Talk:Conformity Gate

This is the original research I'm removing from the article

I'm putting it here for preservation purposes.

" The theory has grown popular through social media^[which?] and has united two divided groups (Milevens and Bylers) together for the first time,^[when?] because members of both sides considered the ending to be bad.^{[citation needed][original research?] "} Brynn Who Likes Editing (talk) 14:22, 7 July 2026 (UTC)

Conformity Gate almost achieved world peace. ❧ LunaEatsTuna (talk), proudly editing since 2018 (and just editing since 2017) – posted at 17:15, 25 July 2026 (UTC)

fr 😭😭 Brynn Who Likes Editing (talk) 17:19, 25 July 2026 (UTC)

Can you look over my comment, I think removal of the Collider article was unnecessary as it removed due credit from the actual creator of the theory being associated with the creator. Additionally I think @nightphanges and @picsbydarienjay (from X (formerly Twitter) should be credited too, as it was their theorising that led to the creation of ConformityGate. I have additional proof via screenshots (my own property) if necessary for some of the claims I’m making, but most should be available via internet articles.

Thank you CassieArmour (talk) 16:11, 25 September 2026 (UTC)

Comments over deleting this page with no rationale. Let's not go there.

This entire stupid "article" should be removed. ~2026-46623-83 (talk) 22:14, 27 August 2026 (UTC)

Please be nice. In solidarity, Brynn Who Likes Editing | talk w/ me! 22:15, 27 August 2026 (UTC)

The removal of the collider source

Bryce removed the collider source + the mention of user @amphibiaaccount. I think we should add this back in as the collider source was reliable, and as someone who was there at the conception. 67gate created a different theory known as ConformityGate (that it was just a bad ending), amphibiaaccount on tiktok (pinned video) created ConformityGate using the name Jess created, however their version was “an extra episode theory” aka what went viral. You can fact check this by looking at their videos themself, they have a video posted before the #conformitygate tag appeared (I’ll link below) that clearly talks about there being an extra episode. They later adopted the “conformityGate” name to make the extra episode theory. It is their tiktok video specifically that went viral, and them who created the “extra episode theory” associated with the theory name. The collider source was accurate in this sense. It was named by 67gate but the name was adopted by amphibiaaccount in regards to an extra episode. CassieArmour (talk) 15:45, 25 September 2026 (UTC)

Amphibiaaccount video (which mentions 67gate for the name, but 67gate never said there would be extra content. This is the first account that mentions extra content in regards to ConformityGate:

https://vm.tiktok.com/ZN8rRSSNa/

amphibiaaccount first saying there would be another episode (around 30 minutes after the finale aired, before 67gates space): https://vm.tiktok.com/ZN8rRy2jT/

further proof of this can be found in 67gate’s deactivation tweet (if you can find it) where she says (paraphrasing) that the intention of the theory was never meant to imply extra content CassieArmour (talk) 15:52, 25 September 2026 (UTC)

I’d also like to add @nightphanges to credits as they were the first person right after the finale to ask why the WSQK was still rolling, and this is what actually prompted 67gate to create the space that lead to the name being created. Unlike 67gate, @nightphanges did think from the beginning there could be more content. Additionally @picsbydarienjay (current username), was the first person on the MBC space to come up with the idea of an “extended finale” claiming that they thought the finale would actually be longer than it claimed, which lead to early ConformityGate theorising. CassieArmour (talk) 16:07, 25 September 2026 (UTC)

The Collider source is from Valnet, which is situationally reliable. Normally, I'd sometimes be fine with adding such a source if new information could only be gleamed out of it specifically, but this article is going through a good article review, and the criterion say specifically to cite reliable sources. A controversial source such as this can't really be included for this reason.

I can't credit the other people you've described, because you only gave Twitter pages and TikToks. User-generated content such as social media posts cannot be used as evidence here, especially for sweeping claims such as "this person created or coined this term or idea", and also, original research (research without a previous source) is not allowed on Wikipedia articles.

Anyways, thanks for contributing to Wikipedia, but unfortunately we can't implement what you proposed be added. (Also P.S., don't call me by "Bryce", you can see names for me on my user page and I'm a trans gal.) In solidarity, Brynn Who Likes Editing | talk w/ me! 16:33, 25 September 2026 (UTC)

Apologies Brynn - autocorrect is annoying sometimes. Is there any other way to edit this article accordingly? I’m fairly new to editing Wikipedia, but Stranger Things is my special interest and I know for a fact that 67gate only coined the term, and the theory itself, especially what went viral, was due to the contributions of other users (with amphibiaaccount on tiktok being the original virality of the extra episode speculation). Is there any other form of proof that would be accepted? Thanks, Cassie CassieArmour (talk) 16:45, 25 September 2026 (UTC)

Apologies accepted, thanks. If you got articles, journalism, studies, anything really then you can link them below and I'll tell you if they're reliable enough for inclusion. In solidarity, Brynn Who Likes Editing | talk w/ me! 16:48, 25 September 2026 (UTC)

There’s not that many other than my own personal research sadly. As someone who was there at the time I’m actually very annoyed it wasn’t documented properly and someone wrongly got credit for it. It’s a shame. Maybe more articles will come out one day. If the Collider article review comes back as a “good article” would you consider re-adding in that excerpt after?

I can assure you with certainty that it’s true but I obviously understand the rules needing reliable sources, and my word itself means nothing. I’ll have a look and see if I can find something else to independently verify it. Thanks for your help and please update me if possible CassieArmour (talk) 16:57, 25 September 2026 (UTC)

The Collider article isn't undergoing a good article review, this very Wikipedia article is getting the review lol. It's a thing where another Wikipedia editor reviews a nominator's article. If it passes then it gets a little green plus on the top right of the article's page. In solidarity, Brynn Who Likes Editing | talk w/ me! 17:09, 25 September 2026 (UTC)

Oh if you don’t mind me asking then, why was the collider article removed and seen as situationally unreliable if it wasn’t undergoing review? Again I’m fairly new to all this so super curious why, and how the source was seen as unreliable in this specific case. Just trying to better understand this system for the future CassieArmour (talk) 17:49, 25 September 2026 (UTC)

So basically there was this one discussion on the reliable sources noticeboard that found Collider in general to be concerning. Also, Collider's parent company, Valnet was the subject of multiple discussions that found it deteriorating in quality. (Read more in Wikipedia:VALNET) In solidarity, Brynn Who Likes Editing | talk w/ me! 17:55, 25 September 2026 (UTC)

Did you know nomination

(

• Comment or view
• Article history

)

• ... that Netflix faced an outage because numerous fans of Stranger Things checked whether a secret episode of the series had been released?

• Source: "More than 1,200 users reported Netflix outages on DownDetector [...] as fans rushed to check if a secret episode had been released." Mary Whitfill Roeloffs, Forbes

• • ALT1: ... that an event on Polymarket raised more than $30 million over the possibility of an unreleased Stranger Things episode? Source: Polymarket
  • ALT2: ... that fans of Stranger Things sent spam texts to starring actor Noah Schnapp to ask if a secret episode of the series would premiere? Source: "Schnapp told The Hollywood Reporter how he was being spammed with texts from people asking about the secret finale..." Kirsten Chuba, The Hollywood Reporter
  • ALT3: ... that a fan cancelled her romantic date over a secret episode of Stranger Things that never aired? Source: "It turns out that they had canceled their date with a guy that night because they thought the ninth episode was coming out. So I pleaded with her: 'Please just call him back. Don't miss out on your date for this.'" Brian Davids, The Hollywood Reporter
  • Reviewed:

Improved to Good Article status by Brynn Who Likes Editing (talk). Number of QPQs required: 0. Nominator has fewer than 5 past nominations.

In solidarity, Brynn Who Likes Editing | talk w/ me! 14:05, 27 September 2026 (UTC).

• Comment: I thought you'd be going ahead with the romantic date cancellation episode as one of your noms. It could be something like ALT3: ... a fan cancelled her romantic date over a secret episode of Stranger Things that never aired? Sddarealone (talk) 17:22, 27 September 2026 (UTC)

@Sddarealone: Well, I suppose, but at the same time I'd not want to sensationalize a real person's story, even if that person is anonymous. Also, if I were to write that, I'd include that she told Gaten Matarazzo this, like ... that a fan told Gaten Matarazzo on a nighttime walk that she cancelled a romantic date over a secret episode of Stranger Things that ultimately never aired? I changed my mind, that feels way too clunky. I added the ALT 3, but I don't want to be too keen on pressing it. In solidarity, Brynn Who Likes Editing | talk w/ me! 18:11, 27 September 2026 (UTC)

Categories talk

@Finnfrog99 and Sddarealone: Hi! I was wondering if we should keep the fiction about conformity category in the end of the article. Because Conformity Gate itself is not necessarily a work of fiction but it certainly has spurred fan labor and ideas that may be considered fiction. So I'm not very sure, what do you think? In solidarity, Brynn Who Likes Editing | talk w/ me! 18:37, 27 September 2026 (UTC)

That category has listed works which are considered classics for exposing totalitarianism e.g., Fahrenheit 451 and hence, in my opinion, it can be removed from the article. Sddarealone (talk) 18:42, 27 September 2026 (UTC)

I removed the category for now, thanks. In solidarity, Brynn Who Likes Editing | talk w/ me! 19:15, 27 September 2026 (UTC)

@Sddarealone: Do you think this edit was necessary or good? I'm planning on sending the article to peer review soon. In solidarity, Brynn Who Likes Editing | talk w/ me! 16:39, 30 September 2026 (UTC)

If we're basing the edit on the grounds of technicality at peer reviews (although I'm yet to do one), I'd say it didn't do any major improvement since you're shuffling a few paragraphs and renaming the section. The original one was quite better as now the section Conformity Gate § Popular Impact paragraphs don't seem to come together. One solution would be to restore the previous version and rename the subsection as Key findings by researchers and others and another would be to split the news sources from non-media ones and put different subsections for each of them.

My two cents... you can focus more on 1a and 1b since fan language and comprehensiveness of the article could be a few detectable issues before going to WP:FAR. Sddarealone (talk) 19:55, 30 September 2026 (UTC)

Eh, I think Key findings by researchers and others is a bit too long and also hypes up what's basically two paragraphs a bit too much IMO. Also, how would I go about defining "non-media" sources? In solidarity, Brynn Who Likes Editing | talk w/ me! 20:08, 30 September 2026 (UTC)

You can always choose a different name for the subsection but the context shouldn't change as the Article coverage title seems to be a filler. As for the non-media (or non-news sources), club the facebook account and the uni research paras together under a new subsection titled Reaction from fans and academic circle (again not a strict title). If this doesn't work, you can keep the original one as it is. Sddarealone (talk) 20:21, 30 September 2026 (UTC)

I'll work something out when I get home. I've been planning on expanding and changing the Popular impact section for a while. In solidarity, Brynn Who Likes Editing | talk w/ me! 07:32, 1 October 2026 (UTC)

Potential issues

@Sddarealone: I spent some time revamping the Shutdown and behind-the-scenes section, yet unfortunately I'm worried that I may have introduced issues into the article. First of all, I'm worried that the quote block is a copyvio, since it's an exact copy of HuffPost UK's quote. Second of all, Citation 19 is used to cite potential BLP violations. It's cited to an RS, Parade, but it implies that fans accused the showrunners of ghostwriting and AI misuse, without really explicitly saying it. For this article, I pretty much said what the Parade source said, so I don't think there's anything too bad, but also I'm worried if the article makes any inappropriate implications. Please check the sources involved and give me your thoughts, I hope it turns out to be fine. In solidarity, Brynn Who Likes Editing | talk w/ me! 07:52, 3 October 2026 (UTC)

I shortened some of the contentious material so it doesn't violate BLP, and also I relooked at the quote and it doesn't seem to be a copyvio. In solidarity, Brynn Who Likes Editing | talk w/ me! 14:16, 3 October 2026 (UTC)