made them even angrier.
I hope this clears up some of the misunderstandings and settle some of the dust around this issue so it can be seen more clearly. Washuchan73 (talk) 04:37, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

Pardon me, late comment, but wouldn't Zoe Quinn's Kickstarter page count as a primary RS? Use of primary sources is discouraged, but is allowed in some cases. It could be of particular value for a controversial topic like this, in which the secondary RS are subject to CoI and systemic bias. Personally, I don't think Zoe Quinn intended to run a scam at first, but that's what it turned into, evidently. A couple more sources, one is just twitter, but the other seems reasonably reliable: [5][6] Xcalibur (talk) 06:53, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

The problem with the Kickstarter page as a primary source is that would seem to me to invariably require a good deal of WP:SYNTH; if there were a statement by the page itself that you wanted to use (not, say, by a commenter) then I suppose it could be discussed, but I am dubious. As for your other sources, I am guessing that the Twitter account "Sophia Narwitz" does not meet our standards for a reliable source, and RT is a classic example of a source which has been WP:DEPRECATED. I am not categorically opposed to something about the Kickstarter being included on the page, but the reliable sources seem to not have taken an interest. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 07:15, 3 July 2022 (UTC)
Yes, I only noticed after posting that RT is deprecated. This seems arbitrary to me, since it seems very solid, I guess it's a case of wrongthink/politics. If it weren't deprecated, that would be a jumping-off point for multiple relevant post-GG scandals. And I admitted that twitter is not reliable in any way -- the point of linking non-RS is to give you a sense of what to follow up on, potentially. Other than that, I can't help but notice that accepted sources (eg Polygon) report on the opening of the kickstarter campaign, but go strangely silent on it being abandoned. But I guess WP is not allowed to fill in the gaps. Xcalibur (talk) 07:46, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

rocky removes peckford

doesn't rise to the level of RS. and is redundant. - ForbiddenRocky (talk) 22:31, 22 June 2022 (UTC)

Requested move 3 July 2022

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: Not Moved
It appears that consensus points to this article not being a primary topic. Moreover, frustration has been expressed by many editors about the regular occurrence of such RMs even though nothing has changed since the last RM in 2021. (non-admin closure) >>> Extorc.talk 16:45, 9 July 2022 (UTC)


Gamergate (harassment campaign)Gamergate – There are two topics under the name "gamergate". According to Wikipedia Disambigation rules, "If there are only two topics to which a given title might refer, and one is the primary topic, then a disambiguation page is not needed." Therefore, this page should be renamed as simply gamergate and the disambiguation page should be removed. --Madame Necker (talk) 22:11, 2 July 2022 (UTC)

You will need to establish that this is the primary topic, a question that has been the subject of considerable discussion in the archives of this talk page and elsewhere on-wiki. I'd recommend coming up with an argument regarding that before beginning a RM discussion. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 00:37, 3 July 2022 (UTC)
Link to the last major discussion for convenience: Talk:Gamergate (ant)/Archive 3#Requested move 20 August 2021. Adumbrativus (talk) 00:43, 3 July 2022 (UTC)
And the other discussion around that time: Talk:Gamergate (harassment campaign)/Archive 60#Requested move 12 August 2021. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 18:53, 3 July 2022 (UTC)
Is there any clock that prevents another of these wastes of time? Can we just hat this for now? - ForbiddenRocky (talk) 04:15, 3 July 2022 (UTC)
We had a ban on move requests for some time. Can that be reinstated? Woodroar (talk) 14:45, 3 July 2022 (UTC)
  • Support The activism/harassment/cultural battle of Gamergate is by far the most prominent meaning of the term. I agree that the title should just be Gamergate, with the term directly linking to the article. The disambiguation page can remain for ants and such, just put a "for other uses" byline at the top, as in other articles. Alternatively, you can change the title to Gamergate (controversy), which is much more neutral and avoids RGW. Xcalibur (talk) 05:20, 4 July 2022 (UTC)
  • Support I didn’t know there were even multiple meanings to begin with, obviously this one is far more prominent. The average user isn’t going to be looking for an obscure entomology term when they search this. Precedent isn’t dogma, and GG has cooled enough that we can talk about something uncontroversial like this without breaking out into flamewarring. Dronebogus (talk) 15:06, 3 July 2022 (UTC)
  • Oppose - This has been argued to death over the years, and I don’t see any good reason to change the articles. The ant has scientific studies behind it & a history much longer than the harassment campaign. In addition, I believe it is important to identify the social issue as as harassment campaign within the name. Therefore, we should maintain the status quo. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 15:23, 3 July 2022 (UTC)
    I think the part about “identifying as a harassment campaign” runs afoul of WP:GREATWRONGS, let’s stick to objective reasoning. Dronebogus (talk) 15:30, 3 July 2022 (UTC)
    Read the previous discussions which led to the current name. This is not RGW, it’s calling a spade a spade. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 13:48, 4 July 2022 (UTC)
What about renaming this article to just “Gamergate campaign”, it’s more precise and clean looking. Dronebogus (talk) 15:34, 3 July 2022 (UTC)
Strongly oppose that. It's certainly not more precise, and it makes it sound like a military campaign (see search for campaign, where nearly every result in the format "[noun] campaign" refers to an armed conflict). GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 18:50, 3 July 2022 (UTC)
No. As GorillaWarfare points out, just calling it a ‘campaign’ is more confusing & imprecise. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 13:49, 4 July 2022 (UTC)
I would also oppose this, for the reasons above--and also because in my own subjective experience, simply "campaign" without the modifier carries with it a sort of expectation of more organization than is to be found. Cheers, all. Dumuzid (talk) 14:29, 4 July 2022 (UTC)
  • Oppose, no indication that this is the primary topic. Even today, identifying it as such seems to risk WP:RECENTISM given that the term for the ant is likely to remain equally significant forever, whereas an event will fade in importance as time passes. --Aquillion (talk) 18:44, 3 July 2022 (UTC)
The harassment campaign ended in 2015, around 7 years ago, according to the article's lead. The fact that it had lasting effects is in favor of its genuine significance. Nxavar (talk) 08:15, 7 July 2022 (UTC)
  • Oppose. No indication that anything has changed since the last time this was discussed (less than a year ago, at Talk:Gamergate (harassment campaign)/Archive 60#Requested move 12 August 2021 and Talk:Gamergate (ant)/Archive 3#Requested move 20 August 2021) that would make one or the other the primary topic. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 18:48, 3 July 2022 (UTC)
  • Oppose per all of the reasons above; I tend to stink we should favor scientific nomenclature over what is essentially slang, but I recognize that is not based in policy and is basically a personal quirk. I actually think the case is somewhat less compelling now than in the last go-round, when I also opposed. Cheers, all. Dumuzid (talk) 21:19, 3 July 2022 (UTC)
  • The last two times this specific move was proposed (in 2014 and 2015), it was WP:SNOW closed/withdrawn. From what I can tell, the discussion that resulted in the current setup with no primary topic is at Talk:Gamergate (ant)/Archive 3#Requested move 20 August 2021. Even moving the disambiguation page and changing the ant from the "primary topic" was a contentious process creating well over 100Kb of text, so I do not think there is much chance that there will be an agreement that this is the primary topic only a year later. Dekimasuよ! 04:07, 4 July 2022 (UTC)
  • Oppose While I admit it is up for debate whether there is a primary topic here, the harassment campaign certainly does not lay claim to being the primary topic for this term. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ () 07:29, 4 July 2022 (UTC)
  • Move to GamerGate per WP:DIFFCAPS, WP:CONCISE, and usage in a number of high-quality sources, e.g. Aghazadeh et al. (2018), Kidd & Turner (2016), Lee (2014), Mortensen (2016), and Shaw & Chess (2016). (See also several of the reference ideas at the top of the talk page.) Per WP:COMMONNAME, When there are multiple names for a subject, all of which are fairly common, and the most common has problems, it is perfectly reasonable to choose one of the others. Names used in reliable sources include "Gamergate", "GamerGate", and "#GamerGate". "Gamergate" is ambiguous, and we can't use "#GamerGate" for technical reasons, which leaves "GamerGate" as the most concise yet unambiguous title. The unique capitalization should avoid any primary topic concerns without the need for Wikipedia users to agree on a label ("campaign", "movement", etc.). --Sangdeboeuf (talk) 11:54, 4 July 2022 (UTC)
    Support that Dronebogus (talk) 15:45, 4 July 2022 (UTC)
    Same. As before. Srnec (talk) 23:13, 4 July 2022 (UTC)
    The name "Gamergate" in this context is clearly based on Watergate scandal, which is not capitalized. Therefore, capitalization would not be obviously expected to be used by most people. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ () 11:55, 8 July 2022 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Reliable sources regularly (perhaps almost universally) call Gamergate a "harassment campaign", so it's an appropriate disambiguation title. In addition, I wouldn't call the harassment campaign, a subject that has existed since 2014, a primary topic over Gamergate (ant). Woodroar (talk) 16:03, 4 July 2022 (UTC)
  • Oppose This was rejected previously and the arguments and logic of prior decisions still stand. The only other valid naming convention for this page would be "Gamergate Movement" (or similar) but this has been rejected in prior discussions despite large quantity of our sources referring to it as such (far more than call it a harassment campaign, the harassment is conducted by the movement when discussed in such terms). I don't agree with that, but I disagree with this even more strongly. The Gamergate (Ant) and no primary topic is a travesty of separate issues. Koncorde (talk) 20:10, 4 July 2022 (UTC)
  • Oppose move, again. WP:RECENTISM. - ForbiddenRocky (talk) 00:47, 5 July 2022 (UTC)
  • Oppose procedurally. A move request that needed to be filed at WP:RFPP by a brand-"new" user should have been denied. There's a reason both talk page and article are protected. ValarianB (talk) 12:04, 5 July 2022 (UTC)
  • Comment - the harassment campaign seems to have had a positive effect on myrmecology! 😂  Tewdar  17:33, 5 July 2022 (UTC)
    Somebody please ping me for the 2023 Requested move, when the ant name celebrates its 40th anniversary. Thanks, @Mathglot: (talk) 07:51, 20 August 2021 (UTC) - It's an annual event now, it seems...  Tewdar  08:34, 6 July 2022 (UTC)
  • Oppose nothing has changed. Though, i still support getting rid of the parentheses and making it 'Gamergate harassment campaign'—blindlynx 19:23, 5 July 2022 (UTC)
  • Oppose due to the total lack of evidence that anything has changed vis-a-vis this topic becoming the primary one. I also disagree with the idea that "GamerGate" would be appropriate; so much meaning should not be hung on a single choice of capitalization. XOR'easter (talk) 22:23, 6 July 2022 (UTC)
  • Support The YTD views for "Gamergate (harassment campaign)" are 222,731 while those for "Gamergate (ant)" are 16,625. Nxavar (talk) 08:08, 7 July 2022 (UTC)
  • Oppose for the same reasons I opposed moving the ant article - this compounds the problems. Artw (talk) 15:34, 8 July 2022 (UTC)
I'd also point out that while "Gamergate" was the rough banner these people gathered under it's not really any kind of official title or organisation name for it. "Gamergate harassment campaign" is equally valid, as would be "4chan misogyny op of 2014 and subsequent events". Artw (talk) 15:53, 8 July 2022 (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.

How to access Trolls and Hacktivists in Oxford Handbook

This article seems like a really useful source, but I haven't been able to find a way to access it. X-Editor (talk) 20:50, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

  • can you provide more breadcrumbs? I can find info on the Oxford Handbook, and on Trolls and Hacktivists, but nothing together.- ForbiddenRocky (talk) 08:28, 10 July 2022 (UTC)
  • They're after the chapter Trolls and Hacktivists: Political Mobilization from Online Communities, from the Oxford Handbook of Sociology and Digital Media, I think. What do you want exactly, a "yaar maties!" 🏴‍☠️ hyperlink or something? 😂  Tewdar  10:51, 10 July 2022 (UTC)
  • The outstanding Wikilibrary has it, if you have access...here. Just search "Trolls and Hacktivists" and there you go!  Tewdar  11:07, 10 July 2022 (UTC)

ForbiddenRocky's major revert of X-Editor's trimming of the Legacy section

I reverted a long string of @X-Editor:'s edits to trim the Legacy section, not because I disagree entirely, but because with so many edits it became difficult and confusing to make the several small changes I wanted make. We can discuss this here in more detail, or if X-Editor could make edits that don't both rearrange the article as a whole and edit blocks of texts in major ways, then I might be able to address just the parts I think need to be retained. - ForbiddenRocky (talk) 20:36, 13 July 2022 (UTC) - WP:BRD - ForbiddenRocky (talk) 20:39, 13 July 2022 (UTC)

@ForbiddenRocky: What are your suggestings? X-Editor (talk) 20:41, 13 July 2022 (UTC)
Don't, at the same time,:
  1. rearrange multiple sections of text
  2. massively edit a block of text
  3. delete/adding large amounts of text
and/or
  • talk about the ideas and suggestions for your desired WP:BOLD edits
also, IMHO, I think you may have missed the mark on WP:COATRACK. When I did my coatrack removal it was: Gamergate to TFYC to comment about 4chan. You seemed to have removed Gamergate to result of Gamergate.
- ForbiddenRocky (talk) 21:15, 14 July 2022 (UTC)
Thanks! X-Editor (talk) 23:13, 14 July 2022 (UTC)