In yet another disingenuous display to push his agenda, Mark "Reichstag" Bernstein continues tilting at the Gamergate windmill and has now claimed this Boston Globe piece states that Gamergate is not a movement (citing the one sentence here), despite the Globe writer repeatedly addressing it as such in the piece.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Gamergate_controversy#Boston_Globe.2C_Salon

the Globe, incidentally, explicitly concludes that Gamergate is not a "movement", a contention we've discussed here a few times.MarkBernstein (talk) 11:58, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

No, it's clear it is a movement, in GG's own stance, but very much begs the question in a opinionated take that GG has none of the attributes that any even-slightly successful movements of the past have had, thus if it is even a relevant group or an effective movement. But Singal still calls it a movement several times. --MASEM (t) 12:09, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

How would you, or anyone, know what is or is not "GG's own stance?" singal explains why it is a "movemen"t that is not a movement. That should settle the matter we were discussing.MarkBernstein (talk) 14:10, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

Reading statements without taking judgement, it is clear even in Singal's language that it is the GG supporters that call themselves a movement; the media recognizes this self-ascribed claim. They obviously say "if you're a movement, you're nothing likely any even remotely successful movement in the past" as criticism, but they still recognize that GG calls itself that. --MASEM (t) 14:39, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

"It’s hard for a movement to call itself a movement when it ignores most of the rules movements tend to follow — having clear platforms, representatives, and so on. Anyone can use the #GamerGate hashtag, and anyone can claim a given use of that hashtag doesn’t represent “real” GamerGate." This so-called movement lacks any of the defining characteristics of a movement. Some people claiming to be part of the so-called movement say they call themselves a movement, but we can't know if they're representative or not. The controversy over calling this controversial conspiracy a "movement" is over. MarkBernstein (talk) 18:17, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

No, that's Singal's commentary. The fact remains, as citeable to many sources "The GG supporters claim they are a movement." That doesn't mean it is a movement, nor does is mean it isn't a movement, since there's no hard definition or objective measure of what a movement is. Singal, like many other of his contemporaries, raise very valid questions that how this could be a movement due to its lack of leadership, anonymous membership, etc., and that is a predominant opinion that we must obviously include. But they do separate fact - that GG claims it is a movement - from their take on it. Since there's no authority for determining who is or isn't a movement, their take remains opinions and claims. Note that that means when we do speak to GG as a movement, we absolutely sure it is a self-identified claim. Neither statement "GG is a movement" or "GG is not a movement" has any backing sources to support either as fact. --MASEM (t) 18:23, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

In spite of Masem calmly explaining why Mark is wrong, Mark eagerly ran to the article itself to start purging any usage of "movement". Mark then repaired "convoluted sentence structure," (changing it from reading "some industry professionals spoke out" to "industry professionals condemned"), and some pretty sloppy work with this edit to inject the Boston Globe piece and mucked about with the phrasing on other sections - including his favorite bit about Gamergate being terrorism.

PeterTheSingle-PurposeAccount jumped in after Mark, removing the parentheses Mark had put around falsely in his sloppy edit. He then reverted Koncorde, who had reverted Mark's edit that purged usage of "movement." The SPA then began gleefully purging more references to "movement," exclaiming in his edit summary: "Gosh, somebody has placed a lot of 'movement's in this article- fixing"

The next day, Mark returned to re-edit the part about "industry professionals," this time stating in his edit summary that yes, he was indeed editing that part to state that every single "industry professional" was against Gamergate. An observer noted what Mark had done and Mark frantically flailed at the Gamergate windmill, finally dismissing the observer as not being "real."

Mark continued obsessively pouring over the article, with more sloppy writing, likely spilling too much spaghetti from reading about the Gamergate "terrorism" to proof read his own edits. (And uninvolved, experienced editors were astonished and wondered why the GGC article is so poorly written...)

Back on the Talk page, PeterTheSPA and Mark continued bleating that Gamergate wasn't a movement; poor Masem continued to explain why they were incorrect. Even one of the anti-GG minded editors was shaking his head:

Dr. Bernstein, please stop forcing me to agree with Masem (no offense Masem). Dumuzid (talk) 19:23, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

Furiously gesturing and screaming in his Spider-Man costume atop his soapbox tower on the Reichstag building, Mark expanded his Berlinstein Wall ever further:

How does threatening to shoot Anita Sarkeesian address an ethical issue in video game journalism? How does conspiring to prevent Zoe Quinn from attending a professional conference by giving her a beating resulting in knee damage or brain injury address an ethical issue in video game journalism? How does popularizing cartoons that allude to rape injury, regardless of whether or not a static image can readily allude to rape, address an ethical issue in video game journalism? How does a campaign of recruiting zombie accounts to lobby for more Wikipedia discussion of the sex lives of various developers address an ethical issue in video game journalism? How does using Wikipedia to announce that a software developer's date of death is "soon" address an ethical issue in video game journalism? How does repeatedly attempting to use Wikipedia to defame women in the software industry address an ethical issue in video game journalism? How does the bitter and hard-fought campaign to topic-ban the Five Horsemen of WikiBias address an ethical issue in video game journalism? It's not a question of failure: none of the notable actions of Gamergate have any connection to video game journalism, nor could any reasonable person expect them to effect a change in ethical issues in video game journalism. If Gamergate were a movement that concerned ethics in video game journalism, we would reasonably anticipate that it would chiefly address video game journalism and its practices. Instead, it is chiefly known for addressing people who have no connection at all with video game journalism, except that journalists sometimes write about them. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MarkBernstein (talk • contribs)

Koncorde went through the sources and found many had called Gamergate a movement, hopefully putting an end to this recent play by the anti-GG SPAs.

In related news, there was a recent discussion at the Talk page of Jimbo Wales about Gamergate. Amidst all the spilled spaghetti and salt (including from topic banned NorthBySouthBaranof, still mad as hell), a few editors discussed deleting or reducing all Gamergate-related articles on Wikipedia, with some griping that the GGC article was longer than Watergate.

NickCT, who had discussed it on Wales' Talk, proposed four Gamergate-infamous articles for deletion: Brianna Wu, Zoe Quinn, Depression Quest, and Fredrick Brennan.

"As a personal post-script, I'd like to note that I'm not proposing these deletions out of misogynism or callousness towards alleged victims of cyberbullying. Misogyny and cyberbullying (including but not limited to doxing, death threats and/or threats of violence/injury) are pretty pathetic, lame and immature. That said, unfortunately misogyny and cyberbullying do exist, and we should be careful not to use WP as a soapbox to highlight individual examples of those practices which aren't covered by external sources.

Unfortunately, given the number of WP editors who have become personally involved/interested with the Gamergate Controversy, I seriously doubt all or any of these proposals will be succesful. To those editors with extensive history editing Gamergate articles, I'd ask you to try to dispassionately assess the proposed deletions by our notability guidelines."

Mark began to caterwaul on Twitter about this latest atrocity committed against the "gals," alerting the "Literally Whos?" (but not Hotwheels/Brennan), no doubt squealing with glee when both Whos tweeted back and he could console them.

The result was Speedy Keep invoking WP:SNOW (not a snowball's chance in hell of passing), but not before spaghetti was spilled, with Mark and one of his buddies demanding NickCT be topic banned or sanctioned:

Keep and Boomerang. (edit conflict) Wikipedia has pages for minor porn stars, kiddie cartoon episodes, and obscure video games; Depression Quest isn't close to being the least well known game. Unlike, say, My Little Pony, (good grief!) Depression Quest received a good deal of coverage because it used a new medium to explore a social problem not often associated with games. Quinn has been the subject of major profiles -- see the big feature in Boston Magazine for one example. Wu has been widely interviewed and clearly passes GNG both as an advocate for women in computing and as a video game designer-entrepreneur. WP:BLP1E is in any case irrelevant because there is no event: "Gamergate" is the protracted conspiracy of misogynist harassment intended to drive women out of the computing industry by making these targets a stark example of the consequences to be faced by any woman who dares defy it. If editors have sought to defend Wikipedia from Gamergate’s malign designs, they deserve thanks. The massive and continuing influx of brigaded editors, zombie editors, sleepers and sock puppets who all seek to exploit Wikipedia to harass Gamergate’s victims and to improve Gamergate’s reputation is less praiseworthy. To say that Gamergate has not been sufficiently covered by sources outside Wikipedia could indeed suggest misogyny or callousness, and I'm glad the nominator cleared that up! MarkBernstein (talk) 15:15, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

Speedy Keep Can an ArbCom AE admin please give NickCT a GG article notification on his page, and instruct him that this kind of disruption is obviously against Wiki rules, not even considering the articles are under ArbCom sanctions. These 'requests' should be removed immediately, and Nick should be topic banned(at the very least) for this disruption. Dave Dial (talk) 15:46, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

Bonus: Don't miss the latest rambling from the Reichstag roof.

"I've been wondering if an organized effort to support people who are being harassed might help, a squad which would follow targets, reassure and support them on-wiki, and that would seek to dismay and disarm their opponents. This feels a little like those campus programs that offer late-night escorts to walk from the library back to the dorms, but it also has a certain Batman superhero feel: there’s a risk you’d wind up replacing the original conflict with a battle of superheroes." - Mark Bernstein

Bonus: Mark appeared at the talk page for TaraInDC (one of the Five Horsemen of Wikibias) to tell an editor Tara had cast aspersions about during the GG ArbCom to "chill." (TaraInDC made their first edit since April to delete that editor's comment, saying in the edit summary: "cry me a river")