Talk:Crash Override Network/Archive 1

Archive 1

Grammer Fix

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

---

Cannot edit directly, but this

"ideology, include Gamergate supporters"

needs to be changed to

"ideology, including Gamergate supporters" Lokitoth (talk) 18:23, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

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

Verifiable and Reliable

As a reminder, the standards for Verifiability on Wikipedia pages can be found at WP:VER. Specifically:

"All material in Wikipedia mainspace, including everything in articles, lists and captions, must be verifiable. All quotations, and any material whose verifiability has been challenged or is likely to be challenged, must include an inline citation that directly supports the material."

If something is properly sourced with an inline citation and is supported by quotations, it is not a wikipedia editor's job to interpret whether they agree with the source as long as it meets the standards for independent, reliable, and verifiable. The standards for what counts as a reliable source can be found at WP:SOURCE. Sources include "material from reliable non-academic sources, particularly if it appears in respected mainstream publications," namely "articles on reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy." If a source meets these criteria, please do not engage in edit wars because you disagree with the source's conclusions. Neutral Point of View WP:NPOV is a fundamental principle that Wikipedia is built on.

Also, if you have a minor problem with the wording of a quotation, please bring it to talk to come to consensus on the wording. For example, a minor disagreement on one word does not obviate the "verifiability and reliability" of the source. --Modemx (talk) 00:29, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

American or European?

Can someone remind me on the wiki policy on American vs. European English usage (e.g. is color and colour both okay, and do we edit for consistency, or just let people mix them up because they are synonymous?). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Modemx (talk • contribs) 15:55, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

MOS:ENGVAR is what you're looking for. It doesn't really matter which we use, as long as we are consistent. — Strongjam (talk) 16:04, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

Which should this be? I initially used British because many of the sources were English, but I've now noticed both of the founders are American. Haminoon (talk) 19:46, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

Well Quinn has ties to Canada, so lets split the difference and go with Canadian English. Eh? In seriousness if the article started with British I'd stick with that. The organization doesn't seem to have strong national ties to anywhere in particular, but I don't feel that strongly about it. I only care if we're consistent about which we use. — Strongjam (talk) 19:49, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

Edited per consensus to British English --Modemx (talk) 00:42, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

Misleading source

This source is being used to make the claim that Crash Override stopped a swat attempt:

"Sometimes, she and Lifschitz contacted folks preemptively when they saw anonymous users planning attacks on people, and assisted their targets in protecting themselves."

No where does it state that they actually stopped a swatting attempt. It only claims that when they hear of potential attacks that they'll contact people before the attack is done.

173.209.103.96 (talk) 20:23, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

This bit "Galvez says his situation was defused far more easily because he had made a preemptive call to the local police on the advice of Crash Override, and warned them that this might occur. “Dealing with the police is a new thing for me, and Crash Override has helped me immensely with staying safe,” Galvez says." which I'd consider thwarting, they had a calmer visit from the police instead of a SWAT van, but I've re-worded to be closer to the source. — Strongjam (talk) 20:30, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

I don't consider thwarting the same as defusing as law enforcement still came (just less hostile). I saw your change and I believe it's more accurate now. Thanks. 173.209.103.96 (talk) 21:43, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

References

Video Game WikiProject template

I've come to notice that this article was tagged for the Video Games Project. While Crash Override seems to have stemmed from GamerGate, I don't think that it warrants it being part of the project. Does it have anything to do with video games besides its ties to GamerGate? GamerPro64 14:35, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

It's supposed to be an encyclopedia, the org this page discusses sprang out of something important in the history of video games, people might be interested in that history later on. There's lots of things that would not be noteworthy except for the fact that their attached to a notable public scandal (as it says in WP:NGO). While we are speaking about things being out of place, GamerPro64, why did you edit out the talk section about verifiability and reliability and just leave another note telling people to go to sanctions? Some of us are trying to educate people who maybe haven't posted on a wiki before, as we are assuming good faith and the metrics for these GamerGate pages are fairly high in terms of #edits/user. You don't need sanctions as long as everyone plays by the rules, and mistakes are teachable moments. --Modemx (talk) 20:00, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

What are you talking about? I am no idea what you are saying to me. GamerPro64 21:31, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

Nothing that is relevant anymore. I thought I saw you editing out something that was relevant to the page deletion discussion, but that was a while ago and the page is no longer under consideration for deletion. If I accidentally misattributed that to you I apologize. --Modemx (talk) 01:23, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

"the website has undergone daily hack attempts" - not in cited source

Claim should be removed as does not get mentioned in the linked source. 86.139.166.176 (talk) 17:16, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikipedia! The linked source says: "That the launch of Crash Override led to another, heightened, wave of online abuse. People try to hack the site daily." We say "the website has undergond daily hack attempts." What, precisely, is wrong? MarkBernstein (talk) 18:05, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

There's a countdown?

Hi, just wondering if anyone knew what the countdown on the site is leading to? For me it says it's 314 days away from finishing but what happens after that? I haven't seen anything like a press release or the like. I can only assume it's a countdown to the one year anniversary of it's creation? I have no clue what it's for but I thought it might be interesting to note, I dunno. Sethyre (talk) 20:11, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

The countdown has reached 0 several times before and just reset, it counted for several months and hit 0, and then for a while was running on a 24 hour countdown-reset, and then at some point set to a year long countdown. No information about what it means anywhere. Weedwacker (talk) 02:31, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

This is moot since the site was redesigned. The original design was a Wordpress theme designed for a "Coming soon" placeholder website. It had a timer widget built in to count down until the launch, which apparently was left in the default value and allowed to run down to zero, at which point it automatically reset. Punstress (talk) 17:17, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

1RR

The banner at the top of the page indicates reverts are limited to 1 per 24 hours. @PeterTheFourth: @WoKrKmFK3lwz8BKvaB94: @Marteau: James J. Lambden (talk) 18:05, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

@James J. Lambden: Page template is wrong. WP:DSLOG has no record of any admin putting a 1RR on this page. — Strongjam (talk) 18:13, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

From the looks of it, Dreadstar was the one who placed the template on here. Didn't he use to be an administrator? GamerPro64 18:19, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

@Strongjam: I don't know that editors should be removing admin-imposed restrictions... James J. Lambden (talk) 18:26, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

All DS must be logged to have any effect. Likely Dreadstar just C&P the header from the Gamergate talk page, which is the only GG page that is under 1RR. Unfortunately we can't get clarification from him. — Strongjam (talk) 18:28, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

That might explain why the WikiProject tags don't really look to be in the same scope as the article. So what then? Take the article to enforcement to have it removed by an admin? Because having it be addressed by them would help out here. GamerPro64 19:01, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

Probably easiest just to ask about it on Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement. Dreadstar logged all of their other sanctions, and adding 1RR to a brand new page would be strange. — Strongjam (talk) 19:39, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

Chat log leaks

There have been some leaks of chat logs from Crash Override Network: https://heatst.com/tech/chat-logs-expose-crash-override-network-as-online-bullies/ http://www.oneangrygamer.net/2016/08/chat-logs-reveal-zoe-quinn-admitting-to-sabotaging-polaris-game-jam/10429/

Should a mention be added? It seems to be a lot more note worthy then saying the website underwent daily hack attempts. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Informat2 (talk • contribs) 15:38, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

This would need to be covered by a reliable source for it to be mentioned in the article. Those links are not to reliable sources (Breitbart is similarly unreliable.) PeterTheFourth (talk) 21:29, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

How can Breitbart be still unreliable when they've achieved international relevance at this point? Might as well say FOX, MSNBC, or CNN are unreliable. Jesus Christ Wikipedia. 2607:FB90:24A9:7F51:0:4A:279E:9901 (talk) 15:22, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

Which reliable sources would those be? Gawker and it's owned properties? Which are essentially a tabloid on par with Weekly World News and The National Enquirer (Gawker, itself), or blogs it owned (Jezebel, Valleywag, etc.)-- and Gawker.com is going to be gone, very soon, anyway. Personal blogs (at least 1 Wordpress page is used as a "reliable Source" on this site)? "Studies" or other "academic papers" behind paywalls? "Professional blogs" like The Mary Sue? Oh, maybe you mean all those reliable source sites where the authors aren't friends/acquaintances with one or more of the people involved in the chats shown (Like Polygon/Vox, Kotaku/Gawker, etc.)... Oh, wait. Almost all of the "reliable sources" used in relation to these topics can't pass the test of not being friends/acquaintances with at least one member of the chats in question. How about you source articles written by people in the chats (and don't say that hasn't been done, before, as it has)?

The real issue isn't that you're waiting for reliable sources; it's that this site has already decided that only sources that agree with it on a sociopolitical level, follow a strict narrative, and/or you know will never talk about the leaks, because their writers are already friendly with people implicated in them can be considered reliable.

Keep showing how important "reliable sources" are on this site, when you use Gawker, personal blogs, papers behind paywalls, etc. as "reliable", as long as they lean left/progressive politically; but say pretty much every right/conservative leaning source is unreliable. It doesn't show any sort of bias. I swear. It shows complete neutrality. Really. 199.72.143.98 (talk) 15:08, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

We can't have people notice how the CON chat logs had someone actually say "we should get Ryulong to write a better GamerGate article"! That's too much cronyism for the normies to handle!! Sethyre (talk) 22:06, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

There's no need for so much snark, it's not going to help anyone. To get back on topic, the Washington Examiner has also covered the issue and I'm pretty certain they're considered a more valid source: http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/when-the-harassed-become-the-harassers/article/2600558 98.115.22.9 (talk) 23:56, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

True. All jokes aside this is a serious issue, and the coverage we have should be enough to add in, at least in my opinion. Sethyre (talk) 06:46, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

Washington Examiner, similar to Breitbart, is an unreliable source. PeterTheFourth (talk) 06:48, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

Says who? These discussions at RSN suggest otherwise: Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_193#Sourcing_for_Mattress_Performance_.28Carry_That_Weight.29 Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_192#Washington_Examiner_op-eds

Not only that but Ashe Schow (the author) has followed the story closely. That should be considered when evaluating sources. She appeared on the Gamergate discussion panel at SPJ Airplay, which along with her other reporting qualifies her as an expert on the subject as much as anyone can be (from WP:RS The opinions of specialists and recognized experts are more likely to be reliable and to reflect a significant viewpoint.)

It's definitely a better source than say the National Monitor which we cite heavily in the article for statements of fact. It's tagline is "Opinion and Analysis from all Angles" but according to WP:RS: Editorial commentary, analysis and opinion pieces ... are rarely reliable for statements of fact so something's off there and should be corrected.

Overall I don't see any issue citing the Examiner, and that article in particular. James J. Lambden (talk) 07:22, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

If you read the discussions to which you linked, you will find that nowhere is it established that the Washington Examiner is a reliable source. PeterTheFourth (talk) 09:08, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

Sure I've read them, have you? More editors say it is than say it isn't. That's about as close as we get here - there's no official list to add it to or remove it from. More importantly:

• It's subject to editorial review
• It's never been disqualified as an RS (unlike Breitbart, contrary to your suggestion)
• The author's an expert in the subject matter

I don't think we can expect to find the NYTimes and WSJ covering this little org (CON), much less in depth, so this is about as good as it gets which for our standards is just fine. Who wants to work up a few short sentences to add to the article? James J. Lambden (talk) 09:43, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

Considering that they've been covered by the NYT before as "anti-harassment" specialists, and according to their own chatlogs actively engaged in harassment of people they have ideological differences, it seems that anything related to the leaks should be added. Since the definition of a source is so flimsy already, their own word of mouth plus a verification by a member who was there should be more then sufficient. Not to mention that they actively used a wikipedia editor(ryulong) as a meatpuppet. 198.48.236.163 (talk) 14:48, 8 September 2016 (UTC)Mdot

Your daily reminder that consensus is not a vote. PeterTheFourth (talk) 09:46, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

Daily? Looks like you're the only editor against it so you're going to have to at least argue for why you're right. Claiming it's not RS (when it is) and reminding people that "Consensus is not a vote" aren't exactly arguments... I'm sensing a lot of WP:IDONTLIKEIT - just to get it out of the way you don't have any connection to the org or the subject do you? James J. Lambden (talk) 09:55, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

You've got me, I'm the founder and owner of Crash Override Network. My conflict of interest is clear, and you now have free reign to add as many dubious statements sourced to as many unreliable sources as you want. PeterTheFourth (talk) 10:03, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

Sarcasm aside, I'm going to ask the obvious question and expect a straight answer from you. Define "reliable source" and explain why all of the sources used to discuss CON in a positive light are demonstrably "reliable" while every source to date painting them in a negative light is demonstrably "not reliable", because you seem to be using a different standard than WP:RS, and I suspect that standard has more to do with whether or not the source has a positive view of CON than anything. Schadrach (talk) 15:20, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

A reliable source is generally a third-party, published source with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. PeterTheFourth (talk) 23:22, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

Wouldn't that disqualify almost every single source used in this article and in the gamergate article? 2601:3C8:0:5ADC:7CDF:1825:899:BBC9 (talk) 03:03, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

No. PeterTheFourth (talk) 03:06, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

Because we all know sources responding to controversies involving them are 100% reliable, right? 2601:3C8:0:5ADC:7CDF:1825:899:BBC9 (talk) 03:43, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

Jezebel (and its until recent parent, Gawker, and other Gawker subsidiaries), as well as The Mary Sue, are cited on articles as reliable sources; even though they all fail this arbitrary test of yours. As do the personal blogs used as reliable sources. And The Daily Dot. And... Well, I guess you get the point. If you are defending any of these sources, you're a massive hypocrite. Just pointing that out. But, I suppose your word is godlike on this site.199.72.143.98 (talk) 19:34, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

Again, I've got to add to the voices saying that there's nothing unreliable about the sources for the CON collusion weblogs. It's fine. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.255.206.160 (talk) 22:36, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

That's a bunch of sarcasm but nothing in the way of answer or argument... if this discussion is going to be productive we really need more of the latter. James J. Lambden (talk) 18:15, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

Everything I don't like is an unreliable source. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2607:FB90:2400:9289:0:4D:7EBC:2901 (talk) 08:36, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Gaming_the_system don't mind me, just leaving this one here for peter c: HeroofTime55 (talk) 01:28, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia isn't a democracy. We don't need a vote here. Make the changes you want into a draft on the talk page and we can argue about it there. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fangrim (talk

We have confirmation from an individual who was a member of CON that the logs are legitimate and cast a light which is contradictory to the current article. Clearly there is an overwhelming desire to amend the article to reflect this new information. It seems pretty obvious to me that ignorance or denial of this source would be with the intent to deny WP:NPOV. LCrowter (talk) 17:02, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

I might not have the know-how or experience with Wiki to properly add it in, but I'll make the first step. If anyone would like to make corrections to my edits please feel free, I'm still learning the ways of the wiki. Nevermind I'm terrible at this I can't even cite a source without getting fatigued. Sethyre (talk) 18:50, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

Heat Street is most certainly not a reliable source. PeterTheFourth (talk) 23:20, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

And you are basing this on...? Marteau (talk) 23:29, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

It does not have a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. PeterTheFourth (talk) 23:33, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

Examiner is fine for the claim. Maybe arguable in Quinn's article, fine here. Heat St is definitely usable for Cheong's confirmation, which I've added. James J. Lambden (talk) 23:54, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

Are you seriously saying that a primary source verifying the legitimacy of leak documents is an unrealiable source because you don't think Heat St is a good site? I'm not involved in this edit war but this is utterly embarrassing for Wikipedia and undermines its credibility at large. (Redacted) 24.84.155.22 (talk) 04:11, 9 September 2016 (UTC) Comment partially redacted per WP:NPA & WP:ASPERSIONS - Ryk72 ^'c.s.n.s.' 04:52, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

"Primary sources are original materials that are close to an event, and are often accounts written by people who are directly involved." Miles Cheong was a member of the group! How long are we going to tread around this. LCrowter (talk) 08:57, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

Cheong's account and the report from Schow are quite clear. As indicated above, Schow has followed the controversy extensively and this is significant enough for her to report on. LCrowter (talk) 09:19, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

Parts of the chatlogs indicate an attempt to "fix" articles involving gamergate on this very wiki by members: http://www.oneangrygamer.net/2016/09/crash-override-network-had-wikipedia-articles-changed-at-their-behest/11348/ Does it deserve a mention? 65.153.30.202 (talk) 12:56, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

• Comment - Question on reliability of Heatstreet for attributed opinion raised at WP:RSN. - Ryk72 ^'c.s.n.s.' 23:51, 8 September 2016 (UTC)
• Reminder - Editors are reminded that this Talk page is for discussions relating to building the article, not a forum for discussion of the topic itself, and that we are all expected to remain civil and refrain from personal attacks. This Talk page is also not a proxy for discussions of other articles. - Ryk72 ^'c.s.n.s.' 04:52, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

My reasonably conservative addition was removed on NPOV grounds. What's the NPOV argument for removal? There seems to be firm support for inclusion. Is the issue my phrasing or the specifics I chose to include? James J. Lambden (talk) 19:25, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

I feel the removal of recent major revelations concerning Crash Override Network should be reverted as it has been confirmed to be real by a primary source. There is no reason why it should be not included. 24.84.155.22 (talk) 20:25, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

If this is an actual, newsworthy story worth coverage here, it will be picked up and reported on by a reputable, reliable source. All you need to do is wait- there's no point forcing it through now with unreliable sources. PeterTheFourth (talk) 23:50, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

The statement is sourced to The Washington Examiner. The Washington Examiner is considered reliable. This was discussed earlier. If you take issue with that classification the place to resolve it is WP:RSN. James J. Lambden (talk) 01:25, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

There you go again, claiming documents and confirmation from primary sources along with verifiable authorship via a known publication. You're arguing that unless organizations with known conflicts of interest and bias cover this story you don't think it should be on wikipedia, regardless of it's factual or not. We even have comments from these so-called reputable organizations that they simply will not cover this story. You're clearly pushing politics, not facts. 24.84.155.22 (talk) 00:02, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

On another note, the section currently reads "An August 2016 leak of chat logs among members who would go on to found the group" suggests that Crash Override Network was not yet founded or operating, as the logs predate CON's public launch. Yet other sources (including a client and supporter of CON) describe the group as operating in the weeks prior to their public launch- "Now, that group has a name - the Crash Override Network - and after operating in secret for weeks, it’s gone public"

http://birthmoviesdeath.com/2015/01/17/the-social-justice-illuminati-is-real-and-its-an-anti-hate-task-force

It's seems safe to say that these logs document CON's official operations, as they contain all of the founders operating under the Crash Override name. 73.13.28.182 (talk) 20:09, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

The idea that these leaked chats are de-facto official internal communications is further backed up by the Trello board leaks (assuming Ian confirms these as well) 24.84.155.22 (talk) 22:13, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 13 September 2016

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

---

I request that an admin look at the talk page and look at what is written there and perhaps unlock this article or reply to people or something.

24.84.155.22 (talk) 21:19, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

This template is to be used for specific edit requests which have consensus. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 15:17, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

Please read this page and reply to the people within it or something, perhaps talk to a person or two. I'm not sure, thanks. 24.84.155.22 (talk) 20:33, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

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

Protected edit request on September 15, 2016

Please update the logo with the new one as found on their site. The current red and black logo is no longer used on the website or the twitter source. The new logo has been uploaded to Commons with the {{pd-textlogo}} template. See File:Crash Override Network logo.png. Anarchyte (work | talk) 09:13, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

•  Done Guy (Help!) 20:37, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

Discussion of The Washington Examiner as a source

Belated notification: the reliability of The Washington Examiner in relation to this article is being discussed at the Reliable Sources Noticeboard (RSN) James J. Lambden (talk) 17:47, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

• It would appear that some basic reminders about WP:BLP policy are required. First of all, contentious material touching on living people needs exceptionally strong sourcing. Lacking such sourcing, the material should not appear, and it is in fact a serious violation of policy to keep re-inserting poorly sourced material attacking living people. Secondly, the burden of proof is on those wishing to include the contentious material, meaning that it should not appear in the article unless/until there is a clear consensus that it is relevant and properly sourced.

  In accordance with WP:BLP, and with my responsibility as an administrator to enforce it, I've removed the material from the article pending further discussion here and/or at WP:RS/N (as linked above). Further violations of WP:BLP are likely to result in sanctions against individual editors, particularly since this topic area is subject to discretionary sanctions and editors should be working harder to comply with policy, rather than skirting it. MastCell ^Talk 17:53, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

Good thing we have a primary document, a primary source verifying the legitimacy of the primary document and none of the participants have denied the legitimacy of it. Hopefully we can get this sorted out so the editors can begin referencing specific statements in the documents. 24.84.155.22 (talk) 18:03, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

I think it would be useful to review the relevant site policies before continuing in this vein, especially regarding your intent to use primary sources. MastCell ^Talk 18:53, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

I'd rather not, I'm more interested in improving wikipedia by making it a more reliable and informative site. I also don't plan to hang around after dispute is resolved, or at least until something so ridiculous falls under my purview again. I'm like a WikiGnome on a whole nother level 24.84.155.22 (talk) 19:15, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

I don't think Ashe Showe (Author of the Washington Examiner) has any evidence against them proving a challenge against NPOV. The chat logs that are being referenced have been vetted by someone who was part of the organization before leaving, which suggests that verifiability has been covered. I'd like to hear everyone thoughts on the Chat Logs being a NPOV? I believe coverage over the chat logs might be best served by putting it under Criticism/Controversy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fangrim (talk • contribs) 19:32, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

@MastCell: I believe the editor's argument is that, unlike most secondary sources, this one provides primary sources in addition to support its claims.

Inclusion was discussed above and by my rough count: 12 editors were in favor, feeling the sourcing was sufficient, and 2 opposed. Given the weight of the arguments, which I find heavier on the include side, that appears to be the "clear consensus" you require. No other discussion has reached a contrary conclusion, yet you've removed the content - overriding local consensus and leaving editors with no way to restore it. Have I misunderstood? James J. Lambden (talk) 19:36, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

A couple of points:

• I don't see how you arrived at a 12-2 count above in favor of inclusion, or anything near it.
• Consensus is not a vote, and arguments are weighted by their validity with regard to site policy. Arguments that have no grounding in policy, or that fly in the face of policy, are generally discounted. If (hypothetically) 12 people argue in favor of a blatant BLP violation while only 2 people defend the proper application of the policy, the 2 people can, and should, carry the day.
• The issue is currently under discussion by a wider and more representative cross-section of editors at WP:RS/N, and there does not appear to be anything resembling consensus that these sources (the Washington Examiner in particular) are sufficient to support the wording that was in the article.
• Even if there were a local consensus here to use an unacceptable source for contentious material about living people, a local consensus cannot override a foundational policy such as WP:BLP.

If an uninvolved admin feels that the material should be restored and remain in the article pending further discussion, then I'd be open to talking with him/her. But the policy is very clear that such material needs clear consensus to justify insertion, and that such material must remain out of the article until such consensus is obtained. I don't see much of a gray area here, and I'm concerned by the very cavalier attitude toward sourcing and WP:BLP policy on display, particularly given the discretionary sanctions active in this topic area. MastCell ^Talk 20:11, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

I'm concerned this discussion is wading into editorial territory... I specifically addressed weight in my comment. Regarding the "count", in the relevant section Talk:Crash_Override_Network#Discussion_of_The_Washington_Examiner_as_a_source Talk:Crash_Override_Network#Chat_log_leaks we have the following !votes:

Arguing for inclusion and/or the sufficiency of existing sources

• Informat2
• Sethyre
• 98.115.22.9
• James J. Lambden
• 198.48.236.163
• Schadrach
• 2601:3C8:0:5ADC:7CDF:1825:899:BBC9
• 199.72.143.98
• 109.255.206.160
• 2607:FB90:2400:9289:0:4D:7EBC:2901
• HeroofTime55
• LCrowter
• Marteau
• 65.153.30.202
• Ryk72
• 24.84.155.22
• 73.13.28.182

Total, that's 8 registered accounts and 9 IPs, 17 total.

Arguing against inclusion and/or the sufficiency of existing sources

• PeterTheFourth
• Fangrim (questionable)

2 total.

Have I missed or mischaracterized any?

Regarding BLP, I think it would be instructional and helpful to identify which editors you feel have been cavalier about sourcing, and with which edits in particular, if possible. James J. Lambden (talk) 20:47, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

I may have a very dumb question, but boldness here we go. Why is Crash Overridde the network considered a living person? Its an organization correct? Would the same restrictions apply to a corporation such as IBM or Twitter? Fangrim (talk) 20:15, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

WP:BLPGROUP is the relevant policy. It really depends on the size of the organisation. For groups of only 2 or 3 individuals accusing the group of doing something is not that different the accusing those individuals. — Strongjam (talk) 20:19, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

Thank you! Fangrim (talk) 20:28, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

Considering Crash Override had more like a dozen members over the course of it's existence you're essentially defining a large portion of small businesses as living people. I move that this definition be removed and it's status be updated to an organization or a network as opposed to a living person. 24.84.155.22 (talk) 20:31, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

I believe this is the relevant statement from BLPGROUP: A harmful statement about a small group or organization comes closer to being a BLP problem than a similar statement about a larger group, which appears to apply in this case. James J. Lambden (talk) 20:57, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

If that's the case I think you'd have to question whether or not the article is even notable enough to be included in a separate page and not just be included on the main Gamergate controversy page. LCrowter (talk) 08:47, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

Question: Can this really be a BLP violation if the article in question is against an organization, not a person? 66.241.131.208 (talk) 13:08, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

WP:BLPGROUP is the relevant policy. It really depends on the size of the organisation. For groups of only 2 or 3 individuals accusing the group of doing something is not that different the accusing those individuals. As a note i disagree with the way this edit was handled. You had people complaining about the source, which was debated on, then you had an admin swoop in and declare WP:BLP, lock everything and then swoop away. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fangrim (talk • contribs) 13:37, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

As mentioned elsewhere Crash Override Network consists more of like a dozen members if the primary documents are to be believed. Then again essentially all information about CON is unverifiable and we only have self-cited advertisement-tier information that is currently on the article. 24.84.155.22 (talk) 20:55, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

• I have already commented on the unsuitableness of the WE source at WP:RSN, but I will do so here, because I find the attitude of many of the SPAs here rather worrisome. The WE editorial is an opinion source, which is reliable as a primary source for the opinion of the author, but not a reliable factual secondary source. There is no way to determine the weight to assign the authors' view, although her WE profile says that she was formerly affiliated with the Heritage Foundation, an American conservative think-tank. Some editors here seem unable to tell the difference between news, like the New York Times, that has a solid reputation for fact-checking, and websites like Breitbart, which are known for peddling unsubstantiated conspiracy theories; these same editors apparently are unable to tell the difference between news reporting, and opinion reporting. The WE piece is definitely opinion. The last paragraph of the article leaves zero doubt about that:

"There's much more in the leaked logs, which Ian Miles Cheong has been documenting over at Heat Street, and I encourage you to read it. The point I want to make is that members of CON, including Quinn, have spoken out against online bullying before the United Nations, and have also worked with Google and Twitter allegedly to stop online harassment, all while engaging in the very same harassment."

I don't want to speculate why some editors seem unable to tell the difference between news and opinion, but competence is required. Sławomir Biały (talk) 15:58, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

Your attacks on editors (WP:SPA, WP:CIR) are unjustified. Claiming the WE article is an opinion piece doesn't make it so. You use the word "editorial" without providing evidence beyond "the author has written editorials in the past." The text you quote above as evidence contains only verifiable statements of fact. One can reasonably dispute their accuracy but they are statements of fact nonetheless. It's a news article like any other published in a source with a better record of reliability than many of the existing sources in this article, which I gather from your lack of objection you don't object to. I'll remind you BLP requires strong sourcing whether the material is negative, positive, [or] neutral This is one of the stronger sources in this article, the only one backed by authenticated evidence, yet it's the only one you object to. Standards should be consistent. James J. Lambden (talk) 16:14, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

A news source would never address the reader ("...I would encourage you to read it.") and would not have an injection of editorial opinion ("The point I want to make is..."). Journalists don't "make points", they present facts. Here is an example of news. The piece under discussion is obviously opinion. I am astonished that any editor could in good faith believe otherwise. This is deep WP:CIR. Sławomir Biały (talk) 17:00, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

Conversational does not imply editorial and professional does not imply factual.

These are the news sources the community currently considers acceptable for this article:

https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2016/apr/13/online-abuse-how-women-are-fighting-back

It’s a glacial task, trying to persuade privileged, male-orientated Silicon Valley culture that harassment is an issue, particularly when some threads of West Coast libertarianism react to moderation of offensive comments by claiming it is censorship.

https://www.destructoid.com/zo-quinn-founds-anti-harassment-network-crash-override-286719.phtml

If you have recently found yourself a victim of organized mob harassment, you can email the Crash Override network via crashoverridenetwork@gmail.com. Hack the planet.

http://herocomplex.latimes.com/games/crash-override-offers-relief-from-harassment-in-the-gaming-world/

For too many people and for far too long this has been the norm, even if the bulk of players believe that common decency shouldn’t be the exception when it comes to gaming culture.

Just as we don't expect NY Times-quality sourcing in pro wrestling biographies we can't expect every incident involving a little-known organization to be covered in depth by the major press. If this wiki article about an organization small enough that BLP applies throughout is to remain as more than a stub, sourcing expectations must be adjusted. Statements published in reliable sources and backed by authenticated primary sources fall on the high end of reasonable expectations. James J. Lambden (talk) 17:42, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

The topic of this section is the reliability of the Washington Examiner source, as was the topic of the RSN post. Quite obviously, the source in The Guardian seems like a solid fact-checked piece, and so I think it is reliable as a news source, insofar as it can be used to say that Quinn said such-and-such. The LA Times source also looks like a reliable news source. I don't think the Destructoid source is a good one. I'm not sure what your point is. Sławomir Biały (talk) 17:58, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

From what I can gather, his point seems to be that the existing sources are hitting your disqualifiers for journalistic pieces. You said a news source would never address the reader, the cited news sources clearly do. You said that news sources would never have an injection of editorial opinion, but the included sources clearly do. We've already acknowledged that things categorized as 'opinion' can contain both objective facts and the author's personal views, which is why there are countless instances of wikipedia extrapolating factual claims from opinion pieces. For the most part, the Washington Examiner article is simply reporting the contents of the logs with little to no exaggeration, and the only thing people are interested in including into the this page are the documented and witnessed actions of the members, not the subjective views of Ashe 73.13.28.182 (talk) 22:01, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

• @James J. Lambden:Your attacks on editors (WP:SPA, WP:CIR) are unjustified. Claiming the WE article is an opinion piece doesn't make it so. Right off the bat, let me say that calling someone an SPA is a matter of fact, not opinion, and it is not an insult. SPAs are permitted here, and often even encouraged as a way to attract more editors. Slawomir might be incorrect about who is an SPA, but that does not make it an attack.

Now, the author (Ashe Schow) of the WE piece is listed under the "Opinion" section of the outlet's staff page. She is also listed as a "commentary writer," which is functionally identical to an "Opinion writer." Furthermore, as Slawomir has pointed out, she writes with a conversational tone, appropriate to an opinion piece, and inappropriate to a news piece. Finally, her bio in various places does not indicate any degree in journalism or work as a journalist.

In short, she looks like a duck, walks like a duck, quacks like a duck, and has has only ever worked as a professional duck. For you to not only claim that she's not a duck, but to berate another user for saying she is absolutely justifies their questioning of your ability to judge the merits of sources. That is not a personal attack (though it could become one, for example, if he insists upon linking to WP:CIR in every comment to you). In fact, questioning your competence to judge the merits of the source is the exact opposite of a personal attack, because it is attributing to a mistake that which, otherwise would have to constitute deceptive maliciousness.

tl;dr: You are not being attacked, you're being rightfully accused of being mistaken. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 19:49, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

I cannot believe you people are arguing about the reliability of WE instead of talking about 2 primary sources verifying primary documents. What a joke. 24.84.155.22 (talk) 20:32, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

Disagreement does not require or benefit from questioning competency. I don't feel much of your response furthers the conversation. Suffice it to say: if the standard you advocate for sourcing in this article is:

• author must be a news writer, no opinion writers
• author must have a degree in journalism

I will aim to bring the article up to standards once protection's expired. Please confirm I've understood.

My argument is: a number of factors should be weighed for statements of fact in a BLP. In the past days I've read and re-read the BLP policy and a number of noticeboard discussions. Fundamentally as I understand it aims to:

• ensure the accuracy of statements
• ensure the notability (WEIGHT) statements

With respect to accuracy: I acknowledge the author's history and (to your point) that they're listed under "opinion" - and count it as a negative. I also acknowledge the verification (from an involved party) of the accuracy of the author's statements and count it as a positive. If consensus is this falls short of the burden for statements of fact it would still be usable for attributed opinion.

With respect to weight: I believe the Heat St piece (usable only for attributed claims) and the WE piece together justify a sentence or two-sentence summary. I notice Cheong has published another article in Heat St in response to a new set of leaks. It's possible more sources will report on this, so I'll wait to propose an appropriate summary. James J. Lambden (talk) 20:47, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

Even if we accept both sources as reliable, that still does not address the BLP issues. WP:BLPGROUP doesn't specify exactly how many people constitute a 'large group', so there's a grey area, in which we normally exclude BLP info.

Even if we accept the WE piece as reliable, that's only a single reliable source. A disgruntled former members of a group is as likely to be an unreliable as a reliable primary source. With no way to verify the chat logs, we don't know that they are accurate themselves. Furthermore, a current member of the group have indicated that the logs have been edited, and are "not CO logs", whatever that means.

But getting back to the sources: right now, there are a total of two sources which might be reliable (but probably aren't). Both are minor sources. There's no significant coverage of these logs in the mainstream media. Hell, there's no significant coverage in the gaming media. In other words: It's a claim levied against the group (bearing in mind that a large chunk of the gamergate controversy itself consists of people levying false, misleading and irrelevant claims against a number of individuals) that hasn't gotten much attention outside of the immediate sphere of those involved. That in an of itself would exclude this materials on WP:DUE grounds, even if there were no BLP considerations to be made here.

If it blows up into a big controversy, then yes, we should include mention of it. But even then. I highly doubt we will find sources reliable enough to state that the events hinted at by this controversy took place in wikivoice. Even then, claims will need to be attributed. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 21:06, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

Randi harper absolutely does not imply the logs were edited, at most she stated that the logs _BEGIN_ before CON, but the logs cover an extensive period of time and official CON operations.

But here we have, the entire point. The leaked CON logs are of more weight than the majority of existing citations currently used, which are almost entire self-descriptions and passing statements from bloggers with known personal relationships to the people they're writing about. CON wasn't not noteworthy at all, until now.

I've realized that wikipedia doesn't really care about the truth, but I write this so the people outside of wikipedia see for themselves. Make no mistake, this entire exchange is being watched. 24.84.155.22 (talk) 21:20, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

Actually, if you read the tweet, she says "some are edited", which seems to mean 'some logs were edited'. PeterTheFourth (talk) 21:31, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

Which could also mean that the formatting of some were edited, or that the logs were excerpted. I'm guessing the latter, since more chatlog leaks were promised. But "some are edited" also clearly means that some are not edited. Otherwise Harper would simply call them fake and not bother to publicly justify her actions shown in the logs.

Anyway, you earlier floated the theory that Cheong could have joined CON with the intention of digging up dirt, then quit the group once he didn't find any, then wrote up the fake logs and leaked them anonymously. The odds of this happening, in addition the odds of not a single member of CON bothering to deny them or call them fake it highly unlikely. At least, it's less likely than the possibility that Cheong simply quit because of the unscrupulous activity he witnessed and alluded to prior to the leaks. If it was his goal to find dirt or slander the organization, then what purpose would quitting serve? Why wait nearly a year after quitting to make fake chatlogs? As opposed to creating them while still running with the organization. The odds that every primary source is fake or lying is not 50/50. I will see if I can find any other CON members confirming the logs. 73.13.28.182 (talk) 21:47, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

I never floated that theory. PeterTheFourth (talk) 21:56, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

Ah, sorry about that. I confused you with someone else. 73.13.28.182 (talk) 22:05, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

Anyway, you earlier floated the theory that Cheong could have joined CON with the intention of digging up dirt Actually, that was me.

The odds of this happening... I have a friend who is 'internet famous', who has had people jump through more, smaller hoops than that to try to hurt her. I've read news articles about people going so far as to kill each other over internet arguments. I'll admit that it's not likely (again, I'm not suggesting that that's what happened, just that it's a possibility that the evidence at our disposal doesn't rule out, or even contradict), but things like that absolutely do happen.

in addition the odds of not a single member of CON bothering to deny them or call them fake it highly unlikely.There's a thread on wikipediocracy in which a handful of members (including active editors here) started trash-talking me. That thread was then blocked from non-members viewing at around the time someone started suggesting they do something about me. This is the first time I've mentioned it, and only because it's such a great example. Do you know why? Because it doesn't matter. There aren't enough people there, and those that are aren't dangerous enough to worry me. It could just as easily be the same story, here. Randi certainly seemed very dismissive of the whole thing. It's very possible that she only read a few lines, noticed some discrepancies right away, and laughed it off with the (apparently) two tweets she made about it. I'd say it's even quite likely.

Regardless, this still isn't addressing the issue of the usability of those sources for the text proposed (let alone the BLP issues!). Even if all the participants were to come out and proclaim that the logs are real and accurate, the fact that they've only been covered by two opinion pieces and a handful of tweets means they don't have the weight to be included. If this blows up to the point that Kotaku were writing articles about the hypocrisy of CON? Then hell yeah, we'd need to cover it (in source voice). MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 22:05, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

If Kotaku wrote about, then _OF COURSE_ we'd have to include it? Are you being serious? Do I even need to explain why that is such an asinine statement? 24.86.66.13 (talk) 22:11, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

Weight is relative to existing coverage which in this case is minimal. A single WE piece and two Heat Street pieces arguably qualify. I suggest, once updated phrasing has been proposed, we put it to a !vote. James J. Lambden (talk) 22:26, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

I agree that one could argue that the sources are sufficient, given the subject of the article. However, the sources are not sufficient to overcome the BLP issues which got the article page fully protected (and the content in question removed). MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 03:49, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

From what I understand of Wikipedia, this is probably going to get me banned as a sockpuppet or SPA or something. I've never edited Wikipedia before, which is a shame because I should probably help out on the UK Constitutional Law pages. Regardless, I have three points I'd like to bring up.

Firstly, this is supposedly a cut and dry BLP issue because the secondary sources used are apparently opinion pieces, even though they are referring to primary documents. I don't understand why this scenario is a cut and dry BLP issue, whereas this issue: https://en.luquay.com/wiki/Talk:Gamergate_controversy#Gjoni.27s_intent.2C_again is not a cut and dry BLP issue, despite the secondary sources in that latter page being an opinion piece (the wording of "it seems"). Surely both of these examples are analogous, but there appears to be some distinct bias towards certain peoples in this article than it the other one.

Secondly, I don't understand why this would be a BLP issue at all, considering there are primary documents with which the secondary sources draw from. Perhaps it isn't the case universally on this site, but for many of the law articles, there is discussion of a primary source (such as a Statute) where the definitions and concepts used draw from the Statute itself: https://en.luquay.com/wiki/Human_Rights_Act_1998#References - many of the references (12, 17, 18, 19, 21 - 29) all quote exclusively just from the Statute itself, a primary source. The case law relevant is also extensively quoted, despite being a primary source. As I understand it, this should be against the "original research" concept, because there's no discussion (such as from journals or the specialised media) as to what these sections mean, you're just given them interpreted for you by Wiki editors. In this context, unless there's an exemption for law articles, I don't see why references can't be drawn from the primary document itself.

Thirdly, some people have suggested BLP issues shouldn't affect the article at all, because they're a group, whereas others have suggested that the group is so small that BLP still applies. On this point, The "network" apparently draws from dozens of experts, which doesn't seem small - because otherwise the Gamergate page would equally need to be modified, which has been described as "dozens of core users and their sock puppets". There's a significant logical inconsistency across this digital encyclopedia that really needs to be resolved. It's ludicrous and illogical to not contain information pertinent to a neutral reader - one who might have issues with being harassed themselves, only to later discover the organisation they went to had participated in harassment themselves! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.153.206.77 (talk) 23:18, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

Consensus regarding Chat Logs

The protection on this article is coming to a close. We may be worth referring to the outcome of a similar dispute on the Gamergate Controversy page which is based on a single source with potential repercussions per WP:BLP. Given that the claim about the individual there is included based on a source from "a qualified reporter who is unrelated to the harassment campaign or its targets" I would say that Schow's work probably fits the bill in this regard, bolstered by primary source confirmation from Cheong. Consensus seems to be for including the logs anyways, per @James J. Lambden:'s roll take above. LCrowter (talk) 13:18, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

The wider consensus for the WP:RSN discussion is what matters. — Strongjam (talk) 13:25, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

Indeed, which is why I find the discussion on the aforementioned page deeply informative in laying the foundations of what exactly would be a reliable secondary source on what is undoubtedly a contentious subject. LCrowter (talk) 13:42, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

I'm a bit confused, consensus over there seems to be shaping up to remove the statement. It also isn't really relevant to this page, the RSN discussion about this source in this context is what matters. — Strongjam (talk) 13:57, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

Both the BLP and RSN issues are relevant given the relationship that page has to this one IMHO. LCrowter (talk) 14:27, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

Weighing the strengths of the sourcing in both cases: in Gjoni's we have a single in-depth but clearly opinion source used to support claims against a single, named individual. And here we have two independent sources, backed by verified primary documents, used to support claims against a small group. Even if we consider both sources opinion pieces, the comparison is illustrative - the sourcing here is stronger and the BLP implications weaker. James J. Lambden (talk) 19:04, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

Great so we're all in agreement, it should be removed from both pages. — Strongjam (talk) 19:09, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

That conclusion does not follow logically from my argument, which is: If the Gjoni claim is included, this claim should be included. My argument is not (as you imply): if and only if the Gjoni claim is included, this claim should be included. James J. Lambden (talk) 19:16, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

Yeah, I'm all on board with it not being on either page. PeterTheFourth (talk) 21:52, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

The primary documents do not support the proposed text. In fact, they directly contradict the charge of doxing. Sławomir Biały (talk) 22:23, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

I find it difficult to believe you read them fully when they actively discussed ways of avoiding having the group painted as an organization that doxes people when one of their members shared a public list of Facebook members of a Gamergate supporting group on Twitter (I can link to the particular post here if necessary but the log possibly links to private information, so I shall not do so for the time being). I know the definition of dox is fluid to fit the purpose of the accuser but I'm pretty sure the boot fits in this regard. Cheong refers to both of the logs in his article and as he was a previous member of the group I'm inclined to support his conclusions. LCrowter (talk) 23:01, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

"I'm with Randi and SF on the point that releasing and using their public Facebook groups as a roster to cross-reference anyone sending death threats is perfectly acceptable and not the same "doxing" terror tactic used by GG" This is denial that they engaged in doxing. The rest is he-said-she-said primary source interpretation, which is not allowable under WP:BLP/WP:V. Sławomir Biały (talk) 23:28, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

They're welcome to deny the claim all they like, this does not mean that they did not engage in such behaviour. We are quite capable of verifying the claim by the following:

#1. Archived information of the original tweet (link listed in the logs and retrievable via archive.is) made by Harper in which she lists a number of publicly accessible user groups on Facebook, along with personally identifiable information of members of those groups.

#2. Primary source verification from Ian Miles Cheong confirming that such activity took place, which includes the above tweet made with publicly accessible personal information on Facebook "'Yet the leaked chat logs clearly show members expressing their disapproval of how Randi Harper, who was also a member of CON, was doxing people on Facebook. A week later, members of the organization cheered her on and discussed for how to destroy their targets' careers'".

#3. Secondary source reporting from Ashe Schow on the above.

Compare this to the latest amendment by James that I can find:

"An August 2016 leak of chat logs among members who would go on to found the group suggested some participated in doxing and harassment of Gamergate supporters.[13] Ian Miles Cheong says he was a member of the chat group and that the logs are genuine."[14]

I don't see the problem with the above wording but maybe we could couch this in even more NPOV terms, include Cheong's claim that they expressed disapproval but also engaged in such behaviour, or even move the claim to Online Abuse Prevention Initiative of which Harper is the founder? LCrowter (talk) 23:58, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

But the leak did not "suggest some participated in doxing and harassment". On the contrary, the leak explicitly contradicts this statement. Exactly what happened, and whether it was doxing, appears to depend on who we ask. We have no independent reliable sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. Just primary opinion-type sources. It's really pretty simple: without high quality sources, we can't have a statement that convicts Quinn et al of doxing. This is WP:BLPSOURCES. Examples of high quality sources are discussed at WP:NEWSORG and WP:SCHOLARSHIP. Sławomir Biały (talk) 00:12, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

I say we exclude the claim. The argument against the BLP concerns is basically "I don't think the BLP concerns matter. Because reasons." MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 22:31, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

I've seen arguments to the effect of: "I believe the sources are sufficient to satisfy BLP concerns" but none suggesting BLP concerns don't matter. Can you identify an editor who's advanced this argument, because I believe you're mistaken. James J. Lambden (talk) 22:45, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

Assuming we all agree that BLP matters, it's pretty clear WP:BLPSOURCES: "Material should not be added to an article when the only sourcing is tabloid journalism. When material is both verifiable and noteworthy, it will have appeared in more reliable sources." Sławomir Biały (talk) 22:47, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

You're right, I would have trouble finding an editor advancing any argument against excluding on the basis of BLP concerns. At least one who hasn't completely ignored the dim view the RSN discussion took of the sources. Furthermore, I would have grave difficulty finding any editor arguing for inclusion who hasn't ignored the facts that I and Slawomir have pointed out:

1. Schrow is not a reporter, has never been a reporter, and doesn't even claim to have ever gotten any education in journalism. She is a blogger with a nicer-than-average-but-still-not-top-of-the-line platform. Phil Plait has a better platform, for example.
2. The chat logs do not unambiguously suggest what any of the discussed sources claim they state outright.
3. The chat logs have been edited in some undisclosed way, according to one of the participants.

At this point, nothing short of an actual journalistic story in an unbiased news outlet is going to be good enough to establish the likelihood of this being true, and more than one such story to make sure this doesn't fall afoul of BLP constraints. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 01:31, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

I asked what I thought was a straightforward question above:

• You claimed: The argument against the BLP concerns is basically "I don't think the BLP concerns matter. Because reasons."
• I asked: Can you identify an editor who's advanced this argument, because I believe you're mistaken

While I appreciate your detailed response, if it contains an answer to my question I can't detect it. Can you highlight it for me if present? You're under no obligation to respond but unsubstantiated claims will be viewed negatively when the arguments for exclusion (or inclusion) are weighed.

As it stands we have two sources which the consensus at RSN suggests are usable for the authors' opinions. I propose the addition of the following text:

An August 2016 leak of chat logs among members who would go on to found the group led some commentators to suggest members had participated in doxing and harassment of Gamergate supporters.[1] One of them, Ian Miles Cheong, claims to have been a member of the group when the incidents took place.[2]

Let's discuss specific criticisms of this text that might be addressed collaboratively. James J. Lambden (talk) 02:01, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

I did answer your question. Directly and unambiguously, in monosyllabic words. How you managed to miss that boggles the mind. Now, once again, I see you representing falsehoods as facts by claiming the RSN discussion came to a consensus that these sources were reliable. It did not. It came to no consensus whatsoever at best. It's very arguable that the consensus at RSN was a weak "no". Furthermore, the thread above this discussed the same thing, and also failed to affirm the reliability of the sources. Again, the consensus of the thread above is arguably a weak "no". What you and anyone else arguing for inclusion seems to be failing to grasp is that simply having a few people who agree with you does not make a consensus. These sources are at best very weakly reliable, as evidence by the lack of any clear consensus on their reliability. They are by definition unreliable for BLP claims, as evidenced by the lack of any clear consensus on their reliability. I know that you think there's a consensus, but I really think you need to read WP:CON because counting votes several days before discussion ended isn't how consensus works. Finally, your count is... Well, it's so wrong that I have trouble believing you didn't just make it up. You counted 17 editors arguing for inclusion in a thread that only had 4 people commenting. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 02:31, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

I'll respond more fully later but regarding the count, for some reason archiving was set to a maximum of 7 days so the "count" referenced an archived discussion. I've manually restored it so you can confirm my math. James J. Lambden (talk) 02:53, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

I like the addition of the chat logs with the bit you added above James. Fangrim (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 04:56, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

The consensus at RSN is solidly against the reliability of these sources in this context. Sławomir Biały (talk) 10:06, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

I see the restored discussion, but I also see a lot more people objecting in further discussions. I also see a lot of those "include" votes you counted consisted of nothing more than personal attacks or snarky comments. I'm sure in some circles, snarky comments and insults are considered reasoned arguments, but not here. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 23:21, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

@MjolnirPants: I searched your response but couldn't find any editors' names. I have to assume no such editors exist and the matter is resolved.

@Fangrim: I had counted you in the earlier tally on the "exclude" side, my mistake. It appears at the time I tallied only a single editor involved supported exclusion. There seems to be a slight increase since.

@Sławomir Biały: The text I proposed (which Fangrim supports) attributes the claims to their authors. You say the consensus at RSN is against this but less than a day ago in discussing the usability of the source in question at RSN you wrote: Generally speaking, opinion columns are ... reliable ... for the opinions of their authors. Do you still feel that way and if so, and we use the source only for the opinion of its author, do you still have objections? James J. Lambden (talk) 07:22, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

How is this shit still going on? Have you at least gotten past the idea of acknowledging the existence of the primary document? Are you guys now debating the interpretation of the content at least?— Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.86.66.13 (talk) 07:55, 22 September 2016‎ (UTC)

@James J. Lambden: What, did you forget how to read? You apparently didn't forget how to type. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 01:10, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

Focus on the content. This page has 45 watchers. It's a waste of their time to read updates with only invective. Do you have specific objections to my proposed text? I see a number of arguments against using the WE source for statements of fact - can you explain why that source (which you've argued is an opinion piece) would not be usable for opinion? James J. Lambden (talk) 04:05, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

Enough. This was already discussed at length at RSN, and there is obviously no consensus to include this. I'd go so far as to say that there was considerable support for the idea - if not a consensus - that including it is undue and/or a BLP vio. WP:DROPTHESTICK time, seriously. Start an RFC if you really can't let this go, but I am 95% percent confident that that will be a waste of your and everyone else's time - the sources are simply not good enough. Fyddlestix (talk) 04:15, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

That's not my reading of it, but you may be right an RfC is the best way forward. James J. Lambden (talk) 04:24, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

I plan to open an RFC on inclusion of the log leaks. I'd like to propose specific text with specific sourcing. One suggestion raised at RSN was to cite specific actions, rather than generalized claims of harassment as in my recently proposed text (copied below.) If anyone has ideas on how best to do that or other improvements, please suggest them. Otherwise I'll return with my best effort and we can begin the RfC process.

An August 2016 leak of chat logs among members who would go on to found the group led some commentators to suggest members had participated in doxing and harassment of Gamergate supporters.[1] One of them, Ian Miles Cheong, claims to have been a member of the group when the incidents took place.[2]

James J. Lambden (talk) 04:45, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

Two thoughts: First, you should probably be more specific about who "some commentators" are, and Second, "Members who would go on to found the group" sounds really imprecise - are we really talking about logs from before CON was even a thing? People are likely to wonder how/why this is even relevant in this article if that's the case. Fyddlestix (talk) 05:05, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

The wording is really poor in this. When you write 'One of them', do you mean that Ian Miles Cheong is a 'Gamergate supporter', 'commentator', or 'member who would go on to found the group'? PeterTheFourth (talk) 05:57, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

The proposed addition should be de-weaseled to say: "Ian Miles Cheong has accused the group of condoning doxing of Gamergate supporters, and released chat logs from a time when he was a member of the group." That's WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV. I too am concerned about the weight. Generally we require reliable secondary sources, which we don't have here. Sławomir Biały (talk) 12:33, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

The sources obviously aren't high-enough quality to support inclusion. WP:EXCEPTIONAL applies here; this the textbook example of a surprising or apparently important claim not covered by multiple mainstream sources. I'm not really seeing a consensus here to override that, either, especially given that WP:BLP applies - I feel we need the multiple mainstream sources specified in WP:EXCEPTIONAL to support an accusation of this severity if it's going to be included. Given how serious of an accusation it is, it should be easy to find those sources if it's true and worth including. (Aside: I am extremely skeptical of Lambden's nose-count above, since it clearly excludes a number of people arguing against inclusion both here and on WP:BLPN, and includes a long list of IPs - while IPs are valid users and their points should be considered when they present good arguments, just like anyone else, the risk of socking, as one of the the IPs in his list was caught doing for this, has to be taken into account when a discussion attracts a large number of new or unregistered users with few edits outside the topic area. This concern is one of the many reasons we say that consensus is a !vote in the first place. Reading the tone of the discussion both here and on WP:BLPN, rather than counting the number of different IP addresses involved, makes it clear that there's insufficient consensus to overcome core content policy concerns like WP:BLP.) --Aquillion (talk) 21:36, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

@James J. Lambden: can you explain why that source (which you've argued is an opinion piece) would not be usable for opinion?

1. WP:BLP is the direct answer to your question. Also, (thanks, Aquillion) WP:EXCEPTIONAL answers it.
2. I think you've confused "argued" with "proven". I've seen where people keep insisting that Schow is a reporter and the piece is a work of journalism, but Schow has no degree in journalism, no history of working as a journalist, and her position with the WE is part of the opinion staff. You can pretend that she's a reporter, but no-one in their right mind is going to believe you. Honestly, the only thing you're doing by denying that she's an opinion writer and her work is entirely within that category is demonstrating that you're here to push a POV, not to improve the article.

@Aquillion:I did some investigating myself, and the IP address who most recently posted (in this thread, above my last comment) is almost certainly the same person who was recently blocked over this very issue. At the very least, they have the same ISP and live in the same neighborhood. Even if that's not the same person, that's some likely WP:MEAT. I'll bet there are much fewer people behind that list of IPs than it appears. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 22:09, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

If you're going to throw around aspirations, I should remind you that the logs do, in fact, show that members of the chat and of Crash Override Network show that they did have a WP:MEAT account, that is now banned from editing on this site. If you are going to accuse people of WP:MEAT, then you should also admit that members of the topic at hand have also used WP:MEAT to their own advantage in the past.

It should also be noted that before you, the editor with the most objections to the addition of the logs is a known (former?) WP:SPA account, who also is known for WP:STALK against an editor that this one disagreed with; constantly trying to get sanctions placed against that other editor. Also, that editor's sole reasoning, in the beginning, was that the Washington Examiner is unreliable... because he said so. Last I remember, it was not one editor's decision as to what sources are reliable and what sources aren't. Or have things changed, dramatically, in the around 10 years my account has been here? Though, given the sources used on this article, I question their reliability. They read like fluff pieces written about friends' projects over anything objective. The very first one is written by a personal friend of multiple members of Crash Override Network's founding members. I don't know about you, but I'd hardly call anything written about a freiend's (or friends') projects to be objective, let alone reliable.

So, if the decision ends up being that the sources are basically saying "Founding Members of Crash Override Network are Shitty People, Film at 11. Also, Water Wet, Fire Burns", then that's how this will end up being. But, looking at this from the outside, I can't agree with the 'consensus' that the source is unreliable, because the 'consensus' seems to be you and about three other editors, with more than that saying it could be included. Granted, there aren't dozens of editors on one side or the other giving opinions, but your opinion is in the minority, at present. Perhaps WP:CONSENSUS should be updated to reflect that it now means only those editors agreeing with certain other editors on a particular subject form a conesus; even if they are in the minority? Given how anything related to GamerGate seems to bring out noxious venom between editors on this site, I can see how this change could be applied to the WP:CONSENSUS page for anything regarding the topic. This topic seems to be more polarizing than politics or religion; which is saying something. The ArbCom about GamerGate showed just how far down Wikipedia has devolved into sociopolitical mudslinging. I would have hoped that would have stayed the purview of RationalWiki and Conservapedia. It appears I was wrong to hope that. UncleThursday (talk) 04:54, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

I'll throw my hat in for the inclusion, it seems obvious to me considering the quality of existing citations used. It honestly reads like an advertisement, especially with this resistance to this new inclusion. Yet Another Nobody (talk) 04:32, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

Consensus is not determined by the number of sockpuppets voting for inclusion. It is determined by which arguments are the stronger, based on our policies and guidelines. Wikipedia is not a democracy, where the number of votes determines the consensus. In this case, the policies are pretty clearly against inclusion. Sławomir Biały (talk) 12:06, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

Which seems to be why the argument changed from "The Washington Examiner is not reliable" to "this is now a potential WP:BLP violation." Gaining consensus on whether a source is reliable is far easier to get than dealing with a BLP issue. Always has been. The policies dealing with BLP are far more strict than the policies for reliable sources. The sudden switch from 'reliable source' to 'BLP' could be seen as WP:GAME, since the discussion was about how reliable a source was (easier to get), and then changed to a sudden BLP issue (harder to get). The chance the source would be considered reliable was gaining ground when it suddenly became a BLP issue. Moving the discussion from an easier to get consensus to a harder to get consensus is definitely a gaming the system tactic, falling under Playing policies against each other and Selectively "cherry-picking" wording from a policy (or cherry-picking one policy to apply but willfully ignoring others) to support a view which does not in fact match policy. The reliable source consensus was going against some editors' wishes-- consensus was leaning more for inclusion at the time; so the new argument became BLP-- which more editors jumped on as reasoning for a lack of potential inclusion.

Also, you have proof of sock puppeting? Or are these simply more aspirations? UncleThursday (talk) 13:16, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

Several IPs have already been blocked for sockpuppeting on this issue at RSN. There is also alarming number of other SPAs that seem to have a vested interest in Gamergate appearing to discuss the issue with few other mainspace edits; that looks rather suspicious, and possibly canvassed. I have no idea why you think the Wikipedia response would have changed. Opinion sources such as those under discussion are reliable for the opinions of their authors (they have always been), and they are not reliable for statements of fact (they never were). This is already discussed at the WP:NEWSORG guideline. In addition, WP:BLPSOURCES does mean that we do need to insist on the highest quality sources here. No one has "switched" to BLP; instead, BLP also supports the argument. WP:BLP says that all content covered by that policy must adhere strictly to all Wikipedia content policies. No one is cherry-picking any policies. Another one of those policies, for example, is the neutral point of view policy. Under that policy, if we are citing opinion, we must be careful not to assign undue weight to those opinions. (Generally speaking, in order to cite opinions, they need to have been discussed in reliable secondary sources, "If a viewpoint is held by an extremely small minority, it does not belong on Wikipedia, regardless of whether it is true or you can prove it, except perhaps in some ancillary article.") Moreover, several editors have suggested that the chat logs themselves can be used as a source to corroborate the allegation of doxing. But this would fall on the wrong side of the policy on original research, and specifically the provision against using primary sources. It was determined at the RSN noticeboard that to extract the proposed addition directly from the chat logs would constitute original research. So, as you can see all of our policies agree: the sources are not reliable for the proposed addition to the article. In addition, it was mentioned very early in this discussion that biased sources are permitted is some limited cases on Wikipedia. This does not mean that being biased automatically makes a sourced reliable or unreliable, but that guideline advises caution in using biased sources. In particular, it recommends in-text attribution (which the proposed text lacks), provided other editing policies and guidelines are met (which they are not). The community input at RSN, excluding obvious sock and meatpuppets, also completely agrees with this assessment. If you do not agree with the community input, the next step would be to start a WP:RfC, but do not be surprised if this is viewed in a rather dim light as an attempt to forum-shop around the already obvious consensus. Sławomir Biały (talk) 13:59, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

So who wants to start the WP:RfC process? 24.86.79.160 (talk) 15:43, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

@Unclethursday:@Yet Another Nobody: Thanks, I'm sure me and Slawomir, each of whom have thousands of edits over the course of many years, really appreciate being told how wikipedia works by a couple of SPAs who couldn't put together 200 edits combined. Suffice it to say, everything both of you has said is not only completely wrong (claiming the consensus was that the WE source was reliable until the BLP issue came up, HA!), but you have completely ignored all relevant policy and what it means. This page has already been temporarily fully protected, and then semi-protected precisely because people insist upon inserting this content. This content is an unambiguous violation of several core principles, and throwing more meat on the grill isn't going to change that. This is not a discussion anymore, and I'm done with it. There is nothing to discuss. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 15:51, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

So, to be clear, you are accusing me of being a GamerGate SPA; correct? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Unclethursday (talk • contribs) 21:18, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

This is still a fucking issue? Aren't we currently at at least 10 to 4 for including the information? This seems less like a BLP issue and more like a shitty attempt to cover it up. The chat logs are fairly general and representative of the organization, you don't even have to name names. Deku link (talk) 01:15, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

It's not a vote. So far none of the policy-based reasons for excluding the information have been addressed. Sławomir
Biały 01:19, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

Another thing worth pointing out: If one excludes Marteau, I alone have made more than twice as many edits in the past year as all the rest of the "include" commenters have, combined, in their entire histories. I am also the second least prolific editor who has argued to exclude this claim. The least prolific "exclude" user still has several hundred more edits in the past year the that same sum of "exclude" edits. In addition, there are 5 "include" IP users who resolve to three internet service hubs and 1 registered "include" user who admits to participating in this discussion as an IP prior to the page being semi-protected. Several of the "include" users have claimed to be SPAs or clearly are SPAs from their editing histories.

Finally, there have been 7 users, all experienced with many thousands of edits each, including one admin who was previously uninvolved (whose opinion seemed to have been formed while semi-protecting this page and removing the claim over the BLP issues) who have expressed clearly that they firmly oppose this claim being added to the article, due either to concerns over the general reliability of the sources, concerns over BLP issues, or both (by definition, anyone who does not find these sources generally reliable would necessarily agree that they are not reliable enough to satisfy BLP requirements).

This is exactly why WP is run by consensus and not voting. One side of this debate contains 90% of the experienced users, and has no indication of sockpuppetry or SPA inclinations. That side has also clearly shown how this claim not only falls under the purview of a number of WP policies, but how it fails to satisfy the criteria in those policies in a way that justifies inclusion. The other side consists of a giant mess of sockpuppetry, SPAs, brand new accounts and dynamic IPs arguing using a number of obvious falsehoods (that Schow is a reporter, for example) and insisting that the requirements of WP policies that apply are met without justifying this insistence. Hell, with hardly any attempt to justify this insistence. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 07:03, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

Hi, I was watching this page since the whole leak business started, was mildly interested but didn't wanna get involved.@MjolnirPants: I think your argument that you have the experienced users on your side is just as weak as their argument of having the majority of the votes. It is also not true that only their side have SPA's. Actually there are a lot of people who have some degree of vested interest regarding any topic related to gamergate, and it creates a toxic environment which I mostly try to avoid, but I digress. I think it's fair to say that the leaked logs are authentic since a former member of the organization confirmed and no one has yet to deny their authenticity.(at the very least we don't have any reason to suspect they are fake and some reason to believe that they are real.) So, what we have seems to be a WP:TRUTH issue here, and I partly agree that the sourcing could be better for this claim, although we are not exactly swimming in RS's for this subject.(which will become relevant in a sec) Imagine if some politician's e-mails were leaked in that fashion(well you don't have to imagine, good ol Hillary) it would have extensive coverage from the highest RS's. It doesn't have to be a politician, a leak of this nature about any notable subject would have coverage from some sort of reliable source.(examiner may or may not pass that threshold, but I would AGF and assume we are erring on the side of caution) But this one does not(again, except the examiner)... This begs the question; is this subject really notable to have its own article? I don't think so. Let's face it, this article doesn't have a chance to be anything more than a stub. I noticed that the article had been nominated for deletion before, but it was kept with 100% of the !votes. I actually don't understand why they thought this subject was notable outside of the context of gamergate controversy. But no matter, consensus can change and as some people correctly pointed out it's not a democracy. So I think It should be merged, either to gamergate article or the Zoe Quinn article. I'd prefer Zoe Quinn, because she is the founder and it would be less painful. Darwinian Ape ^talk 10:47, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

Among the many faulty arguments that have been consistently made for inclusion of this rumour, the one that I believe is the most obviously weak is the argument that 'nobody has denied it, so it must be true.' First of all, Randi Harper has stated that the logs have been edited, which means that somebody has denied it. Secondly, things are not true or worthy of inclusion simply because they have yet to be denied- often, it is because the rumour is so far fetched that people either do not hear about it, or do not feel the need to respond. PeterTheFourth (talk) 14:01, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

@Darwinian Ape:Consensus is, by definition, not a vote. That is an unambiguous statement of fact. To compare what you perceive as a poor argument to an argument which consists entirely of stating a falsehood as a fact is incredibly illogical. Furthermore, I didn't put forth the argument that one side has all the experienced editors (I specifically mentioned an experienced editor on the other side when referencing respective edit counts), therefore that side is right. Finally, no-one on the "exclude" side is an SPA. Everyone regularly contributes to other areas, including PeterTheFourth, even though he has a clear primary interest in this area. Even if I were to grant that he is an SPA, that simply means that the least experienced editor on the "exclude" side is the only SPA, and that the only SPA on the "exclude" side still makes edits to a much broader base of articles than any of the SPAs on the "include" side. Hell, this is my first foray into Gamergate.

My actual argument appears in the final paragraph, and it is essentially the same thing Sławomir Biały said in the comment above mine. That there is a huge disparity between the quality of arguments of the "exclude" and "include" sides. The former uses high quality arguments that reference policy the latter uses low-quality arguments that ignore policy. The former have rebutted the majority of arguments made by the latter, and shown how the remainder are irrelevant. The latter have not rebutted any of the policy based arguments of the former, despite insisting that they have. The preceding paragraphs were presented as factual statements (which they are, I invite you to try to prove any of them wrong if you disagree) which do a lot to highlight and explain the difference in arguments between the "include" and the "exclude" sides. It is context and evidence, not an argument itself.

Regarding the logs, it's not at all clear that they're authentic. At least one participant has claimed they were edited and the sources which presented the logs as genuine (and 'confirmed' them as such) are all sources which have readily identifiable motives to misrepresent them, and would not be considered reliable sources for anything but their own opinion in any case. Furthermore, as both Sławomir Biały and I have pointed out, the logs themselves do not unambiguously support the claims made here.

Finally, I don't disagree with your argument that this article should be deleted. It's extremely possible that this article fails GNG. I would likely ~vote to delete if another AfD were called. But that's beside the point. If you think this article fails GNG, then by definition, the claims made about it here do not pass the bar for WP:BLP incusion, as the quality of sources which would merit inclusion under BLP would themselves, be indicative of notability. As far as whether this article should be AfD'd again; that's not what this discussion is about. Indeed, whether to insert this content is not what this discussion is about. This discussion seems to be about whether we should ignore or use WP:BLP policies on this page, despite the fact that there are no real arguments here that those policies don't apply. Which makes the root question: does a plurality of contributing users override policy based entirely on the presence of that plurality, and ignoring any rational arguments for why that policy should apply? MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 15:06, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

Peter, you should cut back on the strawmanning, I haven't even argued for inclusion. In fact, the conclusion of my argument was that the article should be deleted, in which I put forth the current discussion and the lack of RS on the topic as evidence.(see, this is the toxic environment I was talking about.) What I meant was that the current evidence suggests the logs are more likely real than not. Secondly, the allegation is not far fetched, or a conspiracy theory because we have at least one eyewitness who can confirm the authenticity of the logs. In any case, if this were about a genuinely notable topic, there would have been more reliable sources covering the event, and we would include it in the article.

@MjolnirPants: I've already conceded that the consensus is not vote, (or at least it shouldn't be, alas most of the time it is.) my criticism was to your counter argument. That you and, for lack of a better term, your side has more edit counts, which was as poor of an argument as theirs. On its face it seems like you were implying that your experience makes your vote a supervote. I did not say your policy based arguments were unfounded. In fact these policy based arguments were in fact, as you might have guessed, was a final nail in the coffin for this article's notability for me. Because any notable subject in a similar situation would have been covered by RS's, especially given that a former member confirmed the authenticity of the logs. Secondly, you said in essence that this topic is not the place to discuss a possible AFD for this article, I disagree, since this discussion aptly demonstrates the failings of this article in terms of notability, I think it is a convenient place to raise this point. Darwinian Ape ^talk 18:57, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

@Darwinian Ape:Did you actually read either of my previous two comments? If so, do you know the difference between a statement and an argument? Either the answer to one of those questions is "no", or you're willfully misrepresenting what I've said. Not every sentence said in a discussion is an argument towards the central question. Sometimes, people say things to provide context or evidence, or to illustrate tangential points. Stop putting words in my mouth (Oh, by the way, Peter never accused you of arguing for inclusion, he simply commented on the serious dubiousness of something you stated as a matter of fact. If you're going to jump into an argument, you should probably be better aware of what is actually being argued than you seem to be.

Just to re-iterate: I did not make the argument you have twice now claimed I have, and this is the second time I've corrected you on that. Peter has not accused you of making any particular arguments. Stop strawmanning. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 19:39, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

Yes it's usual to throw your editcount to the discussion or comparing edit sizes for no reason in these parts of wikipedia I guess. Please enlighten me what was the reason of this statement of fact? From what I see, either it was to give credence to your view or to discredit theirs. Either way your edit count should not have any bearing on your arguments as is the number of people who stack behind one.(see, theirs is a statement of fact too which they are using to further their arguments) It was not a stawman, just an observation which I find distasteful. Also, please read the comments before you go defending them, Peter's first sentence to me was: Among the many faulty arguments that have been consistently made for inclusion of this rumour, the one that I believe is the most obviously weak is the argument that 'nobody has denied it, so it must be true.' I haven't said "it's true because no one denied it," but rather it's more likely to be true given the current information, and I did not make the argument for inclusion. Anyway, I have given my opinion on the article and the topic, and have no further desire to be sucked into a pointless discussion which is unrelated to the point I made. For what it's worth, I did not mean to offend you. Granted my reply wasn't the friendliest, but criticisms are seldom perceived as such. If anyone would like to merge or delete this article in some point, you have my opinion if that means anything. Darwinian Ape ^talk 20:48, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

Yes it's usual to throw your editcount to the discussion or comparing edit sizes for no reason in these parts of wikipedia I guess. I wouldn't know, for reasons I've already explained to you once.

Please enlighten me what was the reason of this statement of fact? I've already answered that. Go back and read it for yourself. I'm not here to spoonfeed every single nuance of everything I say to any editor who comes along pretending not to get it.

From what I see, either it was to give credence to your view or to discredit theirs. Next, please tell me why I really turned down Michelle G. for a 'walk' in the woods when I was 18. Since you seem to peer through my petty explanations to expose my true motives with your phenomenal psychic powers. I haven't been able to figure that one out, myself. I mean, I remember telling her I had something to do, but for the life of me, I can't remember what I could possibly have had to do that was more important than making out with the most beautiful girl I knew.

Either way your edit count should not have any bearing on your arguments... Stop right there. Are you suggesting that experience editing Wikipedia is pointless? That it doesn't in any way help one develop an understanding of how and why policies are applied? Because, even though I've already explained to you (this is three fucking times now) what my point was, your claim that it's a bad argument is ridiculous. If you had to have open heart surgery, you'd prefer a surgeon with 20 years of experience over one fresh out of medical school. If you were to be charged with a crime, you'd want a lawyer who'd been practicing for a few decades over one who just passed the bar. When the least experienced member of one side of the argument has more experience editing WP in the past year than all but one of the opposition combined, throughout their entire histories, you're damned right that makes a huge impact on how their arguments should be weighed. Of course, it doesn't matter because that's not what I was saying. Because I didn't need to, the case for exclusion has been made for something like a week now. Because it's painfully obvious that one side is absolutely right and the other absolutely wrong in this debate. That doesn't happen very often, so when it does, it's worth pointing out all the nuances and context of the situation.

Also, please read the comments before you go defending them, Peter's first sentence to me was... Since you apparently have a habit of not reading carefully, I suppose it may come as a surprise to you that you're not the first person to advance that particularly weak argument, but rather merely the latest to repeat it. Of course, you could always try highlighting where Peter actually accused you of arguing for inclusion, instead of reading between the lines and putting words in his mouth.

For what it's worth, I did not mean to offend you. I don't much care what you intended, nor have I been offended. I have been a little surprised at the nature of your argument in coming here: you seemed to immediately start arguing with whomever you could, as if you showed up here looking for a fight. I don't know if that's what you intended, but I do know that the two criticisms you leveled against both Peter and me were both without factual basis, and you have insisted upon standing behind them rather than accepting correction. But offended? No, sorry. It will take much more than a stranger arguing with me on the internet to offend me. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 23:36, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

So when do the admins step in? It's pretty clear (Personal attack removed) will continue to attempt to brow-beat and filibuster his way into locking this article down forever. The argument has changed from "this is unverified" to "this isn't being covered by the right people" to "you don't have enough votes" to "anyone who doesn't agree with me is an idiot". The system is clearly being gamed, the truth is obvious and I don't see much point of anyone replying to these 3-4 editors with a long and persistent history of gaming the system, following the steps of individuals like Ryulong and Bernstein. 24.86.66.13 (talk) 01:23, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

Stop right there. Are you suggesting that experience editing Wikipedia is pointless? When assessing the validity of an argument, you bet I do. See I am a proponent of this idea that the arguments stand or fall on their own merits, perhaps that's a philosophical difference between us. (And by the way yes open heart surgery and editing wikipedia, totally the same thing.:) Let's just agree to disagree on that. it doesn't matter because that's not what I was saying. Because I didn't need to, if you believe that, then bringing up the edit count and experience was extremely redundant, just as redundant as the IP constantly telling you they have the majority vote. I also don't agree that the one side of this debate had all the right answers, I find the underlying issue to be the one of notability, hence the overall arguments for exclusion is more compelling. But that does not mean other side had all but weak arguments.

...that you're not the first person to advance that particularly weak argument, but rather merely the latest to repeat it. which one? The one I didn't make? I suppose I could also highlight the fact that I've never said 'nobody has denied it, so it must be true.' Or perhaps you could stop making excuses for another editor. You said I came here as if looking for a fight. On the contrary, there was already a fight going on I just didn't pick a side, that's perhaps why peter assumed I was arguing for inclusion. (yea I know I'm a psychic)What I did was to point out the underlying cause of this conflict, the article itself. I'm glad you are not the easily offended type, I don't like upsetting people for trivial matters such as this, not even strangers. And people are more and more easily get upset these days. (I swear this was going to be just a quick response before some rude editor can yell WP:NOTFORUM. :) Darwinian Ape ^talk 01:33, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

When assessing the validity of an argument, you bet I do. You know, you care a lot more about this argument than I do. Good for you. It's good to care about things. This probably isn't the best thing to care about, but it's better than nothing, I suppose. At least it's your thing. You know, because as I've told you three times now (without it seeming to sink in, even though you supposedly have read it all), that's not the argument I was making.

if you believe that, then bringing up the edit count and experience was extremely redundant Wait! I'm thinking of a number between one and six hundred, fifty four thousand, two hundred and ninety three. What is it? You seem to like to tell me what I'm thinking, so I figure this one should be a cakewalk for you.

In all seriousness, let me try one last time to explain this to you. You are clearly not getting what I'm saying. What I said about the edit count was one individual point among seven others, with no individual one an argument in and of itself. They were what is formally known as postulates. You might notice that I opened the comment with the phrase "Another thing worth pointing out:". I didn't open it with "Another reason to exclude these sources:" or "Another reason to ignore these editors:" or anything of the sort. I literally opened up the comment by stating in clear terms that what immediately followed was information, as opposed to an argument. Then, in the last paragraph of the comment, I opened with the exact point I was trying to make: "This is exactly why WP is run by consensus and not voting." This is not a content dispute. This is a handful of experienced editors telling a bunch of inexperienced editors (many of whom are SPAs and sockpuppets) why they're not going to get their way. In that context? Hell yeah, the experience of the side trying to tell them this matters. If a guy starts giving me advice about how WP works, you'd better damn well believe I'm going to expect him to be a more experienced editor than I, or I'm not going to listen to a word he says.

Do you understand now? I was not arguing against including this information because that issue is already settled. I am trying to paint a vivid picture of why Wikipedia runs off consensus rather than raw votes to a bunch of editors who keep crowing about how many goddamned votes they have. For fuck's sake, I spelled it out explicitly in my comment. Why I have to explain this to someone who claims to agree with me on this as well as on the underlying issue is so far beyond me that I'm not even going to hazard a guess.

which one? The one I didn't make? Ahem: "I think it's fair to say that the leaked logs are authentic since a former member of the organization confirmed and no one has yet to deny their authenticity." That was copied and pasted from your first comment. And there's no room for me to engage in the kind of strawmanning you've been pulling here with that one. You explicitly said you think the logs are real and gave the reason as the exact argument Peter responded to. If you weren't trying to say that the logs are real at least in part because no-one denied them, then you should have said literally anything else.

Or perhaps you could stop making excuses for another editor. The moment you stop putting words in our mouths, I'll shut right the hell up about what I think Peter me- wait, I haven't said a damn thing about what Peter meant. Only about what he explicitly wrote.

One last note: No matter how ridiculous this discussion is getting, we're not off topic. I'm trying to explain to you what I, Peter (and even you) have explicitly said in this very thread. I haven't given up hope that you're going to go "Oh, okay. I get it now. My bad, I though you guys meant something else." and maybe try to help us convince the rest that it's time to drop the stick and back slowly away from the dead horse... MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 04:50, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

The funny thing is we are arguing about two things which are unrelated to the topic while in some sort of agreement of the actual point I made. One is whether you used the edit count and experience to validate your side's arguments, and the other is whether I said no one denied the logs so it must be true. I'll buy what you said, that you had no intention of using the edit count as a point to further validate your opinion. I'm sorry, your comment gave me that impression, perhaps I'm the only one who thought of it that way and I completely misunderstood your comment. Can we at least agree your edit count comment didn't add anything to your arguments?

If you weren't trying to say that the logs are real at least in part because no-one denied them, then you should have said literally anything else. Well, that's how claims work. You make one, then provide evidence for it, if no counter evidence produced, you keep assuming it is real until such time there is evidence to the contrary. We got the chat logs alleged to be of the members of CoN, it gets published in the examiner(a news site with editorial oversight), a former member confirms their authenticity, and we have Randi Lee Harper's conflicting twitter statements which at the very least confirms that those were indeed leaked chat logs of the organization.(whether they are tempered as she claimed, I don't know) This level of information is enough for one to think that it is more likely than not these logs are real (balance of probabilities.) But that's an OR statement, because I don't have a proper secondary RS to do the investigative journalism required, that's why I said in my first comment that it was a WP:TRUTH issue. You may disagree, but you can't claim I said "no one denied it so it must be true" because that would be a misrepresentation of what I've actually said. Darwinian Ape ^talk 08:54, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

"that's how claims work. You make one, then provide evidence for it, if no counter evidence produced, you keep assuming it is real until such time there is evidence to the contrary.". Perhaps I can show how ridiculous this is with an example: There is a small teapot in a stable orbit around the sun, I have pictures of it, and my friend who says he used to own that teapot can confirm that this teapot orbits the sun. NASA says these pictures are photoshopped, but that just confirms that these pictures show a teapot orbiting a stellar body. PeterTheFourth (talk) 09:03, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

That's an extraordinary claim which requires an extraordinary evidence, the claim we are dealing is far more ordinary. And Nasa can definitely prove the pictures are photoshopped which would provide a much higher counter evidence than your picture, whereas we only have someone's rather conflicting words for the proof that these logs were doctored.Text book example of False equivalency. What is ridiculous is that you are ruining the teapot in the space argument by applying it to this situation, I demand you stop in this instant! Darwinian Ape ^talk 09:48, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

This thread has become rather sidetracked. The only comments that have actually examined the proposed material in relation to Wikipedia policies have shown that it does not satisfy these. Certain policies can be disputed, or even suspended, but those wanting inclusion have not done so. So, by my reckoning, the policy arguments remain uncontested. Thus consensus is solidly against adding the material. No number of SPA "votes" can override policy. Sławomir Biały (talk) 11:54, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

With all respect, the only SPAs I see here are those arguing against the material being added and who have derailed the discussion multiple times. Arguably Ian Miles Cheong falls squarely within WP:RS as a source of information on himself and his own actions as part of CON - the claim is hardly self-serving, (Redacted); claims which are directly related to CON as an entity, have no reasonable doubt as to their veracity, and would make up a single sentence of less than two dozen words plus 2 references, so certainly not the body of the article. MentlegenOh (talk) 20:38, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

@MentlegenOh: WP:BLP applies everywhere on Wikipedia. I've redacted part of your comment as it makes an specific negative claim about a living person. — Strongjam (talk) 20:48, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

So, let's discuss the reasoning behind the WP:BLP, then. The argument is going with the The extent to which the BLP policy applies to edits about groups is complex and must be judged on a case-by-case basis. A harmful statement about a small group or organization comes closer to being a BLP problem than a similar statement about a larger group; and when the group is very small, it may be impossible to draw a distinction between the group and the individuals that make up the group part. Those arguing for a BLP violation are saying this group of a dozen plus people is small enough to fall into this category.

The issue is, this number is arbitrary and highly subjective. Would it still be a "small group" if it hit 20 people? 25? 50? If a dozen people came and were caught vandalizing your house, would you consider it a "small group" of people, or just a "group" of people?

Now, if it was 5 or so people? Yes, I'd say that constitutes a "small group" of people. As the group grows to closer to 10 people? Pushing it. A dozen plus? That doesn't represent a "small group" where the people inside it become "impossible to distinguish from the group," to me. Yet, the arbitrary goal post was placed at whatever the final number of people in the group was; which is at least a dozen people.

It becomes an issue of semantics being used to work in favor of the people looking at it for a purpose. One could argue that a million people is a small group of people, when compared to the total population of 7 plus billion people on the planet; semantically. After all, it's less than 0.01% of the total population. An example could be people who practice Wicca. Compared to those who practice the Abrahamic Religions or Hinduism, they are a "small group". I, personally, wouldn't argue that they're "impossible to distinguish from the group", but they are a "small group" by comparison.

There is no consensus on what constitutes a "small group" of people on Wikipedia, or even the world, I would say. So any arbitrary number that falls to less than a few billion people could be used to argue for possible BLP violations when discussing a group of people, if it fit an agenda of those editors in favor of it. And therein lies the problem. Depending on the editors, and whatever agenda or narrative they wish to push, they can move the goal posts as far or as close as they want. If it was a group of a dozen or so people doing something they didn't like, they'd fight tooth and nail to say it doesn't constitute a "small group" of people; but when it is people they ideologically agree with, they'll argue the same number is now a "small group." And that's an issue.

Now, as to what Darwinian Ape has said, I agree that the sources used in this article are not especially strong, nor reliable in the case of Crash Override Network (which I have already said). They read like press releases, and the very first one is written by a personal friend of the founders of CON. They only use information provided to them by the members of Crash Override Network as the basis for the entire articles. They aren't journalistic pieces, even editorial pieces, as much as fluff pieces to help out friends/people they ideologically agree with. Yet, they're considered to be reliable enough to be used as the basis for a stand alone article -- and to apparently get through a WP:AFD -- which is little more than a stub, at present. I'm fairly certain that calling the reliability of the sources for this article into question, though, is an exercise in futility. It has already been shown that enough editors on here would say they're reliable, even if it's only editors who have some sort of vested interest in anything GamerGate related (while the general editing population probably has very little interest or knowledge in the entire ordeal). UncleThursday (talk) 22:32, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

The specific edit in question was not about a "small group". It was about specific individuals named in the complaint. (The logs were apparently from before the group CON even existed.) Anyway, the BLP argument is the weakest, in my opinion, so this entire post really misses the essence of the policy-based objection. There are already solid reasons for rejecting the statement as sourced under other policies (WP:NOR, WP:NPOV) and guidelines (WP:NEWSORG). Details can be found above. But BLP is certainly one among many supporting arguments, not a slam dunk in itself, but one that merits consideration in addition to the other, stronger reasons. Sławomir Biały (talk) 00:21, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

Remember, if it fails WP:NOR, WP:NEWSORG, WP:NPOV or WP:RS, then be definition, it fails WP:BLP. if it's questionable with regards to any of those standards, then by definition, it fails BLP. This is why I keep making references to BLP as sort of a 'slam-dunk' issue; the mere fact that this argument has gone on the way it has is a massive, fatal blow to the notion that these sources are sufficient for BLP. Whether this should be included is not a content debate. It's a debate about whether or not we follow policy. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 01:30, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

I took a look at the article and the discussion. I understand it's very heated and it took a long time for me to digest the information. I largely agree with the sentiments from @UncleThursday: in that article in the current state reads like a hagiography. I also believe that while it's understandable that we don't want to use "dodgy sources" I think the Washington Examiner source seems to be of a similar character to several already cited in this article, as @James J. Lambden: stated. I think we need to move forward and determine how to write about the leaks and be in compliance with policies. I think it's doable, and if more coverage of this incident occurs in more outlets/publications the job will be much easier. Do you think having a draft statement, which cites from the best available sources and which does not name any individuals (therefore avoiding any BLP concerns in regards to individuals), will do the trick? WhisperToMe (talk) 15:14, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

Drafting a statement will help. However, given the defamatory and unreliable nature of the information that is to be included, a BLP compliant version of the paragraph would necessarily convey very little information about the supposed logs. With that in mind, I am unfortunately going to express doubt in the outcome of a paragraph that would be both acceptable as BLP compliant, and acceptable as an encyclopedic paragraph which informs the reader. PeterTheFourth (talk) 21:55, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

CON "leaks" - The David Pakman Show

The CON "leaks" were mentioned on the The David Pakman Show, a multi-platform politics and news talk show ... on television, radio, and the Internet on September 14; both the show itself, which appears to be "syndicated internationally" and the host, David Pakman, are Wiki-notable.
See: [1] - "After our GamerGate coverage, opposition research on David is leaked as part of the Crash Override Network leaks" and [2] - direct link to the section on the CON "leaks". Pakman's phrasing is slightly different from the previous sources, using the term "opposition research", and he focuses largely on the "dossier" on himself.
I make no comment on whether this justifies inclusion; personally, I would regard the source as predominantly WP:RSOPINION level (though such content is usually an admixture of opinion & fact). I would, however, suggest that it does speak to "coverage in multiple, independent, sources". Discuss (but hopefully in a better manner than the above). - Ryk72 ^'c.s.n.s.' 09:15, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

That seems like a good secondary source for opposition research conducted by the CON group. Sławomir Biały (talk) 13:26, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

@Sławomir Biały: Do you think a sentence or two about the leak coverage should mostly just state that a leak happened and that David Pakman's information was leaked as a part of it? I agree that the Pakman page would be a good source. WhisperToMe (talk) 15:21, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

Fine by me. Sławomir Biały (talk) 22:22, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

I'm okay with that proposal. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 01:38, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

Just a start based on Pakman's video: "In September 2016 a series of leaked chat logs revealed that members of CON assembled dossiers on various individuals related to the Gamergate controversy, including David Pakman; Pakman characterized the activity as "opposition research"." - Then as more sources appear/are confirmed to be "reliable" additional things can be added. WhisperToMe (talk) 09:23, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

This would be stating in a factual tone that the chat logs are real. We shouldn't be doing this without more reliable sources. PeterTheFourth (talk) 09:40, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

Has any party disputed the accuracy of the logs? WhisperToMe (talk) 14:02, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

Yes, one participant has said that some of the logs have been edited. — Strongjam (talk) 14:04, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

Has she clarified over what she means by "edited"? Does it mean that they were simply truncated, or that they were truncated in a way to misrepresent something, or if actual text was forged? WhisperToMe (talk) 14:26, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

Not to my knowledge. I don't use Twitter, and only know about the statement as it was linked to a few times in the sections above. — Strongjam (talk) 14:33, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

Given potentially contradictory statements from two involved parties: Harper's an ambiguous tweet, Cheong's a published article, WP:V favors Cheong. I might go further but the proposed text is supportable. James J. Lambden (talk) 17:15, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

WP:V is equally satisfied by Harper's tweet. Both are reliable sources for the authors opinion and that's about it. — Strongjam (talk) 17:23, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

To the best of my knowledge, the entirety of the logs are out there, around 850k lines and over 50k words from what I've seen. Harper's claim of them being edited could be taken as the logs being truncated for length and/or specific subjects being discussed; not just that they were edited (as in changed). Either is possible. However, I'm not masochistic enough to bother downloading them and trying to read them to see which way they would appear to be edited. Just saying the logs are edited is vague-- after all, making highlights is a form of editing as much as changing the composition/meaning of what is said. I'd like to be able to do something else with the rest of my life over pouring through chat logs. UncleThursday (talk) 20:53, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

• The point that everyone seems to be missing is that, in order to be edited, they must have a legitimate origin. So they're real, but there's an open question of whether they're accurate. That being said, what I have read of them (it really doesn't take that long to check claims in the previously proposed sources against the logs) doesn't support what the previous two sources have said. It does support what Pakman said. So, between Harper acknowledging that there's something to them, and Pakman mentioning them on his show, I think the fact that they weren't invented out of whole cloth is reliably sourced. The phrasing by WhisperToMe above looks close to being good, though I would make it clear that what appears to take place in the logs is still alleged. More like:

In September 2016 a series of leaked chat logs appeared to show future members of CON assembling dossiers on various individuals related to the Gamergate controversy, including David Pakman; Pakman characterized the activity as "opposition research".

MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 23:59, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

I'm not sure that there's not some WP:OR in that. Perhaps also worth noting that Pakman's segment is based not necessarily on the chat logs alone, but also on the contents of the "dossiers"; particularly of the "dossier" on himself. Do we regards Harper's tweet as also suggesting those were edited? - Ryk72 ^'c.s.n.s.' 00:16, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

I watched the segment... He did make some commentary (mostly jokingly) about the contents of the dossier, but the statement above is supported by the video. It doesn't much matter if Pakman engaged in OR, only that we don't engage in OR (since the above proposal doesn't mention the contents of the dossier, even the loosest interpretation doesn't support a claim of OR).

Even so, Pakman's two sources were the logs and the dossier, and it's only OR if it's improper synthesis, or combining them to reach a conclusion that isn't verifiable in the sources. In this case, you can verify that there was a dossier in the logs, and you can verify the contents of the dossier in the dossier. So it's not really OR for him, either. That's perfectly permissible synthesis, akin to summarizing. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 00:55, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

So, not having any days off has been fun... but, since Pakman also mentioned the Trello documents, perhaps:

In September 2016 a series of leaked Skype chat logs and Trello page documents appeared to show future members of CON assembling dossiers on various individuals related to the Gamergate controversy, including David Pakman; Pakman characterized the activity as "opposition research".

It wasn't just the Skype chat that he referenced, but also the Trello page. Thoughts? UncleThursday (talk) 10:46, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

Approved MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 01:00, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

I'm rewording to attribute this opinion to David Pakman. A question: Why are we including this, if it's not actually about the Crash Override Network? PeterTheFourth (talk) 15:09, 5 November 2016 (UTC)

It's about their founders, which is pertinent to the subject of the network. More to the point, it's about something the founders did in pursuit of the same goals the network has which occurred shortly before the network was founded. I hadn't noticed that it was phrased in wiki voice before now, so thanks for fixing that. I'm pretty sure I made it clear earlier that I felt it needed to be in Pakman's voice. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 16:37, 5 November 2016 (UTC)

The "what he believed" language is far too weasely, and is an interpretation of the source, not something directly verified by it. I have removed it; the remaining text still couches Pakman's statements as attributed claims. - Ryk72 ^'c.s.n.s.' 16:59, 5 November 2016 (UTC)

Bullshit. It's neither weaselly nor OP/SYNTH (how the hell you could call it OP or SYNTH in your edit summary is beyond me). If person Y says "X" and someone else write "Person Y believes X" that's not OR. That's as close to a fact as we can establish. If Pakman didn't believe these were leaked documents, he would have said so. The fact that he didn't, and then went on to discuss them as if they were is as reliable an indicator that Pakman "believed" as if Pakman had outright said "I believe..." To try to turn that into an accusation against another editor is a huge stretch. I want to remind you that WP:AGF is policy, a policy you have blatantly violated with this comment and your edit summary. My advice to you is to drop this right now. You fixed the redundant wording already and no-one has reverted you. That means it's not time to turn this into another argument. It's time to drop the stick and walk away. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 20:33, 5 November 2016 (UTC)

My comment above is an explanation of my "fix" of the redundant wording (and was made 6 minutes after that change to the article); it is not an attempt to turn this into another argument. I think we should pause to take a breath, but am happy, if requested, to step through "what we know" to explain why it is improper to couch the existence of the documents as an attributed opinion, and how it's not simply "redundant wording". However, if we are comfortable with the wording as it is now, I am equally happy to halt discussion. I will respond further to the personally directed comments on your talk page. - Ryk72 ^'c.s.n.s.' 00:19, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

Yeah, I'm not buying a WP:OR argument or a WP:SYNTH argument. For the first: Attribution is not 'original research'. For the second, synthesis is about combining two or more sources inappropriately- this is using one single source. PeterTheFourth (talk) 00:20, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

To explain a point of confusion: The wording "what he believed was" and "appeared to show" is not redundant. The first addresses that he believes the logs are legitimate (e.g. not fake), the second addresses his analysis of the logs. PeterTheFourth (talk) 02:12, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

@PeterTheFourth: I'm not reverting because I don't want to edit war. But the phrase "...what he believed was..." is redundant. Right now, we have no sources suggesting that they were not leaks, and only one (primary) source saying they were edited, without specifying how. It's not redundant with respect the phrase "...appeared to show..." but to the simple, inescapable fact that of course he believed they were leaked logs because no-one has any reason to believe they were anything else. Now, we can't say they were accurate logs, hence the "...appeared to show..." phrase.

Perhaps "redundant" isn't the right word. I think it might be better to say they were overly specific. Ryk72 gave a bad justification for the edit, but it was a good edit. This wording is unnecessary. If you can't provide sources that demonstrate some clear distinction between these being leaked logs (edited or otherwise) and these being faked logs, or something else (I honestly don't know what the hell else they could possibly be), then you will be justifying Ryk's assumption of bad faith. You will be justifying his claim of weasel words. It won't become OR or SYNTH, but you'll definitely see me quoting WP:UNDUE in an attempt to convince you. This is the opening of a deep, dark rabbit hole, given the subject of this thread. I know you've been working hard for a while now to make sure WP accurately covers Gamergate and related subjects, but good intentions don't exempt you from bias. So I'm telling you the same thing I told Ryk: Drop the stick and back away. This is not worth turning into another weeks-long debate with tons of socks, SPIs and anon editors trolling away at it. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 04:51, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

• (edit conflict) So, now that it's been reverted, lets step through what we verifiably "know" (including what we "know" about opinions):
  a) There exist some series or set of documents. - This is an objective fact; verified by multiple sources, including Pakman, Cheong, Harper, and also verifiable by directly inspecting the documents; this should not be couched as attributed opinion, but should be stated as fact.
  b) These documents contain information or dossiers on various individuals - This is again objective fact; verified by multiple sources, including Pakman, Cheong, Harper, and also verifiable by directly inspecting the documents; this should not be couched as attributed opinion, but should be stated as fact.
  c) These documents are "leaked" copies of chat logs & Trello logs from persons including those who would go on to form CON (The "legitimate (e.g. not fake)" question) - This is asserted as fact by multiple (including independent) sources, including Pakman, Cheong, and Harper (with a qualifier discussed hereafter), Coffin and Flyger (Zennistrad); the last 4 appear to have self-identified as having been involved in the chats. There are no sources which make the contrary assertion, that the logs are not genuine, although Harper's tweets do state that the chat logs have been "edited" (for some value of "edited", as discussed above), and Flyger highlights that the chat occurred prior to the official launch of CON. It is arguable as to whether this should be couched as fact or as attributed opinion. (In the absence of directly contrary assertions, I would lean to fact, with the fact of Harper's qualifying assertion also included; but am also comfortable with a clear, concise, non-editorialised attribution that aligns with WP:NPOV, WP:WTW incl. WP:SAID).
  d) These documents, therefore, show, demonstrate or evidence future members of Crash Override Network assembling dossiers on various individuals - This is the synthesis of a), b) and c) which is made by multiple sources, including Pakman, Cheong, Harper (with the qualifier that it was a legitimate reaction to harassment) and others; given that Pakman's syndicated show & Cheong's HeatStreet pieces are largely opinion, and their statements on this aspect are interpretive, I believe that this is best couched as opinion (again clear, concise, non-editorialised; align with WP:NPOV, WP:WTW incl. WP:SAID).
  Given the sources, and the objective existence of the documents themselves, any phrasing which couches all of a) through d) as opinion is not supported by the sources and not aligned to WP:NPOV. The phrasing what he believed was is particularly editorial, doubly hedging (with appeared to show) the interpretive opinions of the sources, and is demonstrative of an original interpretation of those sources. For the purposes of the tape, I wish to make it clear that this is a comment on the content, not the contributor.
  If the issue is with asserting the "leaked" nature of the documents as fact, we might consider removing this or to moving it under the attribution, giving In September 2016, David Pakman discussed a series of Skype chat logs and Trello page documents that appeared to show future members of Crash Override Network assembling dossiers on various individuals related to the Gamergate controversy, including himself; Pakman characterized the activity as "opposition research". or ...Pakman commented on a series of documents which he stated show... or similar. (See WP:SAID for alternatives).
  Alternately, given the concerns I raised on the previous wording in the article, I'm happy to put together a transcript of the Pakman source and work towards something completely new; hopefully mutually agreeable.
  TL:DR - Existence of the documents is a fact, and should not be couched as an opinion. Provenance of the documents is arguably a fact (given independent reliable sources; multiple persons who self-identify as having been involved and attest that the chats occurred; and no directly contradicting sources). Interpretations of the documents are opinions, and should be couched as such. Attribution of opinion should be clear, concise and aligned with policy & guidelines. - Ryk72 ^'c.s.n.s.' 06:17, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

I'm very wary of people asserting that because something has not been disagreed with, it is true (especially in regards 'somebodys opinion'). However, with thanks to the advice from MjolnirPants, I realise that arguing this specific point is fairly futile. I've self reverted. PeterTheFourth (talk) 07:29, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

I'm still getting over pneumonia, so I hadn't weighed in before the revert; but I did have an issue in the way it was worded. The phrase "that he believed" in the position within the sentence it was placed made it appear to be saying that the logs and the Trello documents' validity as being real was being called into question in Wiki voice. Whether that was your intention, or not, that is a way that it could be read. At least two more people involved in the chat have come out saying that the logs are real, beyond the original two of Cheong and Harper. So I think, a this point, trying to call the logs' validity into question is moot. But the wording could have been interpreted as calling the authenticity of the logs into question, in Wiki voice. UncleThursday (talk) 18:11, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

What seems to be missing here is an explanation of why the existence of this material needs to be included in the article. It seems like it would be normal for such an organization to have information on people who are involved in the harassment it was set up to combat, and its mere existence is not in itself noteworthy. If it were used in a way that was then reported on by a reputable source, for example by being used as evidence in a legal case, there might be a reason to include it. Consider that many organisations have documentation on people who oppose them, and as long as it complies with local laws it's not illegal or particularly controversial. It would in fact be bizarre if, for example, a political party did not have extensive data on opposing politicians. ゼーロ (talk) 09:43, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

WP:WEIGHT. If we're going to have an article about this group, we're going to include all relevant information about it. The amount of coverage this leak has gotten in comparison to the amount of coverage the group has gotten in total demonstrates that this is a notable aspect that deserves to be mentioned. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 15:23, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

If you have coverage in reliable sources, please add them; but we can't put it there when the only source is a YouTube video. At least as far as I can tell, Pakman's comments got no coverage at all. --Aquillion (talk) 15:13, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

We would do a disservice to a reader coming to this article to learn about the Network to not include this information. Rather than leaving the reader well informed about pertinent and sourced issues surrounding the Network, would leave them with a rather glaring hole in their knowledge. After policy and guidelines, one of the tests I use to determine includability is if a dear friend were to come up to me and say, "You know about these things, and I know nothing... bring me up to speed on what an educated person should know about the Network..." Were I to brief my friend on the Network and not include this topic, I would leave him ignorant, unprepared to intelligently discuss the matter, and my friend would be well withing his rights to dope slap me for failing in my requested task miserably. Marteau (talk) 09:32, 4 February 2017 (UTC)Marteau (talk) 09:05, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

Marteau, that is a wonderful heuristic. I have every intention of stealing it from you at my earliest opportunity. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 06:12, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

David Packman leaks

user:Volunteer Marek I was curious as to why you removed the references to the leaked chat logs. I was under the impression consensus had allowed for this reference. Did something change? Perhaps you inadvertently changed it, in any case I didn't want to change it back until I was sure of consensus. 2600:1012:B00F:418B:F1E4:3208:9615:6B65 (talk) 23:25, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

Anyone? I thought consensus had determined that the logs and sources were ok for the article...76.79.205.162 (talk) 15:29, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

I've restored the deleted content. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 00:23, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

For the record: No, consensus had not determined that the logs were okay for the article. The logs are primary sources, and have only been verified in very small parts, and then in a questionable, inexact way (the participant may not have actually been verifying the accuracy of the logs). They're completely worthless as sources. However, it was determined that Pakman was notable, and that his show was an RS for his own opinions about it (thought not an RS for claims of fact about is). So it was deemed acceptable to point out that Pakman criticized the group in a brief manner. If you doubt my version of these events, you can check the logs, or do a google search for my username and find a half-dozen whiny gamergaters blogging about how mean I am, while giving a (highly slanted but more-or-less accurate) rough timeline of the discussion here. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 16:00, 3 June 2017 (UTC)

Quoting a YouTuber directly about a third party is against WP: BLPSPS. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.205.195.58 (talk) 12:11, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

Nothing Pakman said is stated as a fact; it is all attributed. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 12:21, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

Sure, but it's a self-published source and it makes a claim about a third party, that's all that matters for BLP. "Never use self published sources ... as sources of material about a living person." Quote secondary press coverage of Pakman's video, if any exists. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.205.195.1 (talk) 13:07, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

David Pakman is a notable figure, especially with respect to the gamergate issue which spawned this group. The source cited is not used to make claims about a living person, but to make claims about what Pakman said. For that use, it's perfectly acceptable. BLP does not exempt article subjects from criticism, only from low-to-moderately-reliable criticisms stated as facts. If the section you deleted had been written "CON engaged in opposition research^[18]" then your concerns would be well founded. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 13:14, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

WP:BLP is absolutely crystal clear on this. Wikipedia doesn't quote self published sources (even from experts) making claims about living people, and this paragraph makes claims about members of CON. These are living people. It needs a reliable secondary source. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.205.195.58 (talk) 13:21, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

First off, please start signing your comments by using four tilde's (~~~~). Sinebot is getting tired.

Wikipedia doesn't quote self published sources (even from experts) making claims about living people You might want to try making that argument at Barack Obama citizenship conspiracy theories and see how far that gets you. Again, this source is not being used to make the claim that CON did anything wrong: It is being used to make the claim that Pakman accused them of doing something that could be construed as wrong (I'm not entirely convinced that CON doing opposition research is wrong, myself). As a BLP issue, I agree that it's not a case of obvious inclusion. But as it is the only criticism of the subject to make its way to commentary by a notable figure, it would be remiss of us not to note it. Also note that it's a a blurry line whether BLP properly applies to this claim. The language used in the article doesn't identify any individuals, nor would we include a quote that did. If you check out the above section, and the archive page, you will see how the current wording is the result of a very long and active discussion. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 13:53, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

The difference is that when it comes to Barack Obama citizenship conspiracy theories, we have strong secondary sources which we rely on to characterize them and establish notability - we quote them indirectly, through a better source that establishes notability, relevance, and reliability. Here, we just have a single primary source - why are we convinced that Pakman's opinion is relevant enough to devote an entire section to it? Your argument seems to be that we must list Pakman's comments, even though they received no coverage elsewhere, because we have no other sourced criticism. This is wrong - first, that's clear WP:FALSEBALANCE; and second, per WP:CSECTION, a criticism section is a bad way to organize critical commentary anyway. Why are we devoting an entire section to the opinion of a single random YouTube video if we can't find any other sources referencing it? Going out of our way to hunt down non-notable criticisms and citing them to YouTube when we can't find any other coverage is a clear WP:NPOV violation. --Aquillion (talk) 15:11, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

Please read this page and the archive. All your objections are addressed there. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 15:16, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

I'm not seeing it. I see you asserting that Pakman's comments received significant coverage; but if they did, we should be able to cite that coverage rather than Pakman's youtube channel. It reads to me like the discussions started from the premise of "this is obviously noteworthy, so is there something - anything - we can cite for it?" But, again, that's not how WP:NPOV works. We need sources capable of demonstrating relevance, not one cite to a YouTube channel for an entire section. --Aquillion (talk) 15:20, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

I see you asserting that Pakman's comments received significant coverage; Bullshit; I never said any such thing. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 15:21, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

My apologies, I misread. You asserted that amount of coverage this leak has gotten in comparison to the amount of coverage the group has gotten in total demonstrates that this is a notable aspect that deserves to be mentioned. That's the crux here. You're asserting "significant coverage" and arguing that, based on that, we need to highlight an opinion posted to YouTube (which you admit, itself, has received no coverage.) Obviously a youtube video isn't "significant coverage" so - again, it's the same issue. We can't reasonably highlight an opinion on YouTube if it received no coverage elsewhere; but if the "significant coverage" exists in reliable sources, we can use that. If it doesn't, or if the "significant coverage" is in unreliable sources, it hardly justifies the reach of devoting an entire Criticism section to one opinion posted to YouTube. (Now that the event is further in the past, we can do a survey of the sources on CON and compare it to the leaks - do you want to stand by your assertion that the leaks would make up a notable portion of the coverage the group has gotten? I mean, I'm willing to use that to decide what we do, I just want to make sure you'll concede if I take the time to put in the work - I am fairly certain I can produce a decently-huge pile of reliable sources over an extended period of time that cover the group without mentioning the leaks, and reasonably certain you can't find much reliable to put on the other side of the scale, given that the best cite so far is a YouTube video. I mean, if you can find more / better reliable sources, I'd be happy to include it with those instead.) --Aquillion (talk) 15:31, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

There were a number of "borderline" sources presented in the TP archived discussion, but they were unusable as their statements weren't jiving with either the primary sources or the public statements made by those involved in the logs (one of them was obviously an opinion piece from someone non-notable, but published by an RS). I suppose I could dig them up, but it's been so long that I suspect you'd do just as well as I in finding them. There's a metric shit-ton of unreliable coverage, but I agree that we can't use this. My rationale earlier (which you can see in the thread above on this page) was that Pakman is notable, Pakman's YT channel is an acceptable source for Pakman's own words, and (left unsaid above, but still part of my reasoning) the actual claims being quoted were not the defamatory "CON is full of hypocrites who were sneakily trying to swat noble 'gaters and get them murdered by rabid feminists!" crap that had previously been pushed. Again: I'm fine with the consensus changing from "include" to "don't include", but I worry more than a little about what sort of shit-storm that will stir up, and what that will mean for the article. Dishonest 'gaters are no stranger to WP, and SPI's take time. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 15:40, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

• See WP:CRITICISM: in most cases separate "Criticism" sections can be avoided, which is, to a large extent, Wikipedia's preferred MO. I'd say that recommendation applies here, especially as the single point that might be perceived as criticism (but isn't even necessarily so), isn't even too solid in its references. --Francis Schonken (talk) 15:27, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

As I indicated at BLPN, I'm perfectly fine with nixing the additional section. As far as sourcing goes, this is acceptable use under WP:PRIMARY, as we're merely noting Pakman's own words. And of course, as you also indicated, this isn't unarguably criticism, either (though I have no doubt it was intended as such, it's not very damning). From where I sit, it boils down to "Pakman whined about CON turning the tables on harrassing 'gaters," which is something many people would likely applaud them for. I may well be one of those people. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 15:33, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

I suppose it would be best to see first if additional, more reliable, sources emerge, per Aquillion above, before re-introducing this anywhere in the article. --Francis Schonken (talk) 15:41, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

@Francis Schonken and Aquillion: Could you guys please watchlist this page? As I indicated at BLPN, I'm not even remotely married to the idea of keeping this in, I'm just trying to "defend" a "stable" version of the page. If we're going to exclude, I'm okay with that, but I'd feel a lot better knowing that this page was on the watchlist of more thoughtful editors, for when the sock army (inevitably) strikes. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 15:50, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

``>it's not very damning``

It's pretty damning when an "online abuse support group" engages in "online abuse". You should be able to recognize this blatant hypocrisy from them regardless of your own political leaning MPants. Keyakakushi46 (talk) 15:55, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

^ And so my predictions come to pass... And no, it's not "online abuse" to do research, for fuck's sake. It's "online abuse" to encourage thousands of people to make death threats, it's "online abuse" to write long drawn-out emails detailing how one would enjoy raping the recipient. It's "online abuse" to swat people for daring to say "it's wrong to threaten to rape someone". ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 16:12, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

Let's not get sidetracked, we don't need to decide what is or isn't online abuse to settle this. Personally I support the removal - if it's a notable criticism it will have been published in a reliable secondary source. Should not be in the article based on a single youtube link. Fyddlestix (talk) 16:40, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

If some 'gater (or honest editor more dedicated than I) wants to dig up an RS covering Pakman's comments, that's fine. But from where I sit, this is either "keep it in per the consensus" or "exclude it per BLP" and it looks more and more like most editors here want the latter. So aside from noting that this has helped reinforce my faith in the WP community's judgement (for the record: I opposed inclusion of mention of these "leaked" logs for a long time, and the wording in question was a compromise solution), I don't really think there's much else to do. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 16:53, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

Not currently active

From the website: "PLEASE BE ADVISED: AS OF DECEMBER 2016, OUR HOTLINE IS TEMPORARILY SUSPENDED. Due to overwhelming need for assistance with online abuse outpacing our current resources, the hotline is temporarily suspended. This is to allow us to the time and means to focus our efforts on restructuring the organization to better meet the needs of the online community seeking our help. Our public resources and advocacy efforts will remain active while we improve the way that the helpline internally operates to provide free, reliable, and effective aid to more people than ever before. We apologize for our inability to take on additional casework in the interim, and are working fiercely to keep the downtime as short as possible." This is info that should be noted in the article. And if/when this is changed, it can be amended to say there was a time period of non-activity. It might be conidered a primary source, but I don't believe any other sources have covered it. As I'm off to get some tests done before they decide to put a defibulator inside my chest, I don't have the time right now to look. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Unclethursday (talk • contribs) 16:30, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

We'll need more than a primary source before including material to the tune of 'the hotline was down from X to Y' as this isn't reproducible and consists of original research. PeterTheFourth (talk) 20:38, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

• Has any third-party reliable source ever mentioned the organisation had a hotline? Doesn't seem like a significant re-organisation topic, unless, of course, an external reliable source discusses it. In that case: please provide such source. --Francis Schonken (talk) 15:22, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

https://venturebeat.com/2017/10/25/game-boss-interview-zoe-quinns-crash-override-network-fights-online-abuse/ From Quinn's own mouth: "With Crash it’s tricky, because the hotline has been down for some time [...]" 4.14.80.66 (talk) 20:55, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

'For some time' is pretty vague- do we have anything more specific? PeterTheFourth (talk) 20:58, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

I'm fairly sure you're literate enough to see the entirety of this section, which you've already responded to in the past. But in this very section it clearly states "since December 2016" as listed on the CON page, itself. Oh, you even talked about how there needs to be more than a primary source; so I assume you read that part when you replied in May. Quit acting so dense. 4.14.80.66 (talk) 21:05, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

Combining these primary sources together would be a violation of WP:SYNTH, friend. PeterTheFourth (talk) 00:30, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

No activity for over 2 years

there has been no activity by this organization on its website or social media accounts for over two years. either it's dead or the organizers are in very deep stealth about its acvities, which would seem contrary to the mission. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.192.23.42 (talk) 19:44, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

I don't think anything about this is actionable? --Jorm (talk) 05:21, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

They were merged into some other group, I seem to recall, but without a source, we can't add anything about it (there's nothing non-controversial about this group). ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 13:15, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

locked talk pages

This has lead to accusations of bias on the gamergate related articles. Can we fix this? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.124.237.208 (talk) 04:12, 3 February 2022 (UTC)