Talk:Zoë Quinn: Difference between revisions

Question about Kotaku article reliability

I just wanted to point out that, unlike the vast majority of sources which rely on Zoe Quinn or her ex-boyfriend's personal statements, the Kotaku article actually performs "original research". In short, the article refutes allegations that Nathan Grayson's review on her game was biased since the review was written and submitted before Quinn cheated with the author. The article refers to an investigation of Gawker/Kotaku staff and, implicitly, Nathan Grayson as sources. The article is a primary source for refuting the allegations since it relies on an internal source. However, I'm not sure if this would be considered a reliable secondary source for the *existence* of the allegations. Press releases, like this article, would usually work as sources, but in this case, Kotaku could be seen as a participant in the drama because of Nathan Grayson. Corax rarus (talk) 12:53, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

That link goes to a 404. Euchrid (talk) 13:48, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

User:Corax rarus, this is a common misconception about sources. WP:OR and WP:V means that we, as Wikipedia editors, need to base our edits on reliable, third-party published sources, and cannot reference our own personal knowledge or experiences. These policies do not prohibit journalists from original research; on the contrary, they require it. All of the persons mentioned in this article and their works (Tweets, blogs, etc.) are effectively primary sources, and Kotaku is a secondary source because it is investigating and writing about the primary sources. Woodroar (talk) 13:56, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

Okay, thanks User:Woodroar. I was just concerned of WP:NPOV since the journalist's colleagues are also at the heart of this drama. So this source should be sufficient to at least the existence of the controversy? (Also, User:Euchrid, I've fixed my original link above) Corax rarus (talk) 19:20, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

WP:NPOV is another policy that only we as editors need to follow. Sources can and often are subjective, sometimes in a good way but sometimes in truly horrible ways, but it's our job to remain objective in how we reference them. But to answer your question, I don't think it's a particularly good source for that claim. Not because of Kotaku's reliability, but that the source doesn't adequately cover the controversy. It essentially says "several people inquired about allegations and we found they didn't have merit for these reasons" but nothing beyond that, no mention of harassment or trolling or anything like that. Since we would have to read between the lines and that's original research, the most we could get from this article is that they find the vague allegations are without merit. Obviously just my opinion, and I'd welcome others to chime in. Woodroar (talk) 22:17, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

Okay. Just wanted to also add that the article also states that "Shortly after that, in early April, Nathan and Zoe began a romantic relationship." which was a point of contention (whether Zoe actually had a romantic relationship with others between November 2013 and July 2014 as the ex-boyfriend claimed). Corax rarus (talk) 00:15, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

Even if it does, per WP:SYNTH we can't use multiple sources to combine material or imply conclusions, especially on a BLP. Woodroar (talk) 03:29, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

What review are you referring to? The Kotaku article doesn't discuss any review. All it says is there was no review. This appears to be supported by other sources. It also appears to be supported by simple OR since AFAIK, even opponents of Zoe Quinn haven't been able to show any review. (They appear to now be discussing "favourable coverage" or similar rather than a review. Nil Einne (talk) 17:37, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

That's either a typo or a misunderstanding. "The Kotaku article doesn't discuss any review. All it says is there was no review." The Kotaku article discusses a review by refuting the rumors that one exists. The second "review" in my comment refers to the mention of Quinn's game in an article which was a review but not a review of Quinn's game (this was a review of a reality TV show). Anyway, the point was that both Grayson and Quinn's ex-boyfriend mentioned that they had romantic relationships with Quinn during the same timeframe despite being enemies (Grayson threatened to seek legal action against the ex-boyfriend and Quinn over libel). Kotaku would be the reliable third-party confirming the conflict (since Quinn and her ex-boyfriend were biased primary sources), but apparently we can't say A+B=C as per WP:SYNTH. Corax rarus (talk) 23:20, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

I'm sorry but I don't see how "In short, the article refutes allegations that Nathan Grayson's review on her game was biased since the review was written and submitted before Quinn cheated with the author" was meant to imply there was no game review but only a TV show review. It seems to imply there was a game review but Kotaku claim it was written and submitted before Quinn cheated so you comment does seeming unnecessarily confusing. At no stage did you mention a TV series review, or mention there was no game review.

Yet what we know is Kotaku refuted the "allegations that Nathan Grayson's review on her game was biased" not by saying the "review was written and submitted before Quinn cheated with the author", but simply by saying the review on her game doesn't exist. They also mentioned that the only time Grayson wrote anything "involving Zoe Quinn" was the article on the reality show which they state was from before the relationship begun.

Note that the article Kotaku linked to about the reality TV show wasn't what would generally be called a review either (particularly not in reference to a TV show). It was a "behind the scenes" news or story style article look at how everything allegedly was wrong with the reality show. It's not a review or evaluation based on having watched the TV show and offering an analysis/review/evaluation of the TV show based on this viewing (or reading or listening or playing or whatever). Which is what most people expect when someone mentions a review of a TV show (or book or play or song or game or whatever), as per our article. It doesn't even sound like the author has seen the show, and they definitely don't seem to be claiming they have. (To be honest, I'm not sure if the show was ever actually shown to anyone or because it was cancelled, it basically never became a product anyone could really review.)

If you want to nitpick, you could perhaps say the article was a review of allegations surrounding the filming of and problems behind the show. But calling it a review of the show is a real stretch.

The simple fact is, if you had an equivalent story about the latest Star Wars film or The Big Bang Theory or whatever, very few people would be claiming it was a review of the film or series. If the people making allegations about Quinn are claiming that article is a review, it's no wonder no one trusts them since it's sounds a lot like a lame attempt to deny they were wrong about the existance of a review. (Although as I've said, as far as I know most of them have now moved on from claiming there is a review, instead talking about favourable coverage or whatever.)

Note that this isn't simply nitpicking, it's an important point. If we were to ever cover the story in this level of detail (which I doubt), it would be important we mention Kotaku's primary defence in relation to allegations of a biased game review is that there is none. Similarly, considering that many people would not consider the article on the TV show a review, it would be fairly confusing for us to call it one (except if we are quoting someone who does call it a review) or to imply a review exists since most people who have followed the story will be wondering "what review" and many people following our links to the "review" will think they must have followed the wrong link.

BTW, I stand by my comments. The Kotaku article doesn't discuss any game review. The only thing it does is mention there was no game review which isn't what I would consider "discussing a review". Still, if you disagree and feel this is "discussing a review", we'll just have to agree to disagree. I don't consider it an important point since I made sure my comment was clear in saying they did mention there was no review. So there should have been no confusion that they did deny there was any review from my comment.

Nil Einne (talk) 20:10, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

Nil Einne I wasn't trying to insert any bias. If I'm guilty of anything, it's being unclear. Nathan Grayson, the Kotaku writer, |was the one who referred to his article as a "review".. One of his tweets was (paraphrased) "I can't believe people won't even read what they're arguing about. I only wrote a TV show review." Corax rarus (talk) 17:24, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

List of Relevant Material

Per @Diego Moya:’s request in the ANI, and in the interest of moving the article forward, I have compiled a list of things which I feel are relevant and can be sourced.

• Quinn's ex-boyfriend [RedactedperBLPname] released details of her personal life on August 16th, 2014. Sources: The Daily Beast
  • No, the blog post is entirely unacceptable as a reliable source for anything about any living person. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 00:48, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
    • It isn't about the living person, it is about its own date of publication. That is generally allowed under WP:RS. Titanium Dragon (talk) 01:05, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
      • Well, no. Such material is not allowed in any way, shape or form in the biography of a living person. You really, really need to understand our sourcing requirements for biographies. We do not include anything that is self-published by anyone not the article subject. A blog post by a jilted ex-lover is the very definition of what we categorically exclude. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 01:16, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
  • The blog post from Quinn's boyfriend is already covered in the article through The Daily Beast reference. Given the requirements by BLP policy to protect privacy, it's better to address indirectly through third references that evaluate its significance rather than link to it directly. Diego (talk) 09:02, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
    • Excellent. Titanium Dragon (talk) 10:16, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
• Zoe Quinn became romantically involved with Nathan Grayson shortly after he penned a positive article about her on Kotaku. Sources: Bright Side of News, Game Revolution, Kotaku
  • Not shown to be encyclopedically relevant to Quinn's life. Connecting the two events is prohibited original synthesis. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 00:48, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
    • Not synthesis; Kotaku directly notes exactly this. Positive should probably be removed, though. Titanium Dragon (talk) 01:07, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
• Outraged gamers posted numerous comments on Twitter, Facebook, Reddit, and the forums and comments sections of many game journalism websites demanding an investigation of the claims, accusing Zoe Quinn of using improper personal relationships to advance her career and garner positive coverage in the press, as well as accusing the independent gaming industry and gaming journalists of nepotism and corruption. Sources: Bright Side of News
  • "Outraged gamers" aren't reliable sources, and comment threads anywhere are not reliable sources. Those accusations are scurrilous, completely unsupported by actual facts and have received zero credence in any mainstream reliable source. If nobody wants to actually put their name on the accusation in a widely-respected reliable source, that suggests that the accusation has no business on Wikipedia. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 00:48, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
    • This is a documentation of what happened - outraged gamers did X, Y, and Z. The cite is not outraged gamers. Titanium Dragon (talk) 01:08, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
      • "Outraged gamers" isn't a person or a thing. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 01:14, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
        • Uh, it is a group of people, like "protestors". You'll find "protestors", "police", ect. all over the place. Not unusual. Titanium Dragon (talk) 01:18, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
• el_chupacupcake subsequently purged thousands of posts from Reddit in the name of preventing harassment and the distribution of personal information. Sources: Bright Side of News, >Post on Reddit explaining removal
  • This issue is adequately discussed in the article, as we make mention of the harassment of Quinn. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 00:48, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
• Unrelated posts about improper and unprofessional behavior and discussion on corruption in the video game journalism industry were also removed. Sources: Bright Side of News
  • Hey look, another unrelated attempt to coatrack this article. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 00:52, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
    • Nope. It is directly relevant to the above because it was done at the same time and was seen as censorship, resulting in a further backlash, as noted in the source. Possibly should just merge these two things, as they're directly related and not actually two separate things. The perception of censorship on Reddit was part of what enraged people. Titanium Dragon (talk) 01:15, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
• Zoe Quinn issued an invalid copyright claim on a YouTube video by MundaneMatt documenting the incident; the video was restored on appeal. Sources: New Media Rockstars Request, appeal, and restoration notice from YouTube (primary document)
  • The tumblr link is a link to a copy of the takedown request, appeal, and restoration notice from Youtube. Per WP:PSTS: "A primary source may only be used on Wikipedia to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the primary source but without further, specialized knowledge." In this case, the document shown is of Zoe Quinn's copyright takedown claim against the video in question, and the restoration notice from YouTube stating that the copyright takedown request that they recieved was invalid. NMRS article speaks about the context of the takedown in the incident, as the attempted censorship of this video was the factor which caused John Bain and others to get involved. Please stop removing things that you don't like; if you are unhappy with sources, simply deleting material makes it difficult to keep track of what is going on. I had simply assumed that it had been removed by accident. Titanium Dragon (talk) 10:01, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

No, it was not removed by accident. You have continuously posted material that makes claims not in sources or beyond what the sources say. In this case, the very same source you are using [1] states clearly that is not proven that Zoe Quinn requested the material be removed, and word it as an allegation, not a fact. Yet you continue to state that it was. Read and stick to the sources, or we need to kill this entire discussion. - Bilby (talk) 10:40, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

The copyright takedown notice has Zoe Quinn's address and phone number on it (blacked out for obvious reasons). Titanium Dragon (talk) 10:51, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

The copyright takedown notice was a scan posted by the person who is claiming that Quinn forced his video to be removed - he's not a reliable source. The reliable source describes it as an allegation. We stick to that. - Bilby (talk) 10:58, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

• The takedown of MundaneMatt's video caused John Bain to comment on the issue and condemn censorship; Bain subsequently become the target of harassment by Zoe Quinn’s supporters. Source: New Media Rockstars
• The censorship of the video caused InternetAristocrat to make several videos documenting the incident, one of which received over 750,000 views. Sources: >New Media Rockstars, can cite video itself on itself for view count.
  • We really, really don't care that someone made a YouTube video about this. It's the opposite of a reliable source. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 00:52, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
    • YouTube videos are not infrequently noted in articles if they are relevant; the video in question was linked from a number of sources of coverage. IIRC the Project Chanology page mentions the YouTube videos which were related to that nonsense. It is potentially relevant. Could be removed, though; what do others think? Titanium Dragon (talk) 01:41, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
• Lack of coverage of the scandal by several major websites lead to additional charges of a media blackout and a coverup of corruption by gamers. Source: Bright Side of News
  • "Charges" by whom? Anonymous randos on Reddit? NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 00:48, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
    • Per the article: "The blanket censoring of voices across different mediums earned even more ire from the community, leading to an even greater conflict." Titanium Dragon (talk) 01:41, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
• Kotaku released a press release defending Grayson, confirming that he was in a romantic relationship with Zoe Quinn but stating that it started after he wrote the article about Zoe Quinn. Source: Kotaku
  • Not encyclopedic. We don't have any interest in becoming a catalog of who had relationships with whom. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 00:48, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
    • This is entirely encyclopedic because the issue was re: his and her professional integrity. Titanium Dragon (talk) 01:17, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
      • We literally don't care who she had sex with. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 01:21, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
        • It doesn't matter what you care about; what matters is whether or not it is notable. The entire incident became notable precisely because of who she slept with, as was noted by several articles; were it not for the who, no one would have covered it. The fact that Kotaku had to issue a press release defending one of their reporters - and that they took the allegations seriously - is evidence that yes, people did, in fact, care. Titanium Dragon (talk) 01:31, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
• GamesNosh’s webhost asked that they remove a post documenting the scandal and the ensuing coverup. Source: Bright Side of News, can possibly source GamesNosh itself as it noted the issue and it is about itself?
  • Not relevant to Quinn, unless you can prove that she was responsible for asking for the removal. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 00:48, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
• Zoe Quinn claimed that her personal life was no one else’s business and refused to address the validity of the complaints laid against her, save to note that Grayson had not written a review of Depression Quest. Source: GamesNosh, could possibly cite Zoe’s post itself as well as it was about herself and her reaction? Possibly could site some other sources as well?
  • This is classic "guilty until proven innocent" nonsense. "GamesNosh" is not remotely an acceptable reliable source. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 00:48, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
    • She said exactly this, they sourced it TO Zoe Quinn herself, they link to her statement in the article, and GamesNosh has an editorial staff. Why are they not even remotely a RS? Titanium Dragon (talk) 01:28, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
      • Because they've been around for not even one year, have no staff listing on their website beyond "GamesNosh™ is a wholly owned website and content platform maintained and created by Christopher Heeley" and it has no known and established reputation for fact-checking and editorial integrity. Their "Staff tweets" box contains no tweets from anyone not named Chris Heeley. That suggests that GamesNosh is basically his personal blog with perhaps a few guest posts. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 01:34, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
• Zoe Quinn reported that she had become the subject of harassment. Source: The Daily Beast, Daily Dot, lots of other potential sources
  • Yes, and this is adequately discussed. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 00:52, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
• Several journalists associated with feminism and the social justice movement claimed that the scandal and harassment was motivated by sexism and misogyny. Sources: The Daily Beast, Daily Dot, lots of other potential sources
• Other journalists beseeched gamers to focus on the men involved in the scandal instead of Zoe Quinn. Source: [Slate

Those seem to be the relevant facts: what happened, who was involved, what the reaction was. Thoughts? Titanium Dragon (talk) 00:34, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

All this seems comprehensive and well-researched enough. I support adding it. Considering Quinn was a virtual unknown before these incidents, this information is pertinent to the article. JQ (talk) 03:16, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

What is in the article now is sufficient enough detail to describe the events at hand; a female game dev's personal information was leaked by an ex-bf, who also made salacious claims regarding a relationship with a journalist. The information leaked has been used to harass her and her family, and that unknown parties have hacked at least one of her accounts to post more harassing information. The only real thing that could see expansion here is the general theme of harassment and misogyny that women in the gaming industry are subjected to. As reliable sources, e.g. here, begin to tie together the plight of Quinn, Sarkeesian, and others...that is where the article can be fleshed out more. Not in the reprinting of potentially defamatory claims by the subject's ex, not in the the twitter/4chan-sphere of gamers' claiming quid pro quo in the journalist's coverage of the subject's game. Tarc (talk) 01:39, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

Given that the entire reason the incident became noteworthy rather than yet another stupid fight between SJWs and gamers was because of who she slept with, it is very hard to omit that information. At the very least Grayson should be mentioned, as his involvement was a major flashpoint and drew an official response from Kotaku. Incidentally, the initial reports of her harassment re: Depression Quest are somewhat problematic in that they are not independent of the source; all the claims came from Quinn herself, which is generally a problem as far as reliable sources go - we try to avoid such, and it was noted by several folks that there was no independent confirmation of said harassment. Titanium Dragon (talk) 01:47, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

Ah yes, the "she's probably just making it all up" defense, which is only a shade below "she was asking for it". Seriously, educate yourself. Tarc (talk) 02:09, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

While I am an uninvolved-editor, Tarc, your comment seems to verge on being both uncivil towards Titanium Dragon and logically-fallacious, as you don't respond to their concerns and instead proffer what's debateably a non sequitur. I'm endeavouring to assume good faith (AGF) on your part, but it's challenging to do so when such open condescension and hostility is manifest. Not to mention that you (unintentionally?) misrepresent TD's comment and post w/ quotes some pretty incendiary language to make it seem like TD said this! Why? I'd strongly encourage you to "check yourself before you wreck yourself" as the saying goes - pause, and check-in with TD, who you don't seem to be treating with the collegial respect and professionalism that their authentic efforts to contribute to Wikipedia merit. Azx2 04:46, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

The point is that independent confirmation or other evidence is important. There is a plethora of evidence for the most recent round of harassment. The original round of harassment was reported by Quinn and, as far as I can tell, never confirmed by any secondary source, and has since been questioned by several; they simply repeated Quinn's claims uncritically. This is an issue because it lacks independent sourcing, and Quinn herself didn't present evidence of said harassment. Having multiple independent sources is important for reliably sourcing stuff and creating notability; if a bunch of newspapers just copy each others' news stories, that isn't multiple independent sources, it is a single source copied multiple times. This is an issue with AP reports at times as well. This is, in fact, part of the problem with Zoe Quinn's notability, as I have noted previously; the article probably shouldn't have existed before this whole nonsense happened, and frankly, if it hadn't existed before all this nonsense happened, we probably wouldn't be having this conversation on Wikipedia. Titanium Dragon (talk) 05:29, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

We don't require independent confirmation of reliable sources, either in their choice or analysis of primary sources. If we did, every reference—every single reference on Wikipedia—would be somehow unconfirmed until another reliable source came along and interviewed the same person, performed the same analysis, etc. I seriously doubt any tertiary source would abide by such an unrealistic (and unnecessary) standard, as it is literally impossible in many cases. Reliable sources are considered reliable because we trust their judgment. Woodroar (talk) 06:14, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

We trust reliable sources because they check their facts (among other things), which is part of why we look for places with editors, editorial standards, ect. and don't use random blog posts. For example, The Escapist notes that they don't fact check claims of harassment, which means that The Escapist would not be a RS for such (and kind of raises questions about their reliability in general, but that is neither here nor there). This is especially an issue when it comes to biased sources, and if there is evidence that facts aren't being checked, then they aren't really reliable. This can also be an issue if outlets are simply re-reporting things which are reported on other sites, as it can generate information out of nothing and result in an odd game of telephone. We try to use the best sources possible so that we can communicate verifiable, accurate information on notable subjects. There are plenty of "reliable sources" which claim that Obama was born in Kenya, but we don't say "Obama was born in Kenya" in the main article about Barack Obama because A) other, better sources say that he was born in Hawaii (and indeed, there is primary documentation of such) and B) because the sources which claim otherwise are biased sources. We do report on the Birther conspiracy theory, but we don't present their claims as truth. When reliable sources contradict each other, what do we do? You know the answer as well as I do - we try to be accurate, and if the thing is actually a source of conflict potentially report on it. Or possibly not report on it at all if it isn't clear if it is important yet or not, or if the situation is unclear. Titanium Dragon (talk) 06:53, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

We have never, to my knowledge, required reliable sources to fact-check individual stories or to state whether they have done so, or declined a source because they didn't consider fact-checking necessary. Sources simply must have a "reputation for fact-checking and accuracy" (WP:RS) or a "professional structure in place for checking or analyzing facts, legal issues, evidence, and arguments" (WP:V). We have plenty of articles with statements based on an unnamed witness, for example, and have not required assurance that this witness was vetted. A reliable source states it, we trust them, and so we report it as such. Woodroar (talk) 07:44, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

You apparently haven't edited much at controversial topics if you haven't seen the reliability of a source challenged. Reliability is always contextual and relative to the particular claims supported by the reference (it's there in the guideline: see Definition of a source and WP:CONTEXTMATTERS, "the piece of work itself can affect reliability" and "the reliability of a source depends on context"). When one claim in a presumed RS is contradicted by an incompatible claim in other RSs, editors look at the evidence on how the sources have arrived to their conclusions - if the source asserts that they have fact checked the claim and that they have an editorial process in place, we usually trust them; but if they don't, then we use them by attributing the claim as WP:RSOPINION, or not at all. This is exactly how reliability is evaluated and the reason why the Reliable sources/Noticeboard exists. If the contradicting claims are made from sources of equivalent reliability, we report both claims per WP:NPOV, or none of them. Diego (talk) 09:32, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

Collapsing comments not tied to specific article improvements and subsequent responses. Per WP:NOTAFORUM and WP:TPG, this talk page is for discussion of article improvements, not general discussion about the subject.--Cúchullain t/c 15:35, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

Fundamentally there are more or less four "narratives" here: The so-called "social justice" point of view, that all the attacks on Zoe Quinn are because of misogyny and sexism. In their defense, there is plenty of very nasty language being directed at Zoe Quinn and her supporters. The "anti-SJW" contingent, who feel that Zoe Quinn and her compatriots are attempting to hijack gaming journalism and protect themselves from criticism while acting as bullies to others, hiding behind the shield of social justice and suppressing negative coverage about themselves in the name of promoting the cause.[Redacted] The "gaming journalism is corrupt" point of view, that this is a symptom of the larger issue of corruption in the gaming industry, and this incident brought it to a head. These folks tend to focus more on Grayson and the indie gaming community [Redacted]. In their defense, two websites ended up changing their policies as regards journalistic disclosure and what stories writers were allowed to write on as a result of this, and Kotaku felt it was necessary to defend Grayson against allegations of impropriety. The "there are no angels" point of view, that this is an ugly internet fight between two groups of people who hate each other with a third group of people trying to use the scandal to advance their own agenda. In their defense, see the three narratives above. This makes it very important that we keep an eye on our sources in this case and make sure that we avoid letting any biases in our sources creep into the article. Titanium Dragon (talk) 10:40, 2 September 2014 (UTC) Even more important would be if we observed WP:NOTFORUM. Everyone should stick to plausible proposals regarding the article. Johnuniq (talk) 10:57, 2 September 2014 (UTC) I've restored the above comments, minus the BLP violations. Discussing the approaches to cover the topic is part of the process for building the article. In this case, building an analysis of the existing and document-able viewpoints is necessary to ensure that the article is WP:NPOV compliant, and the above comment is a valid first step for that. Diego (talk) 14:28, 2 September 2014 (UTC) I dislike redacting comments, because they no longer represent what the author said. That said, this is simple opinion, and not particularly useful. It is also partially inaccurate: the two publications which changed their policies did so for reasons incidental to Quinn - one was unrelated, and the other was not because of actions by Quinn, but by the journalist. - Bilby (talk) 14:39, 2 September 2014 (UTC) Everyone needs to keep in mind the WP:NOTAFORUM policy and the talk page guidelines. All discussions need to focus on prospective article improvements; editors' personal opinions and interpretations are inappropriate.--Cúchullain t/c 15:36, 2 September 2014 (UTC) I'm quite aware of that. But as I've explained several times at this talk page, identifying the points of view expressed by the available sources is not done for enjoyment of small talk or to express ourselves, it has the ultimate goal of ensuring compliance of the article with core content policy. I would call guaranteeing such compliance an article improvement. Diego (talk) 15:44, 2 September 2014 (UTC) Much of the conversation above is just editorializing about the story, not proposing specific, actionable article improvements. This is not appropriate and further comments of that nature will be removed.--Cúchullain t/c 15:50, 2 September 2014 (UTC) (edit conflict)It would be more constructive that you engaged in analyzing the issues that other editors have raised in order to achieve consensus, rather than stretching the limits of WP:TALKNO. Do you have anything to contribute with respect to the differing points of view by which reliable sources are covering this topic? Diego (talk) 15:59, 2 September 2014 (UTC) I'm not going to become involved in editing the article at this time, but I'll help make sure it and this talk page are free of BLP and other policy violations. What will be most "constructive" will be for editors to use this talk page to discuss specific, reliably sourced improvements to the article rather than their own feelings and interpretations. Stick to that and there won't be a problem.--Cúchullain t/c 17:43, 2 September 2014 (UTC) Sorry Cuchullain but since there are BLP issues with the specifics of the many threads of this controversy without slightly vaguer discussions to narrow the scope of the content appropriate for the article how do you propose we start making actionable article improvements without riskiing violating WP:BLP? SPACKlick (talk) 15:55, 2 September 2014 (UTC) Carefully, as you should with any BLP. Suggest reasonable, productive changes you want to make along with the reliable sources that support them, and if there's consensus they will be included. Avoid general discussion about the topic or using the talk page as a forum for expressing your personal opinions.--Cúchullain t/c 16:01, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

It should be noted that The Escapist has since published an admission that it failed to fact-check the Wizardchan story, and they've revised their policies so that everything must be fact-checked before publication, so they are indeed a reliable source. Ironically, many other anti-GamerGate sources that are normally considered reliable would be disqualified for referencing in this article if the criteria for their reliability were "did they fact-check the Wizardchan incident"; they have not even acknowledged the oversight. Let's not go there. One slip-up is not a reason for disqualification as an RS. Willhesucceed (talk) 09:31, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

WP:BLPNAME

In its entirety:

Caution should be applied when identifying individuals who are discussed primarily in terms of a single event. When the name of a private individual has not been widely disseminated or has been intentionally concealed, such as in certain court cases or occupations, it is often preferable to omit it, especially when doing so does not result in a significant loss of context. When deciding whether to include a name, its publication in secondary sources other than news media, such as scholarly journals or the work of recognized experts, should be afforded greater weight than the brief appearance of names in news stories. Consider whether the inclusion of names of living private individuals who are not directly involved in an article's topic adds significant value. The presumption in favor of privacy is strong in the case of family members of articles' subjects and other loosely involved, otherwise low-profile persons. The names of any immediate, ex, or significant family members or any significant relationship of the subject of a BLP may be part of an article, if reliably sourced, subject to editorial discretion that such information is relevant to a reader's complete understanding of the subject. However, names of family members who are not also notable public figures must be removed from an article if they are not properly sourced.

Which part of this policy calls for deleting the name of the living person who set this kerfuffle in motion?

His name hasn't been intentionally concealed. His name appears in The Globe and Mail. He's certainly "directly involved in the article's topic" and his name's absence deprives the article of necessary context. I'm aware of norms that argue for the omission of names of alleged victims of sexual assault, and they might well be coextensive with WP:HARM. But the names of alleged perpetrators of such harassment? Confirmed in The Globe and Mail? Really? David in DC (talk) 19:56, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

He intentionally concealed his name when he posted. Removing the name doesn't change the context. His name only appears as brief mentions in blogs and news media. SPACKlick (talk) 19:59, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

He's certainly "directly involved in the article's topic" and his name's absence deprives the article of necessary context. Of what context? All the relevant context is that he was Zoe Quinn's boyfriend. Also, we concealed Zoe Quinn's real name, because it appeared in few to no RS so it wasn't encylopedic to state, and given that she used a fake name anywho, we should respect that. We should also err on the side of caution on including real people's names. I have not seen his name plastered in article titles, only revealing his connection as her 'ex boyfriend' and that's all the relevant context that is needed. The specific bit you're looking for in BLPNAME is Caution should be applied when identifying individuals who are discussed primarily in terms of a single event. When the name of a private individual has not been widely disseminated or has been intentionally concealed, such as in certain court cases or occupations, it is often preferable to omit it... We should keep it omitted due to privacy concerns for the individual at hand. Tutelary (talk) 20:06, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

I disagree, but it seems consensus is in the other direction. So be it.

You may have noticed, I redacted it above on the talk page, too.

Now, what on earth is wrong with this direct quotation, attributed to the Guardian "According to The Guardian, Quinn has "had to pack up and move in with friends, after [this] online campaign of hatred against her." It's a reliable source and it's not an opinion piece. David in DC (talk) 20:23, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

IT's of no encyclopaedic value. WP:BLPGOSSIP states Ask yourself whether the source is reliable; whether the material is being presented as true; and whether, even if true, it is relevant to a disinterested article about the subject. It may be worthwhile in an article called Responses to TheZoePost but it's not revelant to a disinterested article about Zoe Quinn. SPACKlick (talk) 20:29, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

I'm beginning to understand why newbies are feeling bitten here. I'm feeling bitten and I'm no newby. There's a pervasive sense ownership in the hair-trigger edits going on around here and, believe it or not, I'm usually a BLP warrior on the exclusionary side of the debate. That a major newspaper has reported that the subject of a BLP has felt the need to move because of harassment is not gossip. It's a significant, factual development that would figure in any biography, wiki or published on old style paper. David in DC (talk) 20:43, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

SPACKlick, I agree with you on the name, it should be omitted, but I'm not seeing the proof that omitting the mention that she was driven from her home in a section entitled 'harassment' would be beneficial. Tutelary (talk) 20:50, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

Sorry if we've been a little zealous David in DC. WRT to the name, it simply violates BLP. WRT to the Guardian quote, I'm not convinced on the house move, but after you Boldly added it, I reverted it and now we discuss it. This is how editing is meant to work. I've queried whether it's relevant to a disinterested article on the subject. What does it add for the reader? SPACKlick (talk) 20:54, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

The real issue here is that the whole "harassment" section is probably going to need to become a "controversy" section. It really depends on how long this section is going to be; GamerGate has risen to the point of notability and actually has more articles than Zoe Quinn harassment does at this point (at least on Google News, though lord knows that's a rough estimate at best, as a lot of stuff involved in this aren't really great sources; there are lots of RSs, but a lot of sources are biased or have conflicts of interest, which is making sourcing things a lot more dicey). Also, a lot of the heat she has drawn is less harassment and more criticism, which complicates matters further, and even worse are the accusations that she is playing the victim (and there are numerous accusations of exactly this, re: the harassment and claims of misogyny). Her leaving her home is potentially noteworthy, but it depends on how much we end up including in the article. Titanium Dragon (talk) 09:20, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

Protection

I've protected the page due to today's edit warring, which has BLP implications. Use this time to hammer out any wording changes and additions here on the talk page.--Cúchullain ^t/c 15:30, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

I'm a little disappointed you referred to today's events as edit warring. There were 1, 2, 3, 4 changes (6 if you include disputed tags), one of which was mine which was followed by a prompt trip to the talk page to discuss the matter [and admit I was mistaken in my revert]. Since the last revert all involved had come to the talk page to discuss it (bar Edward321). How as this an Edit War? I'm not saying some time to work things out a bit better on the talk page is a bad idea but I reject the applied label. SPACKlick (talk) 15:59, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

The bulk of edits today (and part of last night) have been editors reverting each other. That's an edit war, and it's made worse by the potential BLP implications of most of those changes. I'll lift the full protection if editors here come to an agreement on what should be changed, otherwise this week will be a good oportunity for all sides to make their proposals without the worry of disrupting the mainspace.--Cúchullain ^t/c 17:54, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

Really this has been the case for several days at this point. Titanium Dragon (talk) 19:30, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

This should be semi-protected now and the words "harassment" should be replaced with "backlash". --Artman40 (talk) 13:18, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

Surely you can point to a majority of the reliable sources which are now describing what happened to Quinn as "backlash," then? NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 14:16, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

Al-Jazeera source

Any thoughts about the article put out by Al-Jazeera? http://stream.aljazeera.com/story/201409032102-0024126 Citation Needed | 22:26, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

There's no byline. It isn't journalism or even an OpEd, it is just a "these people tweeted X" and "those people instagrammed Y" collation of data. Tarc (talk) 22:29, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

Not certain how useful it is for this article, given he sources we already have but it seems a reasonably well sourced summary of the GamerGate trend with some information which will probably be in this article, although as I say sourced to articles dealing with how the overall controversy directly relates to Zoe Quinn. Good find though. SPACKlick (talk) 23:18, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

Tarc, you obviously have no idea what journalism is and should remove yourself from this article. I've already forwarded my concerns to your superiors. Trying to control history is not your job. TheNewMinistry (talk) 15:37, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

Erm, "forwarded my concerns to your superiors"? There are no such things. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 16:03, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

It's ok, gamer types need to blow off steam sometimes. The point was, it simply isn't an actual "article", it is just list of personal tweets and opinion of random people. It may be interesting to read, but it is really of no value to this Wikipedia article. Tarc (talk) 16:29, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

Tarc, you are clearly biased, demonstrated by you accusing me of being a "gamer", a term made derogatory in recent days by the Zoe Quinn camp and her supporters. You are biased, and your position requires you to be unbiased. That is a conflict of interest and you should remove yourself from this matter entirely. TheNewMinistry (talk) 17:33, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

Given that every single one of your edits about Zoe Quinn (both here and on the Pay To Play article) has had to be revision-deleted due to BLP concerns, I suspect it is unlikely that Tarc is the one that should remove themselves from this matter. Please don't step over that line again. Black Kite (talk) 18:02, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

"Administrators assume these responsibilities as volunteers who go through a community review process. They are not acting as employees of the Wikimedia Foundation. They are never required to use their tools, and must never use them to gain an advantage in a dispute in which they are involved." - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators Continue violating your own policies, gentlemen. TheNewMinistry (talk) 18:45, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

Protecting a page because of concerns over policy violations is not "becoming involved in a dispute." NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 19:05, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

Tarc has been restricted from editing other articles which had to do with social justice-related persons/issues in the past (specifically re: Manning and transgendred people) due to his ill behavior, and has been consistently aggressive here as well. Titanium Dragon (talk) 18:58, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

@TheNewMinistry, there's no requirement that editors are not biased, nor that they recuse from editing; the only thing forbidden is pushing your bias into the article. I'm biased, you're biased and the references we use are all biased, so Tarc can participate too. Neutrality is expected to happen from the process of confronting the opposing views, and what we call neutral is itself a bias towards verifiable content (as opposed to The Truth) and diversity of views, which we expect will produce content valid for all readers.

@Tarc, the source provides analysis and commentary of the GammerGate name and conversation (connecting it to Sarkeesian and Quinn) which, coming from a reliable source, provides significance so we can use it for a sentence or two describing the concept. Diego (talk) 20:19, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

Kids, we're discussing the Zoe Quinn article and the al Jazeera source; if you have a problem with me or something from my past, then find the appropriate (i.e. not this one) venue in which to discuss it. Black Kite is not involved in this topic, nor with you Mr. Ministry, so he is free to take any admin action upon you or other disruptive editors as he sees fit. Any admin action can be challenged of course, so you will be free to do so when (and I'm pretty sure we're at "when" no, and not "if") you get blocked. As for gaming, I was rolling a 20-sided die likely long before most of you were born, and still do a bit of WoW and LoL in the present. It seems that the Gen X crowd has a more innate sense of respect for women that is wholly lacking in some millennials. Tarc (talk) 19:19, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

@Tarc: Please be WP:CIVIL; insulting people by stating that they are misogynistic because of their age is wholly inappropriate. As for the source itself, I've been seeing an increasing use of embedded Twitter posts in news articles of late to illustrate what is going on in the world; it is very strange to see, but is probably some kind of new normal. I suspect it will continue. The article seems to be about summarizing what is going on, which seems legit. Titanium Dragon (talk) 20:38, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

Al Jazeera is a reliable source and can be included as source of information in the article. --MyMoloboaccount (talk) 20:51, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

No, that article is literally nothing more than a listing of tweets. There is no reporting involved - it is nothing more than a collection of 140-character opinions. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 22:02, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

@NorthBySouthBaranof: No, a reliable source considered thoes 140-character opinions notable enough to include in an article. They are now secondary sourced to a reliable source and as such are worth considering. From memory there's not much in there for this article but the contents can't be dismissed out of hand. SPACKlick (talk) 22:36, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

No, it is not. There is no byline and simply including a tweet in a listing does not make it a secondary source. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 23:34, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

Why does it matter whether there's a byline? The person who put the article together has been vetted by Al Jazeera, which is a reliable source. Whether the article can contribute anything meaningful to this page is up for debate, but whether it's a reliable source is not. Willhesucceed (talk) 12:03, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

Because it isn't an article, just a listing of other people's social media opinions. Tarc (talk) 12:32, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

That's not quite right. The article also contains the summarizing and opinions of the journalist that wrote it. Also the act of curating those opinions that the editor deemed relevant to the story is a creative act that signals those as relevant. If the post were a collection of randomly selected comments, as those which appear on a twitter hashtag, you might have a point. If that makes you feel better, we can use only the parts of the article that don't appear within the copied tweets; the gist of the article is contained within the plain text parts anyway. Diego (talk) 13:21, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

GamerGate becoming increasingly notable

It appears that "Gamergate" (ugh, why do we let the internet name these things?) is becoming increasingly notable; we've now gone from about a dozen articles about Zoe Quinn to more than a hundred which show up mentioning her on Google News. Business Insider alone has written more than one article about it, as has The Guardian, and it appears to be all over the place now, greatly overshadowing the original coverage by the looks of things. As usual, the level-headed folks who suggested that we sit back and wait before messing with the article at the start were right. Titanium Dragon (talk) 19:07, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

Yes, and interestingly enough, essentially all the coverage focuses on the "vicious online assaults" of Quinn, Sarkeesian and others, with The Week describing her attackers as "the gamer Taliban" who commit acts of "online terrorism." Paste noted that "It started with an angry ex-boyfriend releasing private information about a female game developer, Zoe Quinn. Paste didn’t mention that because the personal life of a game designer is not news. ... Whether it’s hate, fear or simply the grotesque joy horrible people find in maliciously denigrating others, this entire #GamerGate nonsense is built on silencing women and shutting them out of games." Notice the focus of the reliable sources, which we are required to mirror. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 19:19, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

@NorthBySouthBaranof: Just to note that I've added an elipsis into the above quote where a portion was excluded in order to preserve accuracy. SPACKlick (talk) 19:32, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

@NorthBySouthBaranof: Only if you're only reading the editorial pieces - which, as you yourself complained about above, we shouldn't be. On the other hand, the articles which are actually, well, news articles seem to be about how the revelations about Quinn lead to not only her harassment but an ugly fight on the internet. We've got articles like [this], and [this], and the Al Jezeera article, and [Business Insider's new article about the growing rift between gamers and game journalists], and [this about it being about corruption]. We've had [the FBI talk about harassment] and stuff even unrelated to Quinn and Anita, like [Polygon and Kotaku] getting caught with writers violating their ethics policies. [What Culture] ran an article about it, and the first thing the article noted was "it's not about sexism". Now, that's not to say that people aren't mentioning the harassment - virtually every article does mention it - but the ethics issues are being mentioned very often and given focus in many, many articles. Titanium Dragon (talk) 19:54, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

Interesting that you dismiss clearly-reliable sources such as Paste and The Week while relying on GamerHeadlines.com and "What Culture" for your allegations. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 21:58, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

I note that "What Culture" is not a reliable source per Wikipedia guidelines - its own About page states "WhatCulture.com operates in a similar manner to popular social networks such as Twitter, in that we accept direct contributions from people around the world." There is no evidence of significant editorial controls, any fact-checking structure or process to ensure accountability. The article in question is bylined simply "Jordan" with no last name. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 23:33, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

Incidentally, a number of articles have mentioned the term "social justice warrior", including Forbes of all places. Titanium Dragon (talk) 20:15, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

Al Jazeera especially notes the the controversy is not about infidelity but about using sex to advance games and alledged corruption in gaming journalism. They also mention a rift between gamers and gaming journalists who in several cases started to become social/ideological activists instead. While the latter probably belongs into Gamergate article some poor sould will have to create, the first part needs to be presented in the current article as the at the moment the readers can get impression that Zoe Quinn was harassed solely due to allegations of infidelity.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 20:48, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

Lol, no. What you're trying to do is water down the harassment by echoing the accusations from the jilted ex-boyfriend's blog, i.e. painting the picture that Quinn deserved it. Angry video gamers may be claiming that as their source of their bubbling frustration, but their opinions and their personal motivations mater nothing at all to this person's Wikipedia biography. Tarc (talk) 21:20, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

Honestly, I think more of these articles are starting to focus more on the whole movement versus Zoe Quinn, despite her being almost inevitably mentioned. If a couple of people were willing to help out draft a independent article relating to the movement as a whole. Nothing more is being accomplished from all these discussions on this talk page other than editors on both sides throwing remarks. Citation Needed | 21:44, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

Tarc, nobody is trying to water down the harassment and nobody other than yourself has suggested anybody deserved harassment and abuse for any reason. We're trying to see what happened, that can be verified, in reliable sources. If those sources give details on the harassment, we'll discuss the encyclopaedic merit of going into detail vs a broad summary. If they give reasons given by the harassers, we'll debate the merits of including that vs not detailing motive. I do agree that the details are starting to be more about the *sigh* "GamerGate" controversy(ies) and therefore are probably not for this article and like Citation said above there may now be enough for that kind of article to be created. SPACKlick (talk) 22:42, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

Yes, he is doing that, as are several others here, and I will call out misogynistic comments when I see it. Do not presume that you are in a position to give instructions to other editors. Tarc (talk) 23:22, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

Good lord, are we seriously accusing editors of being misogynistic right now? Please read WP:CIVIL before making anymore comments, will you? Citation Needed | 23:46, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

[EC] I didn't give any instructions there Tarc, just commentary. Although I do feel obliged to point out, per WP:EQ that you're tone throughout this discussion has been abrasive and offputting and at time at least borderline uncivil Could you try to moderate your posts to discussing content not contributors? SPACKlick (talk) 23:48, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

This Slate article adequately acknowledges both sides of GamerGate - the Quinn/SJW Defender side, and the side of those criticizing Quinn and game journalists for being corrupt: http://www.slate.com/articles/technology/bitwise/2014/09/gamergate_explodes_gaming_journalists_declare_the_gamers_are_over_but_they.html TheNewMinistry (talk) 14:08, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

Allegedly corrupt. Please amend your statement as per WP:BLP. Gamaliel (talk) 15:10, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

I think it's becoming clear that the fact that there is some allegation of corruption is sourced. And the fact that it is being given by some parties who are criticising and some parties who are harassing/abusing Zoe Quinn as the reason for those actions is reasonably sourced. Even assuming both of the above were perfectly sourced, to what extent should the article mention them? I don't see it being anything more than a brief mention in an article about Zoe rather than about GamerGate. If we look at the form we have now, I think the best way to include it, wrt WP:DUE, is to put a clause in at the end of the sentence about the blog post along the lines of which some people interpreted as giving evidence of unethical relationships with journalists or something to that effect, I'm not wordsmithy today. SPACKlick (talk) 16:21, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

If we mention allegations of unethical relationships with journalists, we also need to mention that they were disproved. At which point I'm uncomfortable, because it is always a concern on BLPs to mention allegations only to say they are false. It risks a "where there's smoke there's fire" interpretation, which clearly wouldn't be the intent. - Bilby (talk) 04:22, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

We can't say that they were disproved or were false because they're not. The problem is that the sources note that the relationship was ethically murky - and repeatedly so. She was accused of being chummy with Grayson even prior to their romantic relationship, which isn't uncommon, and that their friendship was not disclosed - and it is a problem to report on something that your friends did without making note of the fact that they are, in fact, your friends. The whole review thing was garbage, but that was never the core compliant, contrary to what some poorly-researched sources claimed - from the very beginning, the whole thing was about inappropriate personal relationships, both between her and the journalist, and between various game developers. We can't say that it was disproven because - let's be clear here - it wasn't. It hasn't been. We can't know what happened, and we don't know what happened. What happened was a clear violation of what journalists consider to be proper ethical code, because it created, at a very minimum, the appearance of a conflict of interest, as was noted in innumerable articles. This is a strawman. We shouldn't note the fake review thing at all, because A) it was only ever in a couple of RSs and B) it was purely in the "this didn't happen" sense. But the thing has been going on for a while since then, and the initial claims were that she had used her personal ties to garner positive press for her game, and Grayson was merely the culmination of it - it needs to be remembered that people had been complaining about so-called "social justice warriors" promoting Zoe Quinn's claims of harassment in conjunction with Depression Quest months before this whole thing broke. The reason it exploded so much is because allegations of said corruption have existed for ages - it isn't even just about who she had sex with, but that who she had sex with was the most flagrant example of inappropriate relationships which appeared to advance her career. Titanium Dragon (talk) 06:11, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

Well, no, they have been proven false. The specific claim was that there was a quid pro quo between a personal relationship and a positive review. It has been proven that there was no such review. One is not then allowed to backpedal and claim "oh wait we didn't mean that, we meant it was just unethical to have a relationship at all!" We are not here to provide a forum for endlessly-revised and unfalsifiable claims about someone's personal relationships.

You are complaining about the fact that Zoe Quinn knew someone. Here's a newsflash: Journalists know people. The mere fact that Quinn knew someone, had conversations with someone or was friends with someone is not even evidence, much less proof, of anything unethical. In the real world, in every industry, journalists get to know the people they report upon. That is neither suspicious nor unethical. Indeed, the very job of a journalist involves getting to know people (sometimes in order to get information from them) while reporting objectively upon the information they receive. Journalists are not automatons, nor are they monks, expected to ascetically refrain from any and all human contact lest their coverage be tainted. We care even less about any claims that she had a relationship with someone who later hired her - like... newsflash, people get hired all the time in all walks of life based on who they know. It is not a "revelation" that people who know each other hire each other and there is nothing encyclopedically noteworthy about it.

If there is any corruption in the games journalism industry, it is in the massive amount of advertising dollars spent by major games companies, which has had a known impact on coverage in several outlets. The fact that the lynch mob is focusing not on the zillion-dollar ad campaigns for Call of Assassin's Theft Watchdogs XVI but on an indie developer's friendships demonstrates exactly how much this has to do with real corruption - none at all. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 06:15, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

Well, no, that is a straw man, because from the very beginning it was about improper interpersonal relationships. How much is it being mentioned now, in the RSs, a week later? Hardly at all. It is all about "positive press" and "personal relationships". Indeed, that's what it was about from the beginning, and indeed, in the original allegations made by her ex, he mentioned that they were friends before they were romantically involved with each other - and if you think that reporting on your friends without disclosing that you have a personal relationship with the subject is okay, well, journalist ethics guidelines say otherwise. I understand you're upset, but if you look at the actual sources, the idea that she has been "cleared" of having improper interpersonal relationships is simply false. Just because someone said "It's totally cool, guys" doesn't mean that it is totally cool or is perceived as totally cool. You claim "we", but all you're really talking about is yourself. There are literally hundreds of RSs at this point talking about this issue. Again, if we go into a lot of depth about this, I'm fine with mentioning the stupid review thing, but as it is, it is only mentioned in a few sources, and always in the "this didn't happen" sense, so I'm not convinced it is really notable enough to be worthy of inclusion of the article. If our stuff consists of a couple sentences, it is far too minor in relation to the accusations of corruption and harassment to be worthy of mention; if we go and write ten paragraphs on it, then it might be worth including. TBH, I'm still not convinced this article should even exist; this far overshadows everything else about her pretty much ever, and she is really only questionably notable otherwise (she isn't an important or major game developer and hasn't made any important games), which makes me think it would be better to delete this article and just make mention of it in GamerGate as being the thing which set off the whole fiasco Maybe I'll start an AFD on the issue. Titanium Dragon (talk) 07:02, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

Incidentally, because some folks might bring this up: Grayson actually did recommend Depression Quest back in January, but the mention was incredibly cursory; it certainly was not a review. Titanium Dragon (talk) 07:12, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

There is no evidence that there were any "improper" personal relationships.

if you think that reporting on your friends without disclosing that you have a personal relationship with the subject is okay, well, journalist ethics guidelines say otherwise - Well, no, no they don't. Because being "friends" with someone doesn't mean "a personal relationship." If I go out and have a beer with someone after-hours, that is not "a personal relationship." Talking with someone on the Internet, that is not "a personal relationship." That is simply being a normal human being. As TIME notes, "To the outside world it must look silly. Surely these campaigners understand that no meaningful reporting on anything takes place without the trust—and often friendship—of people on the inside." [2] Being social is not a violation of journalistic ethics.

What the SPJ's code of ethics does prohibit is a conflict of interest. And there is no evidence of any conflict of interest. Even the potential for a perceived conflict of interest was avoided because the journalist in question wrote nothing about Quinn after beginning the relationship.

And no, the reliable sources are focusing on the intense and misogynistic harassment of Quinn. [3]. [4] [5] [6] etc. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 07:16, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

Repeating the baseless gossip spread by a harassment campaign is tantamount to participating in that harassment. We have no obligation to repeat everything printed in a reliable source. Our job is to write an encyclopedic article about Zoe Quinn's life which is respectful of her privacy and dignity, as required by the WP:BLP policy. Kaldari (talk) 23:22, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

Minor rewording

I think that, while the source being cited describes it as such, we should change the phrase

the 4chan imageboard /v/

under the "Harassment" header, as it's slightly awkward. I propose a change to

4chan's gaming forum /v/

. The lay reader isn't going to know what "imageboard" means, nor is it particularly important to the discussion to define /v/ as one.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 21:12, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

• Ryulong, see what you think. I'm glad you brought this up because I had no idea what "/v/" was, which made following some discussions here a bit difficult. I do have a question for you, though--what does it mean to say "from", in "from the gaming forum"? It's nothing official, like they're a moderator or something like that, or is it? Drmies (talk) 13:46, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

No, nothing official. Each board there has its own "regulars", is all, and each board is a different island unto itself. Tarc (talk) 16:14, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

GamerGate_2

This article should have a mention of, and a link to, GamerGate (not the ant!) à la Anita Sarkeesian. Full disclosure: I just wrote said article. kencf0618 (talk) 06:06, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

We will definitely be noting it; if you look above, there's presently a debate on what exactly we need to say about it. If you have any suggestions, I'd love to have you join in and help! More people is always better! Titanium Dragon (talk) 06:17, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

"07:18, 6 September 2014", deleted. Hm, that article sure had a short shelf life. Must have been quite a hit piece? Tarc (talk) 12:07, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

Actually, the version that was deleted wasn't a bad article. Some of the previous versions were BLP violations, and some were just lists of links to news articles about the controversy, but the deleted version was sourced, and I don't think it qualified under G10. None of the deleted revisions of GamerGate were written by Kencf0618, though - Kencf0618 appears to be talking about GamerGate (2). This article was also well-sourced, and I couldn't see any potential BLP problems with it. Personally, I don't think either of the deletions were warranted under the speedy deletion policy, and I think a well-written GamerGate article may well be kept at AfD. (Although there has to be a better name than "GamerGate".) — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 16:40, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

I have put in an appeal to User:RHaworth. It seems silly for Wikipedia not to have any mention of this affair; the subsection in Video game culture (Social implications of video games) would do, but it would have to be fleshed out. kencf0618 (talk) 17:43, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

And the article's back up. A link to it would be proper.kencf0618 (talk) 18:52, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

It looks like there are still some BLP concerns about that article. Let's get that fixed first. Kaldari (talk) 23:49, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

Further mainstream coverage.

Several days on GamerGate is receiving widening mainstream media coverage, including from the business press.

http://www.digitimes.com/news/a20140906VL200.html

http://www.newyorker.com/tech/elements/zoe-quinns-depression-quest

Furthermore the full chat log from the IRC channel #burgersandfries has been released and partially analyzed (inasmuch as it's 3,756 pages, in 10-point type, of chaotic overlapping IRC conversations).

http://wehuntedthemammoth.com/2014/09/08/zoe-quinns-screenshots-of-4chans-dirty-tricks-were-just-the-appetizer-heres-the-first-course-of-the-dinner-directly-from-the-irc-log/

http://puu.sh/boAEC/f072f259b6.txt

These citations should be folded into the article as appropriate. Thank you. kencf0618 (talk) 23:39, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

1. Wehuntedthemammoth is not a reliable source. 2. Aren't the IRC logs original research? Unless the IRC logs can be confirmed by a reliable source as pertaining to current goings-on, they should not be included. Willhesucceed (talk) 00:14, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

Addendum: http://arstechnica.com/gaming/2014/09/new-chat-logs-show-how-4chan-users-pushed-gamergate-into-the-national-spotlight/ is a more reliable, if biased and inaccurate, source that references the logs. Willhesucceed (talk) 00:22, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

Also The Fine Young Capitalists gave an interview regarding Zoe Quinn's attacks/doxxing of them. Titanium Dragon (talk) 04:58, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

Not sure that this is a reliable source and it would certainly seem unacceptable for making claims of a derogatory nature about a living person. There is no apparent effort to report upon or vet the claims made about Quinn; it is simply an uncritical recitation of TFYC's claims. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 05:15, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

This is true of the New Yorker article about Zoe Quinn, and indeed, a large number of the articles about Zoe Quinn from the "it is all misogyny" point of view; as in all such cases, we have to use such sources with care, as they are fundamentally just repeating what they were told rather than doing independent investigation. The issue regarding The Fine Young Capitalists has been mentioned in a number of sources. We presently note what Zoe Quinn's opinion on the matter is in the article (that it is all a conspiracy by 4Chan). It is potentially usable as a source for TFYC's view on it/claims about it, as they were swept up in it and ended up raising tens of thousands of dollars as a direct result of it. It was a part of this whole debacle, so is potentially worth noting. I agree about unsureness of it being a RS; the site does have an editorial staff apparently, which is usually a good sign, but I'm not super familiar with the source. Titanium Dragon (talk) 06:32, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

Zoe Quinn's statements do not make specific claims about any particular living person, but instead make claims of a general nature against a larger group of people. By their very nature, we treat such statements differently than we treat direct accusations against a specific person. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 07:24, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

I'd say the New Yorker is the only really strong source out of all of these, although arstehcnica is pretty respectable as well. We should not be using primary sources like this: leave the analysis of the chat logs to the media. -- TaraInDC (talk) 08:04, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

Cinemablend references the APGnation interview and does some original research to establish veracity. /Source — Preceding unsigned comment added by Willhesucceed (talk • contribs) 09:38, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

And, notably, the CinemaBlend article does not mention anything about Quinn. Which suggests that for whatever reason, CinemaBlend did not feel comfortable repeating TFYC's specific allegations about her. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 09:41, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

Pending changes level 2

Why has pending changes level 2 being applied? There is no consensus to use it per WP:PC2012/RfC_1. Retartist (talk) 02:52, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

Pending changes for the articles recently hit by the "GamerGate" disruption were discussed at ANI here as a way to avoid having to leave them under full protection for extended periods of time. Indefinited semi-protection hasn't been effective, considering that much of the disruption has been coming from autoconfirmed accounts, not just anons and new accounts, but not one wants to leave pages fully protected for long periods.--Cúchullain ^t/c 03:16, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

"GamerGate disruption" might be a needed term in the Wikipedia lexicon. I certainly haven't seen this sort of cross-contamination before. kencf0618 (talk) 00:30, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

@Cuchullain: The link cited above Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive854#Anita_Sarkeesian.2C_again has no direct discussion of using PC2 at all. It is a mechanism that we never wanted, imposed from above, and now being imposed here from above. On Wikipedia, consensus is defined as an edict from above. Wnt (talk) 22:01, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

The discussion was archived here. A number of users supported pending changes to protect these articles, and in fact some didn't believe it was strong enough. If you don't like explanation, consider it an ignore all rules response to a very serious BLP issue at this article, that is less restrictive than long-term full protection.--Cúchullain ^t/c 22:11, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

I see endorsements for flagged revisions in that ANI discussion. Let's not let petty political feelings about the WMF interfere with good judgement, Wnt. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 22:19, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

Three people supporting "flagged revisions" is a far cry from explicit support for PC2, a mechanism without support for use on the site at all. Nor is this a matter of "petty political feelings"; it concerns whether a community of people can edit the article to collect the available information, or whether its development is to be imposed, top-down, by admins who override community decisions on what mechanisms are used let alone what content is allowed, and who suppress any fact from the available sources that they want, whether in proposed revisions, history of the article, or discussion. Is Wikipedia a crowdsourced encyclopedia, or an exercise in top-down media spin with a little suggestion box where editors can blindly insert their observations and see if the Company wants to use them or throw them away unread? Wnt (talk) 23:59, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

I've been thoroughly inactive for the most part due to my stress of editing Wikipedia but what I will state is that the guiding policy here is WP:CONLIMITED. Your small consensus (even giving you that) at WP:ANI cannot override the overall community's non consensus of implementation of level 2 protection. Even the most conflated, disputed, and nastily edited articles are fine with semi protection. There is no need to have pending level 2. Your false choice of 'full protection or pending level 2 protection' is also not appreciated in the least. Semi protection is the staple and semi protection I will support. Tutelary (talk) 00:12, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

Well, lucky for us that your status as a community pariah means that your opinion, esp in this topic area, is pretty much ignored. Due to the ongoing campaign of harassment against the subject, harassment that is also occurring on this page and others by socks and SPAs, the level of increased protection is quite justified. Tarc (talk) 00:22, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

Cracked article

Zoe Quinn has an article on Cracked today: 5 Things I Learned as the Internet's Most Hated Person. Trivialist (talk) 22:40, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

Early life who vs. whom

This may sound silly, given the rather more important discussions above, but this edit by User:Kencf0618 (and accepted by User:Mr. Stradivarius) is grammatically incorrect. The second part of the sentence is an adjectival clause modifying or referring to "school-district officials", which are functionally the subject of that clause. (See this or this for examples.) The words "she says" are probably throwing people off, but they are a parenthetical and have no meaning in the sentence. (Grammatically, of course. I obviously wouldn't suggest removing them as they introduce the quotation.) I didn't want to revert since there are two editors arguing for it's inclusion, but it probably should be reverted. Woodroar (talk) 01:07, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

No problem. kencf0618 (talk) 01:20, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

I've never been able to get the hang of who and whom, so I tend to assume that editors whom correct my whos know what they are talking about. ;) I've no problem with it being changed to the actual correct grammar. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 02:59, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

What's funny is that I've got an English degree and I'm the go-to person in my circle to check cover letters and such, and I was unsure about it myself! It just sounded odd and I researched it for my own edification, completely prepared to be wrong and learn something new about clause grammar. Woodroar (talk) 03:20, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

APGNation as a reliable source

The edit I made using the following article (http://apgnation.com/archives/2014/09/09/6977/truth-gaming-interview-fine-young-capitalist) was reverted with "Not an acceptable reliable source for allegations about living people." as the reason given.However I do not understand why this is the case. I've looked through Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_personsand the page on reliability, but can't find any reason why this should count as a poor source. It has previously been accepted as a reliable source in the much more heavily scrutinised and protected Gamergate article, so I thought that set a precedent for it being a reliable source. Sorry if I'm misunderstanding something, but i'm unsure where I went wrong. I'd be grateful for a response. Bosstopher (talk) 22:29, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

The interview is considered a SPS. It can be used for specific information about the employees and TFYC, but never about another person. Woodroar (talk) 22:44, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

I assume this reverting spell is over and further action is unnecessary, right?--Cúchullain ^t/c 23:53, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

I do not understand why this should be considered a self published source. The page on SPS states the following are self published sources "self-published media, such as books, patents, newsletters, personal websites, open wikis, personal or group blogs (as distinguished from newsblogs, above), Internet forum postings, and tweets," this article is none of the preceding. The interview is published by a gaming news site that to my knowledge (correct me if i'm wrong) is in no way connected to TFYC. APGNation can also not be found on Wikipedia:List_of_companies_engaged_in_the_self-publishing_business. So I can see no reason to treat it as an SPS, unless someone can bring evidence forward that APGNation and TFYC are the same outfit.Bosstopher (talk) 00:11, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

An interview like this is no different than a republished press release or blog: it doesn't matter if the source is reliable or not, the information is still primary. Now primary sources can be used in some ways, but never about another living person and certainly not to accuse them of a crime. About the only situation where I could imagine that we'd allow an interview would be with, say, a judge or other official commenting on a person already found guilty in court, and even then it would be best to find a reliable source commenting on the verdict. Woodroar (talk) 00:54, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

Sorry about that then. Didn't realise. In that case are there any objections to using the existing Vice source on the page, to bring up the fact that accusations of sabotage have been brought against Quinn? (the vice source makes no mention of the transphobia accusations against TFYC) Just simply writing that there's a dispute between the two groups doesnt really explain much. Bosstopher (talk) 18:46, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

Not when the article says "a Reddit user claimed that Quinn purposely sabotaged..." We don't care what a random anonymous person on another anonymous Internet board said. The claim is insufficiently notable. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 21:43, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict)While it's true that saying there's a dispute is frustratingly vague, simply saying that she's 'been accused' is WP:WEASEL wording, because the source says 'a Reddit user claimed that Quinn purposely sabotaged [etc.]'. Accusations of behavior, especially criminal behavior, absolutely needs much much stronger sources than a single-sentence comment about what an unnamed and likely anonymous reddit user says. Additionally, saying 'has been accused' is itself very vague, as by leaving out who is doing the accusing, it's implying-without-stating that these accusations have a legitimacy and weight that is not precisely found in the source. Vagueness is preferable to violating BLP or rumormonger. Grayfell (talk) 21:53, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

It's acceptable to use that source as a reference for the actual statements made by TFYC. Following the mention of the dispute with a quote (similar to what immediately follows with the inclusion of Zoe's quote from the Cracked article) would be fine. It just needs to be clear that person X is making statement Y, backed up by source Z -- not a bare statement of Y backed up by source Z. Make sense?Zyxwab (talk) 01:36, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

I've blocked this SPA (first and only edit) because in context the username is unacceptable. Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:20, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

Fixed. Zyxwab (talk) 01:36, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

Rather than add this directly to the article and potentially ruffle more feathers, I thought maybe working on it here made more sense. I'm suggesting something like the following:

The same reference that Bosstopher provided ([7]) — while not acceptable as a source for the claim that Zoe lied, misrepresented information, etc. — is acceptable as a source for quoting Matthew Rappard's accusations that Zoe lied, misrepresented information, etc. which serves to characterize the dispute in more detail while making it clear who is making what accusations, and that they're merely accusations. Does that seem okay? --Zyxwab (talk) 05:13, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

Quite simply, no. I have redacted this per WP:BLP. These claims have not been reported in any reliable source and it is unacceptable to present primary-sourced assertions that amount to criminal allegations. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 05:15, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

NorthBySouthBaranof, I don't see how that makes any sense. Of course we're allowed to quote other people who make such allegations — so long as the point is the quotation itself, and not the assertions being made. It's certainly not okay to present such sources as justifications for claims that Zoe lied, misrepresented facts, kicked puppies, or whatever she's being accused of. But there's nothing wrong with objectively reporting on the fact that a particular person (in this case Matthew Rappard) has made those claims as part of a dispute with Zoe, where that dispute itself is relevant. If you think that the text I suggested doesn't adequately emphasize that it's Rappard being quoted, then I'm open to suggestions on how to improve that. But to say that we're not allowed to provide details of a dispute presented as mere allegations is absurd. Of course that's allowed. You can find countless examples all over Wikipedia, in ever major news story where two people are in disagreement, etc. Further censoring other people's comments on this talk page — when it is being made abundantly clear in the course of the discussion itself that nobody here is asserting the claims being made but merely quoting them as illustration of what the dispute mentioned in the article is all about — is even more absurd. How would you suggest expanding on the "dispute she had with the group" without actually going into detail of the accusations? I'm really getting the feeling here that you're digging in your heels because you're concerned that if you give an inch, somebody is going to take a mile and start trying to insert all sorts of direct attacks or smears. (I don't mean that as an accusation of bad faith, but rather as an attempt to express empathy toward or at least understanding of such a position) I assure you that such is absolutely not my intention, at least, and if I see that happening I'll gladly join you in opposing it. I just want details of the dispute included, in as neutral way as possible. Instead of quoting Rappard, maybe some sort of phrasing along the lines of "Rappard has accused Zoe of such-and-such" or something, to get the word "accused" in there more prominently? --Zyxwab (talk) 06:04, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

You need to read the biographies of living persons policy. The issue here is that TFYC's claims have not been published in a reliable secondary source. Our content policies are specifically stringent when publishing negative material about a living person, and what we have now fails to live up to the standard. APGNation does not have a significant history of fact-checking and editorial credibility and is, at this point, little better than a self-published source. Moreover, the source article is not a reported news story about the issue; rather, it is simply a verbatim first-person interview with no apparent effort to fact-check any of the claims or examine whether or not they are supported by evidence. Given the sensitivity of the issue and the indisputably-highly-negative nature of the allegations, we are prohibited from using this material in the encyclopedia.

Perhaps inadvertently, you said the magic words above that are the crux of this situation: major news story. Major news stories, by definition, have an array of reliable sources available which provide fact-checking, editorial oversight and perspective on the issue. They verify for us that the issue is a matter of significant public interest. These reliable sources enable us to write about sensitive interpersonal disputes in a fair-minded manner, confident that we are telling a story which needs to be told.

This is not a "major news story." This is not even a news story at this point. We do not have any reliable sources which can be used to write about the issue. As far as Wikipedia goes, that's that — we do not write about things that are not first written about in reliable sources.

If reliable sources such as mainstream media, etc. begin to discuss the issue and significantly report on it, this can be revisited at that point. If the dispute is never reported upon in reliable sources, then it is not a fit subject for inclusion in Quinn's biography. Wikipedia is not a repository of anything and everything ever said about a person; we write encyclopedic biographies based upon what reliable sources say about their subjects. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 06:10, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

I am familiar with the relevant Wikipedia policies, including BLP. My point is that detailing the accusations as accusations is not in and of itself negative. There's no reason to exclude it. The interview on the referenced website is a suitable source for quotations from the person being interviewed. There's no need for fact checking (unless you're saying there's reason to believe the interview itself was fabricated) because we're not trying to insert any claims that Zoe did any of those things, merely that she has been accused of doing those things by Rappard, and that those accusations lie at the heart of the dispute mentioned in the article. However, reading over that section again I'm now of a different opinion as to how it might be improved. I didn't notice the first time around that the timeline of events is a bit strange; the dispute with Rappard occurred before the blog entry posted by Zoe's ex-boyfriend. There were other events during that time (including several episodes of previous harassment) and the timeline of everything isn't exactly clear. What's more, there are other issues raised as part of the most recent controversy, including the whole Kotaku thing, donations via Patreon by journalists, etc. — which are all well documented, and which probably merit mention. I think going into detail on every single one of those issues is not at all appropriate, since many of the issues are almost certainly being raised insincerely merely to keep the controversy going. But I think a more detailed list of all of the issues raised (particularly the ones that have been addressed by journalistic outlets like Kotaku and changes to policies on Patreon donations by some publications) would probably be a better way of providing context and detail than delving deeper into detail on any particular issue. Put another way: the sentence on the dispute with Rappard seemed odd to me because of the lack of detail and context, but rather than expand on that one dispute I now think maybe a better way to provide context would be to list other issues related to the controversy but with the same high-level summary-type detail. Does that make more sense to you? --Zyxwab (talk) 06:30, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

I don't think you're familiar with the policy, actually. Detailing negative accusations made by someone is inherently negative. I don't know how to make it any clearer. Wikipedia biographies do not serve as a clearinghouse for republication of every instance someone made "allegations" or "accusations" about someone else. Until and unless the matter is documented in reliable mainstream sources, it's not going in.

If you believe the wording can be improved in certain sections of the article, please feel free to make those proposals here. I'll be happy to help implement them if there's a consensus that they improve the article.

We already have an extensive article on GamerGate; details about the controversy that are unrelated to Quinn belong there, not here. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 06:37, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

I helped write the policy, years ago. I've been an editor here (on and off.. mostly off these past few years) since 2001. I just create throwaway accounts nowadays (and then forget what the names and/or passwords are when they auto-logout in 30 days) because I only edit a few times a year anymore. So don't you lecture me on policy, youngster. :) There is nothing inherently negative about reporting on accusations that are part of a dispute, so long as the dispute itself is deemed appropriate for inclusion. Look, I understand that we can't just include every random accusation somebody makes. But that's not what's going on here. If the dispute between Zoe and Rappard is noteworthy, then it's appropriate to include the details of that dispute. Whether that makes for a good article or not, I'm more on the fence. I haven't looked at the GamerGate article yet, but I'll take a look and see if maybe even the Rappard dispute is better moved over there. I know it happened earlier, but it's probably only noteworthy now because it became a bigger issue as part of the overall recent controversy. I'm leaning in the direction of a timeline actually being a better method of organizing some of this information, since the ordering of events is not only hard to follow, but demonstrates to some degree just how arbitrary the set of complaints are that have been raised by certain folks. It also shows a pattern of harassment. --Zyxwab (talk) 06:53, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

Odd, then, that you don't seem to have a grasp of how to properly thread talk page discussions.

Be that as it may, taking an anon throwaway at face value... you don't appear to have a grasp of how the policy is interpreted today. The ArbCom decisions haven't gotten any more lenient since the policy was adopted and the community consensus has only gotten stronger that material about or involving living people must be written sensitively and with impeccable sourcing.

In short, the material you wish to add is, today, right now, prohibited by the BLP policy. Full stop, that's all there is to it. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 07:10, 19 September 2014 (UTC)