+3
Image #868,224
Uploaded by Nitwit464 Nov 21, 2014 at 04:46PM EST
Origin Entry: GamerGate
File type: jpg
Resolution: (960px x 539px)
File size: 71.3 KB
![Gamergate (harassment campaign) Article Talk From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia For other uses, see Gamergate (disambiguation). Gamergate or GamerGate (GG)[¹] was a loosely organized misogynistic online harassment campaign and a right-wing backlash against feminism, diversity, and progressivism in video game culture. [2][³] It was conducted using the hashtag "#Gamergate" primarily in 2014 and 2015.[1][4][5][6] Beginning in August 2014, Gamergate targeted women in the video game industry, most notably feminist media critic Anita Sarkeesian and video game developers Zoë Quinn and Brianna Wu, among others.[7][8][9][10][11] The harassment campaign included doxing, r--- threats, and death threats.[12][13][14] Gamergate proponents ("Gamergaters") stated that they were a social movement, but lacked well-defined goals, a coherent message, and leaders, making Gamergate difficult to define.[15][16][17] Gamergaters claimed to promote ethics in video games journalism, claimed to be protecting the "gamer" identity, and opposed what they asserted as "political correctness" in video games.[18][19][20][21][22] Read Date Target Gamergate, online harassment campaign in 2014-15 that targeted women in the video game industry. The attacks were attributed largely to white male right-wing gamers who railed against the rise and influence of women and feminism in the industry. Gamergate served as a recruiting tool for the growing alt-right movement and helped spur the online “Pizzagate" conspiracy theory, which soon spawned the wider QAnon conspiracy movement. …………………………....…..……….…..... Attack type Victims Motive View source Inquiry XA 28 languages ✓ Perpetrators Internet trolls, particularly from 4chan, Internet Relay Chat, and 8chan View history Tools ✓ Gamergate August 2014 - 2015 Women in the video game industry See all media Online harassment campaign Zoë Quinn, Anita Sarkeesian, Brianna Wu, and others Gamergaters created conspiracy theories falsely accusing Quinn of an unethical relationship with video game journalist Nathan Grayson.[23][24][25] More broadly, they alleged unethical collusion between the press and feminists, progressives, and social critics.[17][26] [27] These claims were widely dismissed as trivial, conspiracy theories, baseless, or unrelated to actual issues of ethics in gaming and journalism.[28] [29][30] Gamergate supporters frequently denied that the harassment took place, falsely claiming it to be manufactured by the victims.[31][32] Misogyny anti-feminism anti- progressivism FBI investigation Gamergate has been described as a culture war over cultural diversification, artistic recognition, feminism in video games, social criticism in video games, and the social identity of gamers.[28][33] [34] [35] Many supporters of Gamergate opposed the increasing influence of feminism and so-called "social justice warriors" on video game culture. [2][36] Gamergate led figures both inside and outside the gaming industry to focus on methods of addressing online harassment, ways to minimize harm, and prevent similar events. [37] [38] [39] [40] Gamergate has been viewed as a contributor to the alt-right and other right- wing movements.[21][41] Video game developer Brianna Wu](https://i.kym-cdn.com/photos/images/list/002/691/215/331.png "What the actual f--- are we supposed to do about this")
Uploaded by Nitwit464 Nov 21, 2014 at 04:46PM EST
Origin Entry: GamerGate
File type: jpg
Resolution: (960px x 539px)
File size: 71.3 KB
![Statement by The Devil's Advocate This dispute has eluded resolution through other means ranging from raising concerns at conduct noticeboards and attempts at mediation regarding content. While editors with fewer contributions, as far as I know only those who are or are seen as favorable to the GamerGate side, have been routinely sanctioned or blocked, the established editors who are unfavorable to the GamerGate side and are the source of a lot of the conflict continue unimpeded. This is at least partly due to the fact that they have a sufficient number of sympathizers to prevent any consensus from being reached regarding their conduct. Another problem in this situation is that there are admins who are either WP:INVOLVED on the subject taking action against their opponents while giving them a pass or admins whose actions are otherwise dubious. Some of these admins have a history of questionable use of their admin tools on other topics. I can elaborate further on those details, though some of it is evidenced in the discussions linked above. Even though general sanctions have been imposed in the topic area and there are BLP discretionary sanctions covering some of these details, it has done nothing to stop this behavior from continuing and escalating as it has over the past week. A thorough review of all administrative conduct on this topic area, ranging from rev-deletions and suppressions to blocks and topic-bans, is requested in addition to reviewing the general conduct of editors.-The Devil's Advocate tk. cntrb. 00:41, 10 November 2014 (UTC) Note: I have trimmed my statement and removed my replies to comply with the restrictions on statements. An abbreviated version of my listing of admin concerns Dreadstar called Vivian James an attack cartoon in a dispute over the image, and has enforced the general sanctions, including this block for this comment Gamaliel has enforced the BLP discretionary sanctions and general sanctions , despite his involvement in the topic dispute itself and even after this arbitration request Future Perfect at Sunrise took several, actions against people in disputes with Ryulong , while ignoring Ryulong's own misconduct, even supervoting on a topic ban proposal seven hours after it was initiated. Future has a history of administrative and editorial misconduct See also: 1 2 Cuchullain is clearly involved regarding Anita Sarkeesian's article, but began repeatedly using the protection tools on GamerGate related articles after Sarkeesian was brought into the controversy, including making contentious edits through page protection based off 11 minutes of discussion Black Kite is involved in the dispute yet closed a discussion on Titanium Dragon in furtherance of Future's topic ban Bilby is heavily involved in the GamerGate articles and deleted the editthat prompted Titanium Dragon's first topic ban imposed by Gamaliel ]d) Other admins are named more due to questions of judgment regarding specific actions, especially when citing BLP. ArmyLine's topic ban is one such case, as is PhilKnight's use of oversight tools regarding a link to Medium blog post. Not every admin action is being questioned, nor is every admin who has taken action on this topic named as a party. This is about certain admins or certain admin actions.-The Devil's Advocate tk. cntrb, 21:20, 15 November 2014 (UTC)](https://i.kym-cdn.com/photos/images/newsfeed/000/868/136/edc.png "Wikipedia - Arbitration case request from TDA(The Devil's Advocate)")
![[-] wrecksomething 6 puntos 18 horas atrás Really felt Wales made a mistake stepping into this relatively minor issue. It's basically a one-word error (at most) that has since been rewritten Isquith writes The women bombarded with violence and abuse, the men hurling invective at anyone challenging their privilege; spurred by his unexamined need to find common ground, both, Auerbach writes, should share in the blame Pretty straightforward that Isquith is calling Auerbach out (rightly or wrongly) for victim blaming. Wikipedia originally summarized this as Isquith. criticizing his insistence that women harassed and threatened and men attacking those who challenged their privilege should both be held responsible for what Gamergate had become." Which is almost the same sentence through a thesaurus A different user changed "criticized his insistence" to "criticized him for saying" which I think was meant to make it seem more moderate, less insistent. But "saying" also reads as though the words came from Auerbach directly when they're Isquith's criticism. Which is Auerbach's complaint, that he didn't say those words Ryulong was wrong to take Auerbach's complaint as a threat (though it is strange that he singled out Ryulong). He apologized. From what I gather, Jimmy Wales was more upset at the article's error (and at a different user's behavior) enlace padre mmy Wales, Wiki Founder 10 puntos 8 horas atrás Actually, I'm not particularly "upset" about anything. I seek to defuse the situation by finding ways forward for good people (no matter what their opinions are of the underlying issues) who care about neutrality more than they care about gamergate This means that I am not recommending (and indeed actively recommend against) hordes of gamergaters who feel injured by the media, etc., coming to Wikipedia to "Right Great Wrongs" https://en.wikipedia.org /wiki/Wikipedia: Tendentious, editing #Righting-Great-wrongs But I am also recommending that several editors who have been involved realize that they are not helping to defuse the situation and to simply step away and let others handle it. If you've become part of the wider Internet drama (for example, by starting an AMA about yourself) surrounding Gamergate, then you likely should step away from the article Too many people view these things in terms of crime and punishment. It shouldn't be like that. We're here to write an encyclopedia, not engage in wider social conflicts enlace padre](https://i.kym-cdn.com/photos/images/newsfeed/000/868/117/086.png "Wikipedia- Jimmy Wales answers Ryulong's comments in Ryulong's AMA in r/GamerGhazi 02")
![I think it worthwhile to summarize what one part of what happened here clearly so that other Wikipedians reading this talk page are better able to understand the situation. David Auerbach, who writes for Slate (magazine), expressed a concern on twitter that "ajimmy_wales 152: "women...should both be held responsible for what Gamergate had become"-Isquith does not say I said this, and I didn't." [7] 9. This refers to the paragraph wisely removed by Drmies after the complaint. It is important that we be really clear - this is a BLP issue. Saying that a writer for a respectable publication was criticized for something as awful as saying that victims of harassment were responsible for that harassment is a serious claim, and it is a claim that was never in the source provided. Meanwhile, Tarc claims that his tweets were "without merit" and further, in Drmies words "Tarc is yelling at Auerbach via twitter." This is a disgrace. I am recommending that Tarc step away from this article permanently, and that if he does not do so voluntarily and continues with this kind of POV warrior behavior that he be topic- banned from this article. There are plenty of good Wikipedians here to look after the article - those who have been engaged in this as a battleground need to leave now Jimbo Wales (talk) 09:08, 13 November 2014 (UTC) I did not "yell" ant anyone via Twitter, I responded to someone who is in serious "doth protest too much" mode, that is all. What I do off-wiki is, quite frankly not your business. @Drmies:, yes, I am in favor of the entire passage being removed if it is this problematic. Tarc (talk) 12:45, 13 November 2014 (UTC)](https://i.kym-cdn.com/photos/images/newsfeed/000/867/994/caa.png "Wikipedia- Jimmy Wales ask Tarc to stop editing the GG wikipedia article")
