Template:Copied multi

This article is of interest to multiple WikiProjects.

WikiProject Video games (Rated B-class, Mid-importance) This article is within the scope of WikiProject Video games, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of video games on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Video gamesWikipedia:WikiProject Video gamesTemplate:WikiProject Video gamesvideo game articles B This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.  Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.   WikiProject Feminism (Rated B-class, Low-importance) This article is within the scope of WikiProject Feminism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Feminism on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.FeminismWikipedia:WikiProject FeminismTemplate:WikiProject FeminismFeminism articles B This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.  Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.   WikiProject Journalism (Rated B-class, Low-importance) This article is within the scope of WikiProject Journalism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of journalism on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.JournalismWikipedia:WikiProject JournalismTemplate:WikiProject JournalismJournalism articles B This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.  Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.   WikiProject Internet culture (Rated B-class, High-importance) This article is within the scope of WikiProject Internet culture, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of internet culture on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Internet cultureWikipedia:WikiProject Internet cultureTemplate:WikiProject Internet cultureInternet culture articles B This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.  High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.   WikiProject Internet culture To-do: Here are some tasks awaiting attention: Article requests : View all requested internet culture articles Expand : Pick an article from here or here Photo : Category:Internet culture articles needing images Stubs : All stubs are located here Other : Category:Internet self-classification codes (!?); Try to get YouTube to FA; Tag all articles you find with {{WikiProject Internet culture}} See also Category:Internet culture articles needing attention WikiProject Sociology / Social Movements  (Rated C-class, Mid-importance) This article is within the scope of WikiProject Sociology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of sociology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SociologyWikipedia:WikiProject SociologyTemplate:WikiProject Sociologysociology articles C This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.  Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by the social movements task force.

Sanctions enforcement

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

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

Yet another complaint about the lack of neutrality

Well... When an article irks me to such a degree that I have to come back to editing the English WP after two years of inactivity, that's usually a good sign that something's pretty bad. I see that others have also commented on how seemingly one-sided this article is, but they haven't really described in detail what their problems were, so I guess that's what I'll have to do. For this purpose, I'll take one segment (3. Debate over journalism ethics allegations) which should highlight the underlying problems of the entire article.

Since this is gonna be really, really long, I'll start with a TL;DR version:

1. Though the quotes are from reliable sources, their inclusion is unnecessary in most cases, as they only repeat what has already been said.
2. Said quotes are often worded in a questionable manner, describing the arguments as "toxic sludge" in one case, making the article look unencyclopedic and biased.
3. The constant repetition of the same points makes the article bloated and unprofessional.
4. The sheer quantity of quotes from articles against Gamergate make the entire article look like it's biased towards that side.

Ok, with that out of the way, let's go.

The first paragraph is actually pretty alright. The first half of the paragraph describes the argument of Gamergate supporters (relationships between developers and journalists may result in unbiased reviews), the second half describes the argument of journalists (that argument's just a facade to facilitate a culture war). Both sides are supported by 4-4 sources (although said sources can be pretty informal and kind-of opinionated against the movement, as is the case with [9] (New York Magazine)). It's not perfect, but with such a vitriolic topic, no one expects that.

Paragraph #2 is also OK. It first presents the argument of Gamergaters (Depression Quest/Gone Home got far more praise than the public thought was warranted, which set off alarms that something's fishy), then presents the journalists' argument (just because reviewers praise a game for its message and put less focus on its subpar gameplay, it doesn't mean they're biased). Source ratio is quite a bit worse (3-7 to anti-Gamergate), but the text itself is fine. These two paragraphs could easily be used as a blueprint for what the rest of the article should be like.

The third paragraph is where problems start becoming very apparent. It contains one singular sentence that is kind-of on Gamergate's side (the original intent behind GG was good and the problem was its hijacking by harassers), then the entire paragraph consists of journalists bashing GG. 2 lines somewhat in favour, 7 lines against. Even though the arguments are from reliable sources and are technically acceptable, most of them are unnecessary and repeat concerns already mentioned (The Verge's quote is already covered by paragraph #1, Columbia Journalism and New York Times echoes paragraph #2, only the Washington Post's excerpt says anything that's not already covered) and all they do is make the article look completely unbalanced and off-putting. Source count is 3-4.

The fourth paragraph is not all that bad. It consists of Milo Yiannopoulos' argument, followed by the mailing list's creator's response, followed by observation of journalists. I find it odd that the Breitbart article that the entire paragraph is about was not linked and only discussions of it were mentioned, but that's probably because Breitbart isn't considered a reliable source.

Paragraph #5 is well-sourced, but again, pretty one-sided and partially unnecessary. First two lines just repeat what we already know; next four are presenting a new argument, but their wording is very questionable (describing a conversation as "toxic sludge" doesn't sound like something that should be included in an encyclopedic, neutral article). The first sentence of the professor's quote is unnecessary and could easily be removed.

Paragraph #6 is similar; all it does is rehash concerns already mentioned. The entire paragraph could be replaced with something like "The analysis of public posts and tweets related to Gamergate, done by Newsweek and Ars Technica, also supports the argument that ethics were not the movement's primary focus.", appended to paragraph #1, and nothing of real value would be lost.

The seventh paragraph is like a mix of the third and fifth paragraph in a way. Wording is very questionable (especially Jessica Valenti's), "was seen by others" is a textbook example of weasel words. Vox quote is doubly unnecessary; it rehashes what Columbia Journalism has said, which in turn echoes paragraph #2. Leigh Alexander's quote sort-of repeats what has already been said, but it also says something new ("meaningful reporting requires journalists to develop professional relationships with sources") so it should just be trimmed. Also, it's out of place here, and would be more suitable in paragraph #2 as reinforcement of the journalist's stance regarding collusion between critics and developers.

Finally, the eighth paragraph, once again, only represents one side of the debate. However, now the sources repeat others in the same paragraph. All the sources say one thing: "Followers of Gamergate only target women in the indie games industry, while ignoring triple-A game publishers, thereby throwing the validity of the claim that Gamergate is truly about ethics into question." If you look at the quotes from On the Media, Wired, Vox, and The Verge, all of them say the same thing and only one of them is really needed to make the point. The rest is just filler that makes the article look bloated, unbiased, and unencyclopedic.

And that was the end of section 3. I could describe the problems with the rest of the article in such detail, but that'd probably take more than a day of continuous typing, this is already so long that I doubt most people will even read this (if you did, thank you), and most of that analysis would just consist of repeating the things I've mentioned above.

Despite all this, I don't think we need to WP:STARTOVER. The building blocks are all there, this could be formatted in a way that is far more neutral. However, it definitely has to undergo very extensive rewrites before it meets the expectation of a neutral representation of both sides, which is expected and should be expected from an article about such a delicate topic.

I await your opinion on this matter. (For better readability, I'd like to ask you to put your comments under the horizontal line after my signature. Thanks.)

HamukaKong (talk) 13:36, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! You have many complaints in here about repetition and bloat, and essentially what I would call "stylistic issues." By that term I don't mean to diminish them. And with these I mostly agree! I have for quite some time been saying that a dramatically shorter article would be preferable, brevity being the soul of wit, and whatnot. If you want to suggest some cuts, edits, rewordings and the like, I think that would be a great service. I'll do what I can to help with that effort. The complaint about "bias" is simply a tough one, especially when presented, as here, without recourse to reliable sources. It's my belief that where the majority of reliable sources take a certain view on something, Wikipedia can and should represent that. Seeking a balance not found in the reliable sources strikes me as simply original research. That being said, I certainly have not seen every RS, and they change over time. Decrying a lack of neutrality is pretty hard to respond to in the abstract; it's rather like someone saying "edit better!" But if you want to point out reliable sources, and/or specific edits based thereupon, I think it would be a tremendous help. Thanks. Dumuzid (talk) 19:11, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! Yes, some of my main problems with the article stem from the way it's written. I will try to check through the entire article and find ways to trim it down to the best of my ability, but given its sheer size (~8,000 words by my count) and the amount of other tasks I have to do outside WP, it will definitely take a while. (Plus, due to me not meeting the 30/500 requirement (by a long, long shot, regrettably), I can't perform said edits myself, which would mean I'd have to list all suggested changes here and flood the talk page.)

Of course, if a large majority of reliable sources form the same opinion, that should obviously be pronounced to some degree. But the key words here are "to some degree." The section I've analyzed above contains 3 paragraphs which represent roughly 50/50 of either side, and 5 paragraphs that represent one side either 100% or, at best, 25/75 (as is the case with paragraph #3). The section in its entirety contains roughly 20% pro- and about 80% anti-GG arguments, which is a pretty ridiculous ratio, in my opinion. (For every paragraph of pro-GG sentiments, there are 4 against it.) A ratio I'd be happy with would be around 33/67 (1 pro-2 anti) or possibly even 40/60 (2 pro-3 anti). These would require pretty extreme measures, though (either adding at least twice as many pro-GG sources or removing at least half of one side's arguments), so that's not really going to happen. Even worse ratios than those would be better than what we have now, though, and again, repetition and bloat should at least partially solve this.

I've tried looking into reliable sources for the other side of the debate, and while it was a bit difficult, and there were few results, and the sites aren't considerable mainstream in the slightest, they still exist, at least. GameZone is one of them, and probably is the most popular; it has its own WP article (albeit that has numerous flaws and is short) and has been used as a source in ~100 pages, so using it shouldn't be much of an issue. TechRaptor has been used 8 times on WP, which is a very small amount, but better than nothing; they also have a page dedicated to their journalistic practices and ethics. I'll try finding more sites, and will links to their articles which could be used tomorrow. It's extremely late over here (about 1AM at the time of me writing this), so hopefully that delay is understandable.

I realize that this issue is tough to resolve. One side of the debate is represented almost entirely by anonymous/pseudonymous Internet users, after all, whose arguments cannot be included, due to them being completely unreliable and potentially even more opinionated than the sources I've criticized for being that. (There's also Breitbart, as mentioned before, but that also doesn't count for obvious reasons.) And without that, the representation will inevitably look skewed towards one side, because... well, it kind of is. But, in my opinion, it still needs some sort of resolution, even if only partial.

...And I wrote about 12 thousand words again. I'm sorry. HamukaKong (talk) 22:51, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Just a short comment on the sources and their proportions. We had discussed GameZone before and decided not to use it for claims about living persons, which require high-quality reliable sources. It does look like WP:VG/RS considers GameZone a reliable source, so it may be time to revisit that discussion. TechRaptor, on the other hand, is specifically considered an unreliable source, so we definitely won't be using that here. (TechRaptor was also involved in GamerGate from early on, but that's another issue entirely.)

And about the ratio: the references we (currently) use are simply the best sources among many that say essentially the same thing. Editors have gone through and removed redundant references several times. (If you look at some older version of the article, you'll find passages with 4-5 references after each sentence. It had really gotten out of hand and was making it difficult to actually edit the article.) With a few notable exceptions, virtually all reliable sources are critical of GamerGate, so the article is going to reflect that unless or until the sources change. After all, WP:DUE requires that we summarize viewpoints according to the available sources, not to the sources that we choose to reference. Woodroar (talk) 00:05, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Some more updates and sources

http://nymag.com/selectall/2017/07/zoe-quinn-surviving-gamergate.html - Zoë and the Trolls

Video-game designer Zoë Quinn survived Gamergate, an act of web harassment with world-altering implications.

http://www.businessinsider.com/steve-bannon-white-gamers-seinfeld-joshua-green-donald-trump-devils-bargain-sarah-palin-world-warcraft-gamergate-2017-7 Here’s how Steve Bannon used angry white gamers to build himself up to Trump’s chief strategist

The gamers organized themselves on these “World of Warcraft” message boards. They put so much pressure on the video game companies, that they decided to basically ban gold-farming, which killed Bannon’s business, but it awakened him to the power of what he called “rootless white males” who spend all their time online. And five years later when Bannon wound up at Breitbart, he resolved to try and attract those people over to Breitbart because he thought they could be radicalized in a kind of populist, nationalist way. And the way that Bannon did that, the bridge between the angry abusive gamers and Breitbart and Pepe was Milo Yiannopoulous, who Bannon discovered and hired to be Breitbart’s tech editor.

Possibly less usable:

http://warisboring.com/how-internet-trolls-became-terrorists/ How Internet Trolls Became Terrorists

And helped to elect Donald Trump

And more for shits an giggles than anything...

http://www.vulture.com/2017/07/trent-reznor-nine-inch-nails.html In Conversation: Trent Reznor

For a long time, you were one of the real avatars of white male angst and anger. Have you noticed a change in how those feelings get expressed culturally? There’s a toxicity and meanness in the air now that I don’t think was there when you one were, for lack of a better term, a poster boy for alienation. I never thought about Nine Inch Nails in that context. From my perspective, I was doing what Morrissey and Robert SmithSteven Patrick Morrissey of the Smiths and Robert Smith of the Cure. Icons of 1980s English-rock melancholia. had done, which was expressing a sense of “I don’t fucking fit in anywhere.” It was never about any larger cultural sense of oppression or disenfranchisement. I was thinking if we can take music that embraces and toughens up the sound of electronics, brings the aggression of Throbbing GristleThe confrontational English group widely credited with creating industrial music, originally active from 1976 to 1981. and hard rock, and also instills an honest lyric — we might have something. I don’t think what we were tapping into was at all similar to the absurdity of whatever Gamergate represents, if that’s what you’re suggesting.

Artw (talk) 21:49, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

https://qz.com/822246/marvels-chelsea-cain-author-of-mockingbird-leaves-twitter-because-of-harassment-and-bullying/ -- ForbiddenRocky (talk) 19:38, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2017/aug/10/google-cancels-meeting-james-damore-memo-alt-right-gamergate Google cancels staff meeting after Gamergate-style attack on employees Artw (talk) 18:26, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, saw this in the tech news today, thought I'd pass it along if it can be used in the article, The DeanBeat: Intel’s 2014 Gamergate mistake paved the path for Google’s memo mess. ValarianB (talk) 18:45, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

http://www.salon.com/2017/08/16/they-came-for-the-nerd-girls-first-ignoring-gamergates-weaponized-trolling-carried-a-price/ “They came for the nerd girls first”: Ignoring Gamergate’s “weaponized trolling” carried a price

Laurie Penny interview and coverage of a book of essays that may itself contain material of interest. Artw (talk) 14:36, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

http://www.newstatesman.com/world/north-america/2017/08/donald-trump-was-steve-bannons-creation-what-happens-now-hes-gone Donald Trump was Steve Bannon's creation. What happens now he's gone?

As the former chief of the far-right news site Breitbart, Bannon was one of the key figures in the online radicalisation of the cluster of more-or-less white supremacist Hentai-fetishists who have come to be known as the “alt-right”. He is the thread that links Gamergate, the misogynistic troll campaign against female influence in video game production and industry news coverage, to what became Trump's rabid online following of lonely, racist white guys. The masses who became keyboard-warriors for Trump from their parents' basement, hanging out on The_Donald subreddit and 4chan's /pol/ board, were an army built by Bannon and Breitbart Artw (talk) 19:09, 19 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

And in French...

http://mobile.lemonde.fr/pixels/article/2017/08/24/derriere-l-alt-right-cinq-grandes-mouvances-qui-convergent_5176064_4408996.html Etats-Unis : derrière l’« alt-right », cinq grandes mouvances qui convergent

les anti-progressive gamers ou joueurs antigauche. Dans le sillon du GamerGate, mouvement antiféministe né en 2014 qui constitue l’un des leurs mots-clés, ils luttent depuis 2014 contre la diffusion des idées féministes, de défense des droits LGBT et du mouvement Black Lives Matter dans les jeux vidéo, et dénigrent ceux qu’ils appellent avec mépris les « SJW » (combattants de la justice sociale) ;

Does make a distinction between them and les shitposters de 4chan, where I would say there's considerable overlap, but it's a neat little summary otherwise. Artw (talk) 15:57, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Grayson's mention of Depression Quest in Rock, Paper, Shotgun

I'm not familiar with the long edit history of this article, but it is somewhat incorrect to state in the History section that "Grayson had never reviewed Quinn's games". He had never reviewed Quinn's games for Kotaku, but he had written an article in the blog Rock, Paper, Shotgun that gave prominent mention to Depression Quest in January of 2014, three months before he became romatically involved with her.

The article is still visible here: https://www.rockpapershotgun.com/2014/01/08/admission-quest-valve-greenlights-50-more-games

I tried editing the main article to add a mention of this, but my edit was reverted by someone claiming I needed a "secondary source" to back this up. What kind of secondary source should I look for, which would carry more weight than the actual article written by Nathan Grayson himself (which mentions Depression Quest as one of the three "standouts" in a new release of 50 games by Steam)?

If an acceptable secondary source cannot be found, would it be okay to edit the line: "Grayson had never reviewed Quinn's games" to the more factually correct "Grayson had never reviewed Quinn's games for Kotaku", seeing that none of the cited sources for this claim go so far as to say he hadn't reviewed Quinn's games for anyone anywhere?

-- Rogermw (talk) 01:40, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I have clarified the sentence. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 01:45, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Doesn't clarify anything really. Grayson never reviewed the game so the "for Kotaku" qualifier is unneeded. If the single sentence given to Depression Quest is relevant then there should be a secondary source that gives it some weight. — Strongjam (talk) 02:09, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That article is not a "review" by any meaningful interpretation of the word - mentioning a game briefly in the context of a number of other games without giving it a score or a significant critical analysis cannot possibly be construed as a "review." If you want to somehow further qualify it, "Grayson had briefly mentioned Quinn's game in an article about Steam Greenlight games," that sort of inclusion might be supportable - calling three words in a broader article a "review" is not. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 02:16, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)We still need reliable, third-party sources to support the claim that Grayson reviewed the game anywhere. Multiple sources say that he did not, like The Guardian, Time, Ars Technica, Bustle, and The Mirror. (And that's just searching for a couple minutes.) Several of them specifically mention the Rock, Paper, Shotgun article and say things like "briefly mention" (Time) and "mentioned it in passing" (Ars Technica) but not a "review". After all, it was five words and an image in an article about 50 games. No reliable source is going to consider that a review. Woodroar (talk) 02:19, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that it is not a review. It probably doesn't need any clarification after all. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 04:14, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Since Time and Ars Technica did bring up the brief mention of the game in Rock, Paper, Shotgun, would it be appropriate to change the sentence that currently begins with "Grayson had never reviewed Quinn's games" to begin with something like "Although Grayson briefly mentioned Quinn's game in an article about Steam Greelight games<citations go here>, Grayson had never reviewed Quinn's games"? --Rogermw (talk) 06:13, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Actually Woodroar is mistaken. Neither of them mentioned the RPS blog post. They were both referring to the piece Grayson wrote in Kotaku about the Game Jam stuff. Some phrasing with a "brief mention" may or may not be appropriate. I don't know. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 06:23, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I swear some articles specifically discussed RPS as well, but you're right, those aren't it. I struck that sentence above. No time now for anything beyond that! Woodroar (talk) 11:53, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think "although" is appropriate — it sets up a narrative tension which doesn't really exist, and it adds unnecessary complexity to boot. If we include anything on this, I prefer adding it to the already-existing discussion of Grayson's previous writings: Grayson had never reviewed Quinn's games and Grayson's only article for Kotaku mentioning her was published before their relationship began. We could say Grayson had never reviewed Quinn's games and Grayson's only articles mentioning her games — one in Kotaku, another in Rock Paper Shotgun — were published before their relationship began. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 07:08, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I would say "mentioning her or her games" instead of "mentioning her games", because the Kotaku piece he wrote about Game Jam doesn't discuss her games. But since those Time and Ars Technica articles don't mention the RPS article, and we don't (yet) have other secondary sources that do, the only source we'd be able to use as a reference to the RPS mention of DQ would be the RPS article itself. I'd feel more comfortable if we didn't have to rely entirely on a primary source; it makes the statement look too much like Original Research. --Rogermw (talk) 13:18, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Seems like grasping at straws TBH. Artw (talk) 14:06, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The reason I was interested in having this RPS article mentioned was to avoid the potential hint of bias that might come from not mentioning it. The RPS article is clearly just a little blog entry where Grayson happened to mention one of his buddy's games (something just about any blogger would do), and I don't think any reasonable person would consider it a conflict of interest. But it has been used as ammunition by the Gamergaters (c.f. for example http://gamergate.wikia.com/wiki/Nathan_Grayson ). Not addressing it at all may give a false air of untrustworthiness to the WP article, if someone were to hear an argument by the Gamergaters and came here looking for a neutral perspective. --Rogermw (talk) 18:37, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That's not really how we write articles. Our goal isn't to try and convince everyone; depending on their perspectives, there will always be people who take issues with an article. Our goal is to present an accurate and appropriately-weighted summary of the sources. I agree with the people above who said that this is undue, and as you said, it's certainly not something we can cite to a WP:PRIMARY source - in context, it reads as if it's trying to push someone's personal argument using primary sources, which both violates policy and hurts the credibility of the article as a whole. Beyond that, I disagree with the interpretation implied here (which is part of the reason we have to be careful with primary sources) - the RPS blogpost isn't a review, so both the sources and our summary of them are factually accurate. If you disagree (if you think it does qualify as a review or whatever) you should contact the sources we cite there and ask them to update their articles, but right now we have to go by what they say. Also, just as as a small point of accuracy, you said that Grayson "happened to mention one of his buddy's games"; this is inaccurate. By my understanding of the timeline, Quinn and Grayson were not acquainted at that time. Their relationship started later. (Again, this is why it's important to be cautious about using primary sources - in trying to dispel a common myth pushed by Quinn's harassers without using a source that provided full context, you came close to inadvertently validating it.) --Aquillion (talk) 19:54, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Just two nitpicks: (1) I'm not trying to say, or imply, that the mention of the game in RPS was a review (although I've heard Gamergaters incorrectly classify it as such); and (2) My understanding is that, although their romantic relationship didn't start until April 2014, Grayson and Quinn were professional acquaintances before then. I don't know whether they knew each other back in January 2014 when Grayson wrote the RPS article, although pictures exist of the two of them in the same room together (along with other people) in March 2014. --Rogermw (talk) 20:47, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Internally replicating dumb conspiracy theories to head off criticism from dumb conspiracy theorists would probably be considered WP:OR. Artw (talk) 20:50, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Alright, but please remember that WP:BLP applies to talk pages. "I think I saw a picture of the two of them in the same room on an imageboard once" isn't really enough to justify what you said above (and is already stepping back from what you initially accused him of - replace "one of his buddy's games" with "a game made by someone he was in the same room with once, along with other people" and the silliness becomes obvious.) The wording matters - in this context, "buddies" is a more serious accusation than it seems at first because similar accusations were used to justify much of the harassment against Quinn. --Aquillion (talk) 17:57, 27 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The notion that the two of them were professional acquaintances prior to their romantic involvement is supported by the Kotaku article at https://kotaku.com/in-recent-days-ive-been-asked-several-times-about-a-pos-1624707346 , which is already being cited as a source in the main article. This Kotaku article only makes it clear that the two of them began being professional acquaintances no later than 31-March-2014, however; it doesn't say when their professional acquaintanceship actually started, or whether the two of them were professional acquaintances when his Rock, Paper, Shotgun article appeared in January of that year. --Rogermw (talk) 22:11, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please read WP:OR (especially WP:SYNTH) as well as WP:BLP. We don't edit based on "article #1 kinda says this and article #2 kinda says that". Sources need to make that connection explicit. We also don't speculate about living persons, in articles or on Talk pages. Woodroar (talk) 22:43, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Maintenance Notice: Neutrality

I am somewhat scared to even ask about this considering the restrictions and warnings on this page, especially because I haven't read everything. But I'm going to assume that asking a question on the talk page in good faith isn't against any policies and just cross my fingers that I don't get in trouble.

I see that neutrality remains to be an issue with this article, so I'm wondering if there should be a maintenance notice on the page since consensus hasn't been reached on whether or not the article adheres to neutrality standards? CeraWithaC (talk) 22:00, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You're literally going to come in here and say "I haven't read any of this but I don't think you have consensus?" Wow. Just... wow.--Jorm (talk) 22:25, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]