User talk:MarkBernstein

A project which punishes editors for defending the good names and reputations of living people from vicious Internet trolls does not deserve to survive.

---

• /Archive1

Concerning Jews and Communism

For the record, I reverted the removal of the conspiracy section as it serves the closest to a criticism against the concept of Judaism being heavily linked to Communism, something that in itself I find absurd. In other words, I feel that, if the article exists, it should be as strongly tied to the Jewish Bolshevism conspiracy theory as possible, as the two are pretty much inseparable --Drowninginlimbo (talk) 22:58, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

I agree, and reorganized the first paragraph to make it clearer. I agree that the article should be deleted; while we wait for that to happen, removing the worst aspects makes sense. I'm eager to hear of more ways to make it less terrible and to hasten the inevitable end. MarkBernstein (talk) 23:05, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

Yes, the article is hugely anti-Semitic, and actually fails repeatedly WP:NOR. The link between Marx's ancestry and Communism is particularly weak. As it stands, I have mixed feelings on editing. Part of me thinks that, if the anti-Semitic content is removed or altered, the much deeper anti-Semitic undertones will remain unchanged, and deletion will never happen. However, having seen that it failed at articles for deletion twice, makes me think that the administrators don't care too much that the content is offensive. If it has to exist, then it is necessary to edit against the anti-Semitic WP:PSCI. I appreciate your work anyway, if I can help in any way I will do so --Drowninginlimbo (talk) 23:12, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

Now that I think of it, much of the article is original research. It probably warrants the inclusion of a template from here Template:Synthesis --Drowninginlimbo (talk) 23:41, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

I saw your message on Jehochman's talk page Mark and how you said you felt like stopping editing WP. I understand that, Jehochman warned me not to edit war, what I was edit warring about was the "Jews killed the tsar" passage and if I could not try to take that out then I wanted no part of WP, put "retired" on my talk page and did not edit again until Galassi removed that passage. That is the area I know the most about, I instantly recognised that "Jews killed the tsar" stuff as classic anti-Semitism, it is no surprise to me that it has apparently been copied from a holocaust denial website. WP is following all the usual bureaucratic procedures here, we are being told that there is "no consensus" not to push anti-Semitism on this site. It is really shocking, the only thing I can see we can do about it is to keep making a fuss. Regards Smeat75 (talk) 03:47, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

thanks, Smeat75 . But see the talk page; it looks like spike is backing the anti-Semites to the hilt, so I'll likely be a former editor tomorrow. Good luck with it. MarkBernstein (talk) 02:40, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

• Comment - Hey Mark(or anyone else watching), I am about to go to the AfD page in awhile, but want to ask if anyone has informed the Wikiprojects concerning Jewish people or Judaism. It would seem appropriate to notify the projects that are interested in Jewish history, Judaism and such to join the AfD and give opinions on whether the article should be deleted or not. After all, the article is called "Jews and Communism". Thanks! Dave Dial (talk) 22:36, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

I just notified the History project; please feel free to notify others you think should be notified. Thanks. I have to run. MarkBernstein (talk) 22:48, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

I have replied to the notice, but I am quite concerned that I may be perceived as being insensitive or overpersonal. As you know, I try to avoid looking at who it is that holds a position when I write a comment or talk page reply. DGG ( talk ) 02:50, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

I can't say that I did know that, though I've now glanced at your User page I know a little more. I'm not quite sure what you're getting at here either, to be honest, though it's late and it's been a long day. I understand your AfD argument, though I think it's mistaken in the context of this project in much the same way that Larry Summers' speculation about women is not indefensible as a matter of academic speculation but was, literally, a silly thing for the president of Harvard to say. ❧ I'll always wonder if you walked into Das Judentum in der Musik with your eyes wide shut or if this was an elaborate bit of rhetorical wordplay; either way, it's made my day. MarkBernstein (talk) 03:13, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

Hi Mark, I am the ignorant new guy and apologize for that so other know it all editors lay off. Is it possible to put a template at the top of the article stating the factuality of the some of the article is questionable, controversial, and thus should not be considered reliable? Is there something like that? I agree the article has issues and seems to have been subject to editors who promote hatred and/or fringe theories. There is also some history there that is not favorable to people of Jewish heritage but has a factual basis. There lies the rub for me in how to balance the article as I do not believe in sweeping history under a rug and neither believe in presenting it a biased manner to promote a fringe or hateful viewpoint. Like many I have mixed feelings about the article but do not believe in deleting controversial subjects unless they are fabricated and have no basis in facts. Book burning is generally considered a suppressive act as would burning the article. Your opinion please. Thanks. 172.56.11.104 (talk) 11:18, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

see the templates already on the page, especially the current discussion at Articles For Deletion. What possible history could conceivably be not favorable to people of Jewish heritage? What could you mean by this? MarkBernstein (talk) 11:59, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

• Many times history is seen as unfavorable to people of an ethnicity or nationality and it was not meant to single out Jewish people in a negative light. The article is about Jews and Communism and not Catholic Supporters of Coommunism which would be another very controversial article or Catholic Supporters of Facism (an article that would have legs in my opinion). I grew up Catholic and that has been a sensitive and controversial topic for older Catholics. I realize this a topic that involves much passion for many and apologize if I have offended any. 172.56.11.104 (talk) 12:28, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

172.56.11.104—you refer to yourself as a "new guy". Have you only made 4 edits to Wikipedia? Bus stop (talk) 12:21, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

• How is your question relevant to the discussion here? It seems like you are fishing for something. 172.56.11.104 (talk) 12:48, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

Of course, Bus stop is asking whether 172.56.11.104 is actually a brand-new editor, or perhaps an old acquaintance contributing anonymously? For example, you ask other know-it-all editors to lay off; it would be pretty unusual for a complete novice to Wikipedia to know about know-it-all editors :) And it would be a fairly amazing novice who already knew about templates. On the other hand, you're not Director or Producer; they don't need to ask me about templates, they know all about them! I'm not sure, either, why you're writing to me specifically. So color me confused, but if I'm happy to help. MarkBernstein (talk) 14:50, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

I will clarify as this is your talk page and I commented here. I am a newer editor vs brand new and one who does not spend most of my life on wikipedia and/or other internet social media. I do read wikipedia articles but cautiously and have made some edits from time to time but very sporadically. It seems there is much paranoia in wikipedia which lends proof of agenda pushers, a very paranoid bunch that are afraid their viewpoint will not be the dominant viewpoint and thus misuse articles to promote their agenda. See my tongue and cheek talk page about being watched. I identified myself as new because I was sure my question and wiki technical skills could be seen as ignorant of the wiki rules and culture and they are. I have never heard of you until today and was reading an article proposed for deletion and went to the discussion and after reading it decided to ask the question. I did not post it there as it seemed to be a heated discussion and IP's are generally treated like shit on wikipedia. I have been around long enough to know that- of course one can learn that in one edit. 172.56.11.104 (talk) 15:14, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

I don't think the IP editor is fishing for anything. It seems that they are just saying that, as a Catholic, they empathise with the discussion at hand, as such an article would be offensive to them if linked tenuously with their given religion. At least, that is what I take from it --Drowninginlimbo (talk) 04:58, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar
	Awarded for your work on Jews and Communism. Balaenoptera musculus (talk) 15:48, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

Template:Did you know nominations/Natalia Poklonskaya

Hello Mark, a moment of your time please. You said we shouldn't run this on the front page. It is claimed that, since you added your opinion, the article is seriously improved. I would like to ask you to revisit the discussion and, at the bottom, (briefly) state if you are still opposed. It is a matter of some contention, to put it mildly. Thanks in advance, Drmies (talk) 22:14, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

Aaron Swartz

Jewish means ethnicity, dude. Not religion. If you remove any reference to this ever again, I'm afraid I'm gonna have to take the judgement to a higher court. Pinocchio3000 (talk) 20:04, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

Please do! MarkBernstein (talk) 20:09, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

Pinocchio3000 and MarkBernstein, you're getting close to violating 3R. Please discuss this content on the article talk page rather than edit warring. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:23, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

@Liz: I left a message yesterday on the talk page, and left a message on the user's talk page as well. Weirdly, Pinocchio wants to add the tag to Aaron Swartz, whom I knew, and take it away from Frank Westheimer, whom I knew. The circle of people who intersected both must be fairly small. But I think Pinocchio is new here and just doesn't know how to find the talk page, or something like that. MarkBernstein (talk) 21:03, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the advice, Liz. We'll discuss it on the talk page. Pinocchio3000 (talk) 10:07, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

Can Wikipedia resist concerted efforts to contaminate it with lies, hate, and deception?

I was alluding to the scaremongering you were doing and lifted a direct quote from it. In fact once when a particular organisation DID plan to make concerted efforts to subvert Wikipedia, it was dealt with effectively by the community/arbcom.94.195.46.205 (talk) 04:24, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

I'm not familiar with the details of that episode, but I very much doubt we could resist an attack along the lines I described. How would we? MarkBernstein (talk) 10:54, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

Genealogical symbols at German Wikipedia

Hello, I saw that you started the nomination Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jews and Communism (2nd nomination), with which I have agreed.

I recently tried to start a discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Judaism#Genealogical star and cross in biography articles of the German Wikipedia, concerning the German Wikipedia, and whether wmf:Non discrimination policy applies to the case of using genealogical symbols. Since I think the topic requires a broader audience from outside the German project, but the WikiProject talk apparently is not very active, I would like to notify you of this discussion, and ask for a comments at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Judaism, Rosenkohl (talk) 22:01, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

Thank you. I'm not very familiar with this issue, and in matters of notation (I was trained as a Chemist) I'm often inclined to favor convention. It's interesting that Wikipedia uses the addition sign + rather than the typographic dagger †, which I have seen used more often and which seems more objectionable. I'll look at the discussion and help if I can.

Meanwhile, you may know the answer in policy, or at least have guidance, with regard to the practice of categorizing people as Jewish in their wikipedia page. Clearly, this is appropriate for people who are notable because of their religion or ethnicity, or whose Jewish identity is central to their biography -- Spinoza, Sholem Alecheim, Anne Frank, Saul Below. Guidance is less clear for people whose Jewishness seems incidental to their contribution -- sports stars or actors or scientists who happen to be Jewish -- and even more difficult for people who were not Jewish but had Jewish ancestors (Madeleine Albright, Felix Mendelssohn, Karl Marx). Do you know the relevant policy? MarkBernstein (talk) 22:29, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, I had typed a '+' since I was not using Java script, and then forgotten about it. Of course in fact German Wikipedia uses the typographic dagger '†'.

"the answer in policy, or at least have guidance, with regard to the practice of categorizing people as Jewish in their wikipedia page" - is a difficult question.

I don't know if there have been major internal changes in the policy of the englisch Wikipedia in recent years. However, Wikipedia in all language versions is an encyclopedia which claims to represent the reliable secondary sources (according to Wikipedia:Verifiability) from a neutral point of view.

Jewishness has aspects of a religion and an ethnicity. So Wikipedia must represent the Jewishness of a person in both aspects in the same way as it does with other religions or ethnicities.

Wikipedia biographies should try to keep the standards which are common in scientific biographies. In most scientific biographic encyclopaedias, it is common practice to mention only facts which reliable sources unanimously describe as important for the life history or career of the person; while the private life of a person is not considered as relevant, unless the reliable sources say so. In particular, the citizenships of a person are usually mentioned, while religion and ethnicity - and in particular Jewishness - are only mentioned if the reliable sources represent them as important for the public life of the person.

The common practices in scientific biographies in my opinion reflect the achieved degree of individualisation in the modern form of a political state. E.g. the United States Declaration of Independence or Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen have turned religious, ethnic etc. affiliation of a person into private issues, while public rights and obligations are equal for every citizen, regardless of his affiliations.

However, in an open colaborative project like Wikipedia, it is practically difficult to maintain encyclopaedic standards in any article or category - since there are many editors with different backgrounds writing on many articles.

For example, Category:People of Jewish descent is defined for "individuals who are of Jewish descent, but not Jewish". I think this definition does not agree with the category's name. Also, it is a subcategory of Category:People by ethnic or national descent, so Jewishness in this category is interpreted one-sided as ethnicity or nation, not as a religion; so there are no similar categories for other Religions (e.g. no Category:People of Christian descent).

Category:People of Jewish descent has been deleted serveral times, e.g. after Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2011 July 9#People of Jewish descent, however was restored again after Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2011 September 28#Category:Jamaican people of Jewish descent.

Generally, the German Wikipedia is more reluctant to label people with their religion or ethnicity. E.g. the definition de:Kategorie:Person (Religion) demands that a Person has a religious office or profession, or that their biography was decisively influenced by their religion, or they were important for their religion, Rosenkohl (talk) 13:54, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

Thank you! MarkBernstein (talk) 15:48, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

Socratic Barnstar

		The Socratic Barnstar
		This barnstar is officially presented to MarkBernstein for starting a butterfly effect that created the tipping point and ended up moving a mountain. Thank you for your eloquence and your effort to stop systemic bias on Wikipedia. USchick (talk) 05:34, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

Defender of the Wiki Barnstar

		The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar
		Dear MarkBernstein, your passion for the truth is a guiding light. Thank you for entering the sordid discussions surrounding the even more sordid discredited "Jews & Communism" article. Your principled no-nonsense expression of nothing but the truth and your courageous nomination of the article for its second deletion nomination eventually rid Wikipedia of a great stain on its reputation. "The Defender of the Wiki may be awarded to those who have gone above and beyond to prevent Wikipedia from being used for fraudulent purposes" and this is 100% true about you. Do not despair, the forces of evil and lies are always seemingly more "overwhelming" but they can never defeat the power of truth. Keep on going strong and please continue on as a beacon of light on Wikipedia and beyond. In admiration, IZAK (talk) 21:51, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

Lipscomb page

Hello could we please move to "WP:SNOW" on the Suzannah Lipscomb page? I grow weary of all the infighting and reverts. You seem to see this is a farce. Thewho515 (talk) 11:11, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

I believe a snow close requires an admin. Waiting a day or two won't do much harm, will it, if no early closer does appear? MarkBernstein (talk) 11:37, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

well said, cheersThewho515 (talk) 22:27, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

Mark Levine DRN Report

Hello Mark,

It seems as if you and I are pretty much on the same page in terms of what the resolution for the DRN report is. Do you think we should wait for Galaliel to give his comment, or should we just close the DRN report? I'm thinking of closing and leaving a message on both talk pages saying that the resolution has been finalized. Do you think we should wait for more users to reply and give their resolution? --JustBerry (talk) 01:49, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

I'd wait a day-- it's a holiday weekend in the US -- and then go ahead and close. MarkBernstein (talk) 13:42, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

Sounds great. Yes, it is Memorial Day weekend. --JustBerry (talk) 13:43, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

It would not work

I don't think an ANI would work. Although there is a RfC in progress he added more than 30 edits. This is Wikipedia, the most aggressive and the ones with more time win. I have a family and a job, I cannot compete with such people. And they are very protected. The proof is that anyone else would have already been blocked. But he can do what he wants. --Silvio1973 (talk) 19:34, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

It might work, and even if it didn't work, it might help. This editor just finished a bitter, bitter edit war at Jews and Communism that went through multiple trips to AN/I and two trips to AfD. I agree with what you've said above and you are not wrong, but shining a light on bad behavior is not always in vain. MarkBernstein (talk) 23:51, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

Director and AN

This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Possibly of interest to Smeat75 Dave Dial Balaenoptera musculus IZAK

RfC/U

Dear MarkBernstein, as you know I experienced some difficulties dealing with User:Director. For this reason I have filed a RfC/U to discuss about Director's conduct, because I genuinely believe he dealt with me with improper language. I did not file an AN/I because I am not looking for a sanction but rather I would like to have a large discussion about the issues I have dealing with Director. I honestly believe I am not the only one experiencing this problem.

I need two or more users certifying the basis for the dispute (they can be "Users who tried and failed to resolve the dispute" or "Additional users endorsing this cause for concern"). It is very bureaucratic process but it's like that. Please note that if by the 4th of July 8:30am two users have not certyfied the basis for the dispute, the entire RfC/U is archived and I will have to edit an AN/I which I would like to avoid.

Please let me know if you can help certifying this RfC/U. Just to be clear, finding users willing to certify the basis for the dispute is not WP:CANVASSING.

You can access to the RfC/U form at [[1]] and fill the section "Users certifying the basis for this dispute". Silvio1973 (talk) 19:11, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

I think I'm going to give up on Wikipedia process, as it seems to be fundamentally corrupt. Good luck to you! Silvio1973

Verifiability and Neutrality may save us in the end

In case anyone is still watching Mark Bernstein’s page for bat signals, I’ve been thinking.

Perhaps the best way to prevent another Jews and Communism is to actively foster a culture in which WP:NPOV and WP:VERIFY matter as much as WP:CIVIL.

This could mean perusing AN/I and cautioning admins to take blatant disregard for WP:NPOV and WP:VERIFY very seriously. Not that incivility isn’t serious, but when a master WP:PUSH editor succeeds in tying up discussion for weeks in endless, passive-aggressive word games and admins do nothing, good faith editors can only be expected to engage for so long. Admins need to act, or the honest editors will either quit or snap.

Instead of taking sides in an ANI dispute, question involved editors on what exactly they’re arguing about. Comment on sources, and whether requests for evidence are being honored.

Don’t excuse uncivil behavior, but point out when an overtly uncivil editor has in fact made good faith arguments and offered valid sources, only to be thanked for his trouble with constant evasive word games and obstruction. Suggest that if the intellectually honest uncivil editor is to be sanctioned, the civil POV pusher ought to be as well.

Also, point out when participants in AN/I discussions are making ad hominem attacks instead of addressing the matter at hand, and ask that admins disregard ad hominem arguments. This seems to be a favorite tactic for defending one's POV buddies. “Oh this editor has no credibility because of that one time xyz.”

Take people to AN/I for chronic disregard for WP:NPOV and WP:VERIFY, not just personal attacks and edit warring. Be very explicit in saying that what you’re doing is preventative, because you don’t want a discussion to devolve into incivility.

You can’t game WP:VERIFY the way you can WP:CIVIL (just push someone until they snap) or WP:NPOV (just start saying “I know you are but what am I”). Either a source is valid or it isn’t. Either it supports a claim or it doesn't. To make extra sure of this, I’d like to enumerate the tactics for misusing sources on the WP:PUSH page. Under a subsection called “sources” I think it should read:

They argue for the inclusion of material of dubious reliability; for example, using commentary from partisan think tanks rather than from the scientific literature.

They argue that reliable sources are actually biased while their own preferred sources are neutral.

They insist attempts be made to find reliable sources for dubious claims before removing them from an article. This amounts to requiring other editors try to prove a negative.

When pressed for reliable sources they employ the following tactics in lieu of honoring the request:

• Using a reliable source to verify a claim outside its authors area of expertise. For example an intro to an electrician's handbook is used to verify a statement of historical fact.
• Responding to requests for evidence with Google search results instead of specific citations. "Here you go! Look at all this evidence!"
• Citing reliable sources which in fact contradict their claim, or cherry-picking reliable sources
• Citing non-English language sources
• Citing highly obscure books with no Google books preview

Hope all is well.--Atlantictire (talk) 02:04, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

Unsolicited comment inserted after the discussion; I find the above to be a powerful and inspiring statement of desire to improve the Wikipedia editing community and process in the most sorely needed way. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 16:20, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

I think this makes sense. But I'm skeptical that it will work, or that it will matter. And again it only addresses extremists, fringe science fans and other crackpots; it would have no effect at all against a reasonably professional team with reasonable resources. My sense, further, is that many of the people who dominate Wikipedia governance actually like to focus on WP:CIVIL; it makes them feel good without the muss and mess of mastering a subject. WP:VERIFY is not nearly so much fun for the ego. MarkBernstein (talk) 13:22, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

This is me arguing an ANI purely on WP:VERIFY and WP:NPOV. I'm gonna keep trying this, until it maybe it catches on. USchick, you can come join the Holy and Sacred Order of WikiVerify as well if you like! I haven't seen you around lately.--Atlantictire (talk) 16:02, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for the invitation Atlantictire. In my opinion, the JC article was an unusual case where two people from the same region bought into one version of propaganda of their countries, and they also happened to be very experienced editors. Once their version of "truth" hit the international arena of Wikipedia, it didn't stand a chance. The subject matter is somewhat obscure, so it took a while for other editors to get involved and up to speed, or to even care, about something that happened in 1917. User:Director did us all a favor by repeatedly taking individuals to ANI where this obscure subject matter attracted the attention of uninvolved editors. One person (it may have been you) is a music buff and could care less about Communism, but this article became a poster child for injustice everywhere, and at that point, even the supporters of the 2 experienced editors started to question the article. (I named Director here because I don't want him to think we're gossiping about him behind his back. He may have something to add. No doubt! :-)) It took a long time, but the process worked this time, and I think we all learned a lot, I know I did! I learned a lot of history that I would have never known otherwise. I learned about the last Russian King, and I learned how to keep my temper when arguing with difficult people (thank you Director!) and I also learned the importance of building consensus. I'm also thrilled to know that injustice will not be tolerated in the modern world. Mostly, I regained my faith in Mankind. :-) Thank you everyone! What I'm trying to say here, is that all the discussions that seem pointless at the time, are actually very useful when taken as a whole. After all the endless discussions, MarkBernstein came along and flipped the whole thing on its head, simply because the stage had been set and everyone was sick of it. Apparently that's how revolutions happen. Enough people have to be sick of it. Like the revolution in Ukraine for example. USchick (talk) 19:06, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

I know, USchick but we lost Drowninginlimbo and we've more or less lost MarkBernstein. I'd prefer to just go on my merry way and edit, but this culture of intransigence and POV pushing is even starting to seep into my neck of the woods. The people with fringe viewpoints who can't work collaboratively are now lording over electronics and guitar-related articles, bumming everyone out and driving them away. It wasn't like this four years ago. I'm still going to see what I can do about this culture of non-consensus and admin passivity.--Atlantictire (talk) 19:07, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

There's collateral damage on both sides. I'm sure some people are still mourning the loss of Producer, ha ha! I'm very inspired to see you getting involved in Wiki policy. It will have a lasting effect on this project and I'll be happy to help if there's something specific, call me anytime. When you're calm and rational, your arguments are very meaningful and thought provoking. There were several times I wanted to thank you for your comments, but I didn't want people to say that we were ganging up on them and take us to ANI. Again! lol USchick (talk) 19:26, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

Say rather we "mourn" him ever getting himself into this mess. The user was a more prolific contributor than all you ladies and gentlemen combined, one of the "Old Guard". His work was of high quality and much of it was in defense of the Communist Partisans of Yugoslav military history. In spite of everything, I am not convinced the man was an antisemite. -- Director (talk) 10:59, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

I've been pinged here and read the initial post (not to speak of the fascinating threads above). Let me say I could not agree more with Atlantictire's motion. In the end, who gives a damn about civility - its proper sourcing that ought to be paramount. The problem ofc is that verifying sources is far more difficult than simply blocking someone who says "screw you" or whatever. Wikipedia, my young friend, functions #1 as a democracy, and #2 by volunteer work. How are you going to get admins to invest (really much much) more effort in policing than they do now. Remember that only uninvolved admins can intervene: this is ofc only fair, but here the volunteer thing kicks in: an uninvolved admin probably doesn't much care - which is again a good thing, ensuring neutrality - but how do you get a volunteer to volunteer for work he doesn't care about?

But as regards Jews and Communism, I'd like to remind everyone that the reliability of the sources themselves was never really brought into question, and it can not be said they were generally misquoted. It is the evidence of their being cherry picked to place undue weight that was inappropriate, and given the subject - disgusting. Indeed, it was precisely over-adherence to WP:V and NPOV that supported the article. The sources, were, as I said, most certainly "verifiable". They were verified by many, including myself. Unearthing evidence of cherry picking and undue weight was not "verification" - it was detective work, and impressive at that... -- Director (talk) 10:51, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

Comment. Before anyone loses it and goes off the deep end, I would like to point out that people are entitled to their opinions, even if they happen to be extreme. On Wikipedia, people with extreme view points are regular editors with no special powers. In real life, people with extreme view points are often found in very powerful positions and make life and death decisions about other human beings. It's important to understand that this phenomenon exists, so that you're not blindsided by it. Cheers! (I'm stepping out of this discussion before I lose it and say something very uncivil.) USchick (talk) 17:00, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

What "extreme view"! The sources were "verifiable", and to say otherwise is absurd! There was that misquotation USchick found, but by and large they all checked out as mainstream, reliable, scholarly sources. I am merely trying to help by pointing out the apparent misunderstanding of the whole issue. The reason the thing was supported by so many Wikipedians, myself included, is precisely that the sources were so good. Atlantictire doesn't seem to get where the problem was. There was no violation (generally speaking) of WP:V. It was WP:NPOV. That may sound like its less serious, but in fact its a more grievous violation. But how will you get disinterested volunteers to check these things day after day. The evidence of wrongdoing here was such that its a miracle it was unearthed at all on Wikipedia. -- Director (talk) 10:14, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

Atlantictire is not the only one who doesn't get where the problem was. Actually, he understands it just fine. USchick (talk) 17:33, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

As you see, even the perpetrator of Jews and Communism can make WP:V jump through hoops. Want to find sources for any discredited canard ? You can find them! And they’re quoted accurately! They may be fifty years old, they may be absurd outliers, but hey! They’re quoted accurately! Look: I can assemble them together! Look: I can edit-war any changes to my assembly because they’re OR, or NPOV, or you're looking at me funny instead of being WP:CIVIL! There’s no hope at all. MarkBernstein (talk) 18:33, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

Pathetic yes, hopeless no. You turned it around MarkBernstein! :) YOU.

What a bunch of sissies. I have been dealing with Director for years. Y E A R S ! You guys had one interaction with him and you're whining. Oh please, stop whining. I hope no one takes me to ANI over this. lol (At least over a year, but it was agonizing sometimes, and sometimes it was a lot of fun. Remember when I suggested that Jesus was the first Jewish Communist and should be featured as the lede image? Then I backed it up with sources. Yes, there are sources for that! That's when Director lost it and took me to ANI. I was dying laughing. He couldn't figure out if I was serious or not. Good times!) USchick (talk) 19:41, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

Jesus was the first Jewish Communist. That's why the first communist experiments of the early modern era were German Protestant. The Radical Reformers had a very literal reading of Acts 2:44.

I think what Mark is saying is that we don't come to Wikipedia to spend 3 months explaining this to people who don't want to listen, or that "Jews and Communism" is SYNTH with repellant implications. This isn't fun for us. This went on for as long as it did because of who the admins who adjudicate ANI are. It's driving away the ethical editors, and by ethical I don't mean politically correct. I mean committed to fact checking and NPOV.--Atlantictire (talk) 02:49, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

I can appreciate that you think your time is valuable. I think my time is just as valuable, and just for fun, I would be willing to compare with you all of our individual hourly billable rates. Director is a medical professional, so you may want to think about his hourly rate before you answer. You seem to be discounting years of effort that it took for people to push this POV and then the effort it took to finally overturn it. I'm not even talking about this last version, apparently there were previous versions that were deleted and then the article reappeared again. And I anticipate that you will see it again in the future, so you may as well brace for it. Like you said, fringe POV ideas are everywhere, even in music articles, so you may as well figure out how you're going to deal with it, not just for three months, but for the rest of your life. Welcome to the real world. I think it's important for every individual to decide what's the best use of their time and then to pursue it. Otherwise, you're just spinning your wheels. USchick (talk) 06:47, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Barnstar of Diligence
	Thank you for your diligent efforts improving the quality of the article on Aaron Swartz. — Cirt (talk) 10:59, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

Notice

Please read this notification carefully:
A community discussion has authorised the use of general sanctions for pages related to the Gamergate controversy, such as Gamergate controversy, which you have recently edited.
The details of these sanctions are described here.

General sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimise disruption in controversial topic areas. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to these topics that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behaviour, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. An editor can only be sanctioned after he or she has been made aware that general sanctions are in effect. This notification is meant to inform you that sanctions are authorised in these topic areas, which you have been editing. It is only effective if it is logged here. Before continuing to edit pages in these topic areas, please familiarise yourself with the general sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.

This message is informational only and does not imply misconduct regarding your contributions to date. Strongjam (talk) 23:46, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

Huh?

Do you know something I don't? Drmies (talk) 18:09, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

Oh, man! I'm so sorry. It was a misclick: I thought I’d cancelled, and I checked at the time that I'd succeeded in canceling. But obviously I didn't. I'm terribly embarrassed. MarkBernstein (talk) 19:00, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

No worries; I think someone else fixed it already. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 00:52, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

Regarding your Arbcom statement on Gamergate

I have read the reddit thread cited there, and see no clear support for the allegation made in that paragraph that a specific editor is engaged in paid editing. In a regular talk page discussion, I would be inclined to delete such a comment as a probable WP:BLP issue...

... But there is actually at least an attempt to evidence the claim (and personally I can see the reasoning pretty clearly).

...off-wiki efforts to inquire into Ryulong’s sexuality, address, and religious affiliation -- efforts which appear to be coordinated with a campaign to convince Arbcom to accept this case

Meanwhile, you assert this without evidence. I certainly have not even seen an allegation along these lines prior to this point, and in all the off-wiki discussion I've seen about Ryulong (and there is a lot) those topics have not come up.

Do you really not think this is hypocritical?

Besides which, I can't fathom your reasoning. You imagine that there are people out there who think that determining and stating Ryulong's "sexuality, address and religious affiliation" will somehow make Arbcom more inclined to take the case? And anyway, the case was already at "plus four twenty-four" by a good margin before NativeForeigner's vote, and is at +4 again.

74.12.93.242 (talk) 19:14, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

I'm sorry, 74.12.93.242: I don't follow what you're asking. You requested that I relocate the URLs; I did so an expressed a willingness to supply them to any admin on request. Obviously, posting them on Wikipedia would be wrong; do you disagree? I think Arbcomm members will want to be aware of efforts to intimidate and harass a Wikipedia editor, don’t you? I think these efforts might be pertinent when assessing Ryulong at AN/I: do you disagree? MarkBernstein (talk) 19:24, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

... What? I didn't say anything about "relocating URLs". I argued that you ought to hold yourself to the same standard of evidence to which you hold others.

Alright, prove it

Prove to me that Retartist is totally not in the right mind to be on Wikipedia, per WP:NOTHERE. I've heard so so so many people cite that policy or guideline and completely misconstrue what it means. Let's see if your opinion has its basis in fact or fantasy. Tutelary (talk) 04:07, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

You’re so cute when you’re angry! But seriously: I'm not the droid you’re looking for, Tutelary. I'm not one of the Five Horsemen of Wikipedia against which User:Retartist is leading his evil minions allies in the 8chan crusade, nor am I one of the ranks of hostile admins whom they hope to lure to their destruction.

Why do "so, so many people" think that account is WP:NOTHERE? Let me count the ways. The 8chan board specifically seeks out Wikipedia accounts that have some old editing history: check. The account consistently pushes a single POV on a cluster of tightly-related pages: check. The account starts edit wars trying to wedge some exculpatory snippet into Wikipedia’s gamer gate coverage and seeking to file dubious claims against its opponents: check. The account is followed about by sea lions making demands (above) and asserting I'm being crazy [[2]]: check. Oh -- but ethics! MarkBernstein (talk) 16:21, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

Your very use of the phrases "sea lions" and the sarcastic "oh -- but ethics!" clearly indicate your own standpoint on the matter. No surprises there. But I feel compelled to point out how absurd the "sea lion" concept is in this context - Wikipedia not only is a public space, and the Talk pages in particular a public discussion space (even if "not a forum"), but it's also one where civility and politeness are expected by default. It's ridiculous to complain about being overwhelmed by polite people who politely disagree with you, here, in a space where discussion happens and reaching consensus is an explicit goal. Having a minority viewpoint (even if it's backed up by a majority of "reliable" sources) doesn't make you a victim of harassment. 76.64.35.209 (talk) 16:16, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

Having admins politely discuss a software developer’s (blameless) sex life in public, and state that there are further details he knows but can't yet discuss -- that's just dandy, right? MarkBernstein (talk) 16:21, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

MB, I recommend not engaging with this guy. PS you are awesome for calling shit like it is. I can't believe this stuff being OK is what these guys actually believe. Hustlecat ^{do it!} 21:20, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, MarkBernstein. You have new messages at Ryulong's talk page.
Message added 20:52, 21 November 2014 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 20:52, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

Hi

You seem to not know how Encyclopedia Dramatica works. I'll tell you what I know about it from the WP page and my contact. If you've heard of Uncyclopedia, its not the same. Uncyc aims to parody the very nature of Wikipedia, or some of its articles. ED on the other hand, is a strange inverse of Wikipedia. Inverting BLP, and most notability policies, they aim to document "lulz". They'll write a hitpiece on anyone, really, so long as some drama has happened. They've even wrote a page on their own founder, including dox, iirc. Point is, ED is an example of the Third Party Trolls I keep telling everyone about. Hopefully this helps. Cheers. --DSA510 Pls No H8 05:09, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

A cup of tea for you!

Re [3] . don't let the trolls get to you! -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 20:25, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

Insinuations

Please, stop the insinuations. If only 8chan were so lucky to have at their disposal a meatpuppet which has written 4 Good Articles, eh? As well as also having an admin in their ranks? Do you understand what you are accusing people of? How would you like to be called an editor editing at the behest of 8chan? starship.paint ~ regal 08:47, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

I suppose you and I disagree about the importance of wikipedia's inquiry into the sex lives of young women in computing. If you believe that my comments yesterday were an insinuation, however, I must have failed to make myself clear. I regret that; perhaps I ought to re-read my Zola.MarkBernstein (talk) 14:07, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

So if your comments were not meant to be an insinuation, what were they? An open accusation? Please don't be disingenuous. starship.paint ~ regal 00:09, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

I'm seldom disingenuous. MarkBernstein (talk) 01:22, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

If you're unwilling to directly apologize, fine. Consider the matter closed. starship.paint ~ regal 10:30, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

Mark, I've removed your comment to User:Starship.paint as it was remarkably inappropriate. I understand that things can get headed when editing articles which document appalling real world behavior, but that should not be an excuse for making such accusations. Please don't make such statements again. Gamaliel (talk) 21:54, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, Gamaliel. I'm puzzled, honestly, which you think that was worse than my previous comment. But I'm gone -- I only happened to stop by here to clean up some loose ends, and that reminds me to thank you for intermittent help over several years. I can no longer condone assisting Wikipedia, which seems unable to maintain standards of common sense and common decency; I hope you will find a way to fix things, and if you do and there's some way I can help, give me a call or email bernstein at eastgate.com . No need to reply here, as it's possible I won't be checking back. Best of luck to you. http://www.markbernstein.org/Nov14/CallToArms.html MarkBernstein (talk) 22:18, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

Enforcement

You've just posted a huge block of text at the enforcement page. I wanted to remind you that the page places a strict 500 word limit on statements. Please shorten your statement. RGloucester — ☎ 22:42, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

Sorry. It's hard to keep track of all the rules and customs. I'll replace it with a pointer if I may; or if not, please delete. MarkBernstein (talk) 22:54, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

A "pointer" is perfectly acceptable. RGloucester — ☎ 23:01, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

Sorry to give you trouble. But I've spent a lot of time working on wikis and open hypermedia, and I really do believe that, if we can't handle something like this, the enterprise is deservedly doomed. MarkBernstein (talk) 23:06, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

Thank you

for your efforts here. I saw your messages on some other pages and although I don't actually remember seeing you (sorry about that) I can see from your history that you have been a valuable and productive contributor here, and I think you deserve our thanks for that. You do seem to have some concerns about the project that a lot of other people share, and I wish we were able to figure out how to deal with them. Maybe in time we will. If so, I hope that you consider maybe offering some of your time to this project again. Best of luck. John Carter (talk) 00:04, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

• @MarkBernstein: Wholeheartedly agree with User John Carter (talk · contribs)! Please stay in touch. There is a teaching in Judaism that "a little light dispels a lot of darkness" and you have been such a light on Wikipedia and elsewhere and I encourage you not to give up. Stay connected in some way. Thank you for all your efforts and wishing you much success. Sincerely, IZAK (talk) 04:21, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

• • I've never made a secret of identity or email, and if Idont answer email within 24 hrs try phone CS spam bucket. My email address has been on the web since 1984, so my spam filter gas to be overactive, but this really is it; until wikipedia has an decent answer, I can't help, and nor should you.nMarkBernstein (talk) 04:52, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

What?

I just read the general sanction post, I don't even get you, what were you trying to imply? I don't even remember this DSA guy, I probably left him one message on his talk page like I did with The Devil's Advocate, that isn't called conspiring is asking for second opinions. What I have problems with though is, hopefully I'm reading this wrong, is that you're implying that something must be done or something bad will happen to you? I saw your edits on the GG talk page and that's the first and last time I heard your name and moved on. What the hell are you on about? Also that 8chan post, you do realize that it's an anonymous board right? Would you trust if I went there and said I was Jimbo Wales that it was him? That post doesn't even say anything bad, just informing/guessing what would happen with the ArbCom case, where did you get I was conspiring with this DSA guy? Loganmac (talk) 06:07, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

Read the t8chan board I linked. No way for me to know if the eds there are the same as here, obviously, or different people using the same names. Since these people have threatened violence before, I thought it prudent to inform ArbCom, some other admins, some journalists and friends, and some places that have eyes. Doubtless overkill, but safety first. Excuse brevity: I have other concerns now, obviously. MarkBernstein (talk) 06:22, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

This accusation

Mark, this is not appropriate. I can assure you I am not part of any off-site coordination, and no one is looking to "deploy" me. If you cannot back up this accusation with facts, be the better person and remove it. Thargor Orlando (talk) 12:21, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

Your actions could hurt people

Hi Mark, given that your aim here seems to be to minimize harassment and harm, you really ought to reconsider your current actions. For someone who understands the dangers of being publicly involved in GamerGate so well, you are showing a marked lack of empathy for some of your fellow editors. Multiple editors (including one you accused of being in an 8chan cabal) have been doxxed and harassed. By quote mining editors, and accusing them of being rape apologists and weapons of 8chan, often with minimal evidence, you are making them targets for harassment.

You should be cautious when it comes to construing editors contacting GGers as collusion. Even Ryulong has posted on /r/KotakuInAction. Other editors post on these forums to try and quell the mob, and some of the posts by the alleged DSA in that thread, read as such (like when he tells 8chan to cut Future Perf "a little slack"). I myself posted on 8chan once to point out their "Wikiproject Feminism controls the GamerGate article" theory was absolute nonsense. Does this mean I am evil and collude with 8chan? I hope not.

While GamerGate may have large angry mob elements, you need to recognize that another angry mob also exists, even if it is much smaller. By spreading rumours about wiki-editors online, while using minimal evidence, you raise the potential of exposing them to an angry mob that could try to exact vigilante justice. I hope you reconsider the extreme accusations you are making against wikipedia editors, and try to tone it down a bit. Bosstopher (talk) 13:23, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

kthxbyeMarkBernstein (talk) 15:36, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

Take care, hope you will return and thanks for contributing on IQ and Global Inequality. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 04:37, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/GamerGate opened

You recently offered a statement in a request for arbitration. The Arbitration Committee has accepted that request for arbitration and an arbitration case has been opened at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/GamerGate. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/GamerGate/Evidence. Please add your evidence by December 11, 2014, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/GamerGate/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, Ks0stm ^{(T•C•G•E)} 22:27, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

@Ks0stm: I no longer contribute to Wikipedia, in protest of its shameful treatment of the victims of Gamergate. Nevertheless, feel free to contact me by email or call my office if you have any questions, or if I can assist Arbcom in any way. MarkBernstein (talk) 00:56, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

Topic ban

The following sanction has been imposed on you:

Indefinite topic ban on edits and discussion related to GamerGate, broadly construed. This ban does not include participation on ArbCom pages regarding any relevant case.

You have been sanctioned for disruptive rhetoric and behavior incompatible with collaborative editing.

This sanction is imposed in my capacity as an uninvolved administrator as authorised by the community's decision at Wikipedia:General_sanctions/Gamergate, and the procedure described by the general sanctions guidelines. This sanction has been recorded in the log of sanctions for that decision. If the sanction includes a ban, please read the banning policy to ensure you understand what this means. If you do not comply with this sanction, you may be blocked for an extended period, by way of enforcement of this sanction—and you may also be made subject to further sanctions.

You may appeal this sanction at the administrators' noticeboard. You may also appeal directly to me (on my talk page), before or instead of appealing to the noticeboard. Even if you appeal this sanction, you remain bound by it until you are notified by an uninvolved administrator that the appeal has been successful. You are also free to contact me on my talk page if anything of the above is unclear to you. Gamaliel (talk) 17:39, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of User:MarkBernstein

A tag has been placed on User:MarkBernstein requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section U5 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page appears to consist of writings, information, discussions, and/or activities not closely related to Wikipedia's goals. Please note that Wikipedia is not a free Web hosting service. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such pages may be deleted at any time.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. Retartist (talk) 06:05, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

Contested deletion

This page should not be speedily deleted because... (it does not meet the requirement of "where the owner has made few or no edits outside of userspace") --USchick (talk) 06:24, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

• @Retartist:, I'm declining this because like USchick has stated, MarkBernstein has made other edits outside of his userspace. Because of this, the only ways to delete this would be to take it to WP:MfD or to have MarkBernstein mark it as a speedy deletion as WP:U1. MarkBernstein, while this page does squeak by on that technicality, you do seem to be using your userpage as somewhat of a defacto blog post where you talk about various issues currently in Wikipedia that you are involved in, some of which are obviously quite contentious. (I have no opinion on any of that material one way or another or on your participation in said pages, so I figured that I'd be a good neutral party to weigh in on the userpage speedy.) I'd highly recommend that you host this material on your own website as you've stated you're willing to do on your userpage. While this doesn't fall under the speedy qualifications, it really isn't all that appropriate to host on Wikipedia because it does fall under WP:NOTWEBHOST for the most part. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 07:33, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

@Tokyogirl79:I think I might nominate it per WP:MfD. Depends only on how I feel when I get up tomorrow, since, as you yourself note, it's obvious the material "isn't all that appropriate to host on Wikipedia." Cheers, Azx2 02:16, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

meh Azx2

WP:DNFTT

There is no possibility of anything not bad from continued discussions at Wikipedia_talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/GamerGate/Evidence#Personal_attack. I would advise a big /ignore and walking away now. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 00:22, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

I'd welcome your explanation of what the hell is going on? 03:05, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

they are trying to bait you into doing something . dont do it. there is nothing you could do that would lead to a good end, only bad or terrible or worse. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 04:02, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

Blocked

I have blocked you for one week under the general sanctions provision for violating your topic ban with these edits: [4] [5]. — east718 | talk | 00:08, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

I was not aware that any discussion of outing Ryulong was "Gamergate, broadly construed." But as I stated in my edit, I have no desire to contribute to Wikipedia further than what I believed was a necessary protest against patent injustice. MarkBernstein (talk) 00:18, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

The "conspiracy theory" thing

In response to your piece here, I did not accuse you or anyone else of being part of a conspiracy. What I did suggest is that a single admin seized an opportunity to sanction an editor he had long wanted to sanction, while using your sanction to make it more palatable as well as make himself look good in general despite his obvious opposition to it.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 05:25, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

Notice

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Block review: TheRedPenOfDoom (TRPoD). Thank you. Avono (talk) 23:13, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

Gender gap task force

Hi Mark, I saw the article in the Guardian today about Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/GamerGate/Proposed decision.

I haven't followed the Gamergate case, so I can't judge the proposed decision, but you should know that the recent case about disruption at the gender gap task force (the case is Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Interactions at GGTF) resulted in something similar.

In case you're not familiar with it, the GGTF was set up to discuss the gender gap on WP, but as soon as we got it started, several men turned up to disrupt it. The ArbCom handed out indefinite bans against two people (one or both of them women) who tried to stop the disruption, and only topic bans against some of the men who had caused it. Other men who had caused the disruption were not sanctioned at all. Sarah (SV) ^(talk) 16:22, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

Breach of Topic Ban

This is a notification to make you aware that I made a request for enforcement against you here [6]. Have a nice day Avono (talk) 16:17, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

Blocked

To enforce a community decision,

you have been blocked from editing for a month. You are welcome to make useful contributions once the block expires; however, please note that the repetition of similar behavior may result in a longer block. If you believe this block is unjustified, please read the guide to appealing blocks and then appeal your block using the instructions there. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 16:42, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

---

Reminder to administrators:
Community sanctions are enacted by community consensus. In order to overturn this block, you must either receive the approval of the blocking administrator or seek consensus at a community noticeboard.

This block is made in accordance with the GamerGate general sanctions and may not be reversed without my consent or consensus at AN or ANI. Should the arbitration case close before the block expires, it will become a discretionary sanction under arbitration enforcement provisions. The reason for the block is a violation of your topic ban by discussing the GamerGate controversy elsewhere than the arbitration case (namely User talk:Jimbo Wales), and because your edits show no intent to separate yourself from the topic area, which is the purpose of a topic ban—you have repeatedly skirted the edges of your topic ban by avoiding explicit mentions of GamerGate, and I have let these slide in the hope that you would move on. As you have continued, and now unambiguously violated your topic ban, I see no choice but to block you. The duration is relatively lenient given that the majority of your edits since your topic ban have been in some way related to GamerGate; unless you separate yourself from the topic area or successfully appeal your topic ban after this block expires, the next block will be considerably longer. You may appeal this block by making a statement and using {{unblock}} or {{adminhelp}} to request it be copied to AN or ANI. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 16:42, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

In fact, on reflection, I believe you have no intent to stick to separate yourself from the topic area and you will continue to skirt the edges of it and even outright violate it. In addition, your previously stated that you had no interest in continuing to contribute to Wikipedia, and almost every edit you've made since has been in some way related to GamerGate. Thus, I have increased the duration to one month. If you carry on regardless after a month, the next block will be a year. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 17:00, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

MfD nomination of User:MarkBernstein

User:MarkBernstein, a page you substantially contributed to, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:MarkBernstein and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of User:MarkBernstein during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. Avono (talk) 14:02, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

Petty gestures might be annoying, but of course I can‘t respond there. That page is a sentimental gesture, a token of nostalgic respect for an institution to which I rendered long and substantial service and which, even now, might better be occupied in improving itself -- in averting an infamous decision, correcting its thoughtless neglect of volunteers exposed to braying harassment, and correcting its careless failure to show care for Wikipedia’s victims.

• Infamous http://www.markbernstein.org/Jan15/Infamous.html
• Thoughtless http://www.markbernstein.org/Jan15/Thoughless.html
• Careless http://www.markbernstein.org/Jan15/Careless.html

Wikipedia talk pages are frequently used for essays. Avono's talk page currently features a sea lion, perhaps to celebrate the recent Arbcom decision. The user page for [User:Azx2], who tried this in December, features a picture of a young woman who, it seems, has misplaced both the top of her bathing suit and her contact lenses, and who is in consequences crawling about the pavement in search of one or the other.

It is possible that responding at all to this [redacted] is a violation of my current ban, or will be construed that way, unless this is part of an appeal. So: if necessary, I hereby appeal the ban, issued on 25 minutes notice, for an edit in Jimbo’s talk page in a thread concerning my work and under a title that bore my name, and to which numerous editors had already made contributions, not all of them strictly in accord with Wikipedia policy; that I had every right in WikiLaw and custom to post there as my topic ban excluded the arbitration proceedings of which that thread appeared to be the sanctioned and designated place for discussion. I further suggest a WP:BOOMERANG. I acknowledge this is not the correct form, but have no idea what the correct form might be; passing editors may adapt it as necessary to sit the required form. I do not intend to pursue this further at this time. MarkBernstein (talk) 14:46, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

To clarify are you appealing your topic ban, siteban or both? Bosstopher (talk) 15:10, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

Withdrawn as too contentious. However I do offer to replace your userpage with [7] as a diplomatic solution. Avono (talk) 16:32, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

Your topic ban

There is a widespread view in the community that topic bans can be a restriction on not just disruption, but on dissent and free speech. Your topic ban was intended to prevent disruption, namely disparagement of individual editors. However, it has also served to silence your dissent about this issue and has prompted those who disagree with that dissent to play gotcha when you have made non-disruptive statements tangentially related to the matter covered by the topic ban. Arguably, a case could be made that the violations of the topic ban you have been blocked for were not covered by the scope of the ban or were very minor violations, and in neither case was it an example of the disruptive behavior that prompted me to impose the topic ban. As you know, I have pondered this matter for quite some time and I am convinced that the topic ban has become punitive and not preventive. Given your assurances that you will no longer engage in the disruptive behavior that prompted the ban, I am now lifting the sanction completely. This does not affect your current block imposed by a different administrator, which as per policy will remain in place until it is removed by the administrator who imposed it, it is removed by a consensus arrived at through a community discussion at WP:ANI or elsewhere, or it expires. Gamaliel (talk) 22:06, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

Unblocked

Hi Mark. As we discussed by email, I've unblocked you with the sole condition that you avoid personally directed comments; this isn't a sanction but more of a gentlemen's agreement. There should be no need to comment on anybody's person anyway—it's perfectly possible, as I'm sure you know, to criticise contributions and opinions without attacking the person making them. If you have any problems with the autoblock (you shouldn't, but jist in case), let me know. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 17:52, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

@HJ Mitchell: Please see the bottom of this page for your gentleman's agreement. [8] --DHeyward (talk) 21:02, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

@DHeyward: It appears that Dreadstar has dealt with this. I trust his judgement. AE is the best venue for any future concerns. Mark: I strongly suggest you heed Dreadstar's final warning. Admins aren't daft; if an editor is causing problems, they'll get their comeuppance sooner or later, but by commenting on their person you put yourself in that same category of "editors causing problems", especially by doing so on an article talk page. You're not prohibited from filing enforcement requests if you feel an editor's conduct is in need of scrutiny. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 21:11, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

@HJ Mitchell:: Noted, apologized already, as you have seen and as @DHeyward: should know. I've even done an hour of community service, cleaning up Uninstaller and trying to improve Dudley Herschbach. I even took a glance at Cleavage, now at AN/I, but promptly ran away -- have fun with that.

On the question of the daftness of admins, you know that I have reservations -- some expressed yesterday in verse, others mentioned in my recent memorandum to you. I welcome your views.

In point of fact, confidence that the exemplary care you have shown at Frank Wu could reliably be anticipated elsewhere would do a great deal to alleviate these excursions and alarums, whether pursued by bears or by fans. Both Brianna Wu and Sarkeesian have been beleaguered -- and I see Brianna’s page is now at AN/I. As for filing enforcement requests, again my perspective may differ from yours based on my own experience; if you'd like to convince me that experience is uncharacteristic or misinterpreted, you have my address and I'm all ears. MarkBernstein (talk) 21:46, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

Email

Thanks for letting me know. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 21:32, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

ARCA

You are involved in a recently-filed request for clarification or amendment from the Arbitration Committee. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment#Amendment request: GamerGate and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. Additionally, the Wikipedia:Arbitration guide may be of use.

Thanks,

GoldenRing (talk) 04:55, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

Friendly advice

Re [9]. Don't. There is no need for you to make a statement. I'd suggest you stay silent, as I'm hard-pressed to see the advantages in making a statement. Something along the lines of "my editing speaks for itself," would be perfectly acceptable. Hipocrite (talk) 15:20, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

@Hipocrite: First they went to HJMitchell. Then they went to Gamaliel. Now they go to ARCA, which is telling them to go to AE where it will be easier to find one sympathetic admin. After that, we can go to ARBCOM again -- and of course now there's a much larger audience [[10]]. Of course, if a bunch of respected editors were there saying "Bernstein’s editing speaks for itself," that might demonstrate that there's no need for me to contribute. MarkBernstein (talk) 15:25, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

That's fair. However, given that you've just won at ARCA, showing up has no real upside that I can see. The next step is AE, where I'll def chime in with "editing speaks for self." Hipocrite (talk) 15:35, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

Sigh. MarkBernstein (talk) 16:02, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

Don't worry about it. At some point this is just going to get WP:POINTy. — Strongjam (talk) 16:16, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

@Strongjam: You mean it's not pointy now? I mean, they've forum shopped it to two admins, then ARCA. What’s next? MarkBernstein (talk) 16:23, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

Give enough rope and all that. You've got nothing to worry about, an WP:AE against you would be thin on evidence and given what you just mentioned I imagine it would boomerang. — Strongjam (talk) 16:30, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

Final warning

One more comment about another editor as you did here and I will sanction you. Period. I've removed the comment. Dreadstar ☥ 06:02, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

Quite right: my mistake. I'd meant to write of edits, not editor; a morning spent reading AE and ARCA, where this topic appears quite often, put it in my mind, and as I'd been famously finagling metrical feet on one keyboard while coping with a shipment of defective USB sticks on the other and doing this in stolen moments on the third, I thoughtlessly edited myself poorly. Please don't bite the oldies. MarkBernstein (talk) 14:03, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for that Mark; the GG articles are very contentious and subject to a lot of disruption (as if I have to tell you that... :); It's a slippery slope, if you can make comments about others, why can't others make comments, etc etc etc. So yes, I understand the temptation and frustration; and appreciate your recognition of the issues here. Dreadstar ☥ 21:56, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

@Dreadstar: OK: I can't let that pass, Dreadstar. In point of fact, other editors have consistently and repeatedly disparaged me and my writing, with hardly a peep from any watching administrator. For choice examples, see the top of my weblog, the WMF press release, and the ArbCom press statement. A huge thread at User Talk:Jimbo was devoted to disparaging the subject of its title, "Mark Bernstein’s weblog post." I acquiesce in this, but I can’t endorse this by not objecting. MarkBernstein (talk) 22:06, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

Unfortunately, I have not seen or been made aware of the other instances you mention - even on GG, the traffic is high and I may not see all that occurs. And there is a difference between comments about others on Jimbo's talk page, and those made on an article talk page. An article's talk page is not the right place to discuss the behavior of other editors, especially pages like GG that are subject to high amounts of disruption. If you want to talk about the behavior of other editors, then the user talk pages are the right place to start - and WP:DR goes into more detail about the steps from there. If others are making comments about you on the GamerGate article talk pages, please bring them to my attention and I will deal with them. Dreadstar ☥ 04:45, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

Arbitration amendment request archived

Hi MarkBernstein, an arbitration amendment request that you were listed as a party to has been closed and archived to the GamerGate case talk page. For the Arbitration Committee, --L235 (t / c / ping in reply) 02:24, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

Belated

	Poet Wikiat
	I just saw your response at ARCA, perhaps the most moving poem I have heard since "On the Pulse of Morning"! Bravo! -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 20:20, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

Conflict of Interest

Hi MarkBernstein, I am concerned that you have a conflict of interest, per WP:COI, which would affect your editing of the Criticism of Wikipedia Article. (See diffs: [11][12][13][14][15])

The section edited contains a reference, "quotes from a Wikipedia editor alleging unfair treatment", to you, and your writings; which you have also linked to on Wikipedia on a number of occasions. (See: [16][17][18][19][20][21] et al)

I respectfully request that, per WP:COI, you refrain from directly editing this section of the Criticism of Wikipedia article (and any other section which references you or your writings); that you propose any changes through the Article Talk page; and that you self revert the changes that you have made.

I make an additional personal request that you refrain from linking to your writings in comments; this is disruptive to the workings of the Wikipedia Project. - Ryk72 ^'c.s.n.s.' 02:37, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

That's not a conflict of interest. Hipocrite (talk) 12:21, 22 February 2015 (UTC). Your request that people not link their writings is invalid. Hipocrite (talk) 12:22, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

@Ryk72: As Hipocrite suggests, apparently you misunderstand conflict of interest and also, separately, misunderstand Wikipedia policy and practice on links.

It is not a conflict of interest to link to work that mentions work one has done, much less to link to work that mentions work that responds to work one has done. To do so would eliminate broad swaths of people from editing encyclopedias -- professors, writers, critics, and legislators. Knowing something about a topic does not unfit one for Wikipedia editing. Further, the section of Criticism of Wikipedia about which you write fails to mention me or to link to my writing, and to do so bends itself in knots. For example, it claims that other news reports depend on The Guardian while in fact they depend on Infamous [22]; newspapers like Der Standard and journals like Social Text do not "parrot" (in Wikipedia’s former phrase) reports in other newspapers. But I have not taken the obvious step of correcting the omission, lest my numerous and attentive GamerGate fans should take offense; rather, I have tried to amend the passage so that it no longer so clearly compels newspapers, magazines, or writers’ unions to seek redress against Wikipedia. As my interests here do not necessarily align with Wikipedia's, these are rather edits against my personal interest, not conflicts of interest.

Wikipedia policy on off-wiki links is equally clear; they may be freely used to illustrate and explain points properly under discussion, provided they do not contain material prohibited by policy, such as libels. No doubt when I think I recall that you defended including links to frankly libelous material about GamerGate last week, I'm confusing you with another of your GamerGate pals; you agree, then, that NorthBySouthBaranof was correct in removing libelous links despite his topic ban and the GamerGate/KiA opponents who wished to sanction him were wrong? In any case, that nothing in "Infamous" is prohibited by policy could not be clearer, as it has been prominently linked here for some considerable time as uncounted administrators and arbitrators and Foundation board members know.

As you observe, “Infamous” and its successors have been widely discussed. Links to widely-discussed essays are frequently useful to Wikipedia discussions of related topics; I cannot imagine why anyone interested in the Encyclopedia would wish to discourage that. MarkBernstein (talk) 17:27, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

Personalizing the dispute

This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Mark, this is twice now you've implied I'm somehow in league with some group or something. I've made great efforts to not personalize this dispute in spite of your behavior toward me, and I would appreciate the same in response. Thank you. Thargor Orlando (talk) 18:01, 22 February 2015 (UTC) I think it's pretty clear the first comment linked to above is not meant to be taken seriously. I suspect the second is in the same vein (let's WP:AGF after all), but whatever the intent I think that you should refrain from making these kinds of comments in the future lest they be interpret as insults. Gamaliel (talk) 18:59, 22 February 2015 (UTC) edit conflictMy Dear (though Furioso) Orlando: In the first diff, TheRealVordox has left you a message about "Masem’s talk." In my world, a "talk" is a public lecture, typically given at a conference, convention, or educational institution. As you may recall, I gave one of these at Southampton last month on a topic of mutual interest. In light of that, and of Masem’s Signpost article, I supposed that TheRealVordox referred to something of a similar nature that Masem had delivered. Asking for the citation seemed that natural and polite thing to do. It turns out, Vordox meant "Masem’s talk page"; I've seldom seen that usage in Wikipedia or elsewhere. I see that someone who has also chosen the user name TheRealVordox is active on Twitter, where they have 129 tweets to their 3 followers and conversations with addressed to TotalBiscuit, Masem, CH Sommers,and SargonOfAkkad ; say hi for me! In the second diff, I am attempting to address concisely a long, long series of talk page contributions, many of them of late by a single editor, which argue for including additional marginal sources sympathetic to Gamergate. In this particular response, I am pointing out that relaxed standards might have surprising effects, and I use the name of the predominant editor as a metonym for the argument. I might also mention that I myself have not complained -- at least not publicly -- of the numerous efforts that have been made to personalize the dispute on Gamergate's behalf, both on-wiki and off, including previous sections on this talk page, elsewhere on Wikipedia, and at 8chan and reddit and in press releases and correspondence. I've simply reported them to appropriate parties. Template:Ping:Thargor Orlando MarkBernstein (talk) 19:21, 22 February 2015 (UTC) I removed material that may run afoul of WP:OUTING. I'd advise you to seek oversight or at least revdel. Opposition research, true or not, is unhealthy for a collaborative editing environment. --DHeyward (talk) 19:47, 22 February 2015 (UTC) Thanks for your concern. I have edited my remarks to emphasize that while the Twitter account and the Wikipedia account both became active recently, and share the user name TheRealVordox, we need not speculate whether they are in fact coordinated or mutually interknowledgable. The appearance of TheRealVordox in my Twitter stream yesterday and on Wikipedia shortly before might be a pure coincidence. There certainly might be several people who consider themselves TheRealVordox and who write extensively about Anita Sarkeesian and Wikipedia. Thank you for reminding us. MarkBernstein (talk) 19:59, 22 February 2015 (UTC) Could you also edit to clarify that he didnt have a 'conversation' with Masem, he sent a tweet to Masem which masem didnt respond to. Also assuming that some admin comes to this talk page for oversighting reasons could they please close the RfC on WP:OUTING, it ended ages ago, and would solve many of the issues being discussed here. Bosstopher (talk) 20:11, 22 February 2015 (UTC) My, we are being precise! Done. MarkBernstein (talk) 20:18, 22 February 2015 (UTC) One more comment about another editor on the article talk pages and I will ban you from all GamerGate related articles. Dreadstar ☥ 22:56, 22 February 2015 (UTC) HJ Mitchell, Gamaliel So everyone is on the same frequency before the memory hole opens up again. MB, I'd still request you remove your offsite opposition research that you restored. --DHeyward (talk) 00:42, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

Support User:Dreadstar's warning and I've hatted this section. While calling this "opposition research" is a bit hyperbolic, I do think that continuing down this road is unproductive and will only inhibit collaborative editing. If there is a case to be made against an editor, then the place to present it is at WP:AE, not on talk pages. Let's everyone, not just Mark Bernstein, confine your talk page discussion to edits and not editors. Gamaliel (talk) 01:02, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia, or Gamergate

Did you mean to say "Wikipedia" here? Guettarda (talk) 16:29, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

Nope -- I mean’t Gamergate, not Wikipedia. Thanks. MarkBernstein (talk) 16:33, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

I know we have problems, but I hope it hasn't gone that far! :) Guettarda (talk) 16:47, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

Well, it has gone that far, actually -- I made that slip because I'm writing urgent emails to a group of active admins this morning on misogyny, feminism, and Wikipedia.

I've also in passing tried to fend off adding more pictures to Elizabeth Warren’s page in order to make a racial argument. (Admin help will be needed there, and a smart admin would get on top of that situation before it winds up in AN/I, AE -- I guess anything to do with Warren is arguably about a person involved in a gender-related controversy or dispute -- and the press. MarkBernstein (talk) 16:58, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

Blocked

You've been warned multiple times not to comment on others, yet you persist. [23]. I've blocked you for 24 hours. Dreadstar ☥ 03:36, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

AE enforcement or discretionary sanctions requested Feb 2015

I've asked for DS to be enforced and that you be issued the Standard Topic Ban(I) sanction.

You may find the discussion here. --DHeyward (talk) 06:51, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia is here offered an unambiguous choice between an expert contributor who upholds the right of women to work in computer science and software development if they want to, and a barbarian horde of internet trolls, openly colluding for months to use Wikipedia as part of a public relations campaign to threaten, shame, and punish female software developers.

“Next time she shows up at a conference we … give her a crippling injury that’s never going to fully heal … a good solid injury to the knees. I’d say a brain damage, but we don’t want to make it so she ends up too retarded to fear us.” -- Simon Parkin, “Zoe Quinn’s Depression Quest”, The New Yorker, 9 September 2014. http://www.newyorker.com/tech/elements/zoe-quinns-depression-quest

A project which punishes editors for defending the good names and reputations of living people from vicious Internet trolls does not deserve to survive.

Mark, Wikipedia is not a battleground and not the place to right great wrongs. Dreadstar ☥ 18:17, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia is the place to right the wrongs that Wikipedia inflicts when it is wielded to harm blameless people. MarkBernstein (talk) 18:33, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

when outside forces specifically target Wikipedia as a battlefield (with militaristic "Operations" non the less), it seems not only absurd but also infantile to ad naseum claim that "Wikipedia is not a battlefield". And defending BLP is "righting a wrong" that Wikipedian's are in fact charged to accomplish. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 18:36, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

edit conflict Wikipedia is the place to right the wrongs that Wikipedia inflicts when it is wielded to harm blameless people. Furthermore, as I said in my talk for the University of Southampton, "When you’re discussing a matter with the armies of Mordor, Wikipedia is a battleground when they tell you it’s a battleground." MarkBernstein (talk) 18:33, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

You're both talking about a different concept than I am; Mark seems to think it's ok to talk about other editors on the article talk page because he apparently feels that he needs to point out their purported bias and collaboration (e.g. battlefield mindset). It's fine to discuss sources and make sure the article is not a source of harm to living persons - that's what WP:BLP is for. Sure, that's a kind of battle in its own way, but that is different than WP:BATTLE. Discussing the behavior of other editors should be done in the right venues, WP:AN/I, a user WP:RFC, and other means as described in WP:DR. Dreadstar ☥ 18:50, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

If you're not addressing the concerns described in my statement above, Dreadstar, why are you posting here and not in another section? If you are, then we’re not talking about different subjects. I asked -- nay begged you -- only yesterday to enforce policy; you did not and you have not. Further, I'd ask you to address me with appropriate courtesy in the future; you and I are not yet intimate friends. MarkBernstein (talk) 19:19, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

I'm sure you'll disagree, but I've tried to help you. If you persist in the behavior I've outlined, you will be blocked and banned from GamerGate related articles. Dreadstar ☥ 20:23, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

As I said, Wikipedia is here offered an unambiguous choice between an expert contributor who upholds the right of women to work in computer science and software development if they want to, and a barbarian horde of internet trolls, openly colluding for months to use Wikipedia as part of a public relations campaign to threaten, shame, and punish female software developers. It’s not complicated. MarkBernstein (talk) 20:27, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

Oh, and while we're on the subject of disparagement: [24] MarkBernstein (talk) 20:40, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

BLP Discretionary Sanctions notice

Please carefully read this information:

The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding living or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles, a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is here.

Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. This message is to notify you sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.

This message is informational only and does not imply misconduct regarding your contributions to date.

Dreadstar ☥ 02:02, 25 February 2015 (UTC)Template:Z33

Comment on NBSB's talk page

In response to your comment: I didn't mean to suggest his prohibition applied to the entire article; his edit concerned a specific topic that falls within the scope of gender-related disputes. If you'd like to list hypothetical edits to the listed articles, I'd gladly offer my opinion but: (a) I didn't want to clutter NBSB's talk page more than necessary (b) my opinion is only that — I agree with NBSB, a Request for Clarification would prove more fruitful. —EncyclopediaBob (talk) 21:14, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

		The Socratic Barnstar
		Once again, for doing what's hard, when very few others are willing to do what needs to be done, in a cruel and thankless world. Thank you. USchick (talk) 18:29, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

RE: Your recent revert on Arthur Chu

Please see my comment on Talk:Arthur_Chu. Thanks. —EncyclopediaBob (talk) 19:50, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

Our agreement

Just FYI, I also intended oblique references like It is fascinating that the particular group of editors who recently were so eager... to be covered by our agreement. While I think your contributions to the topic area are generally constructive, please do try to remember the mantra "comment on content, not on contributors". I know from our interactions that you're more than sufficiently articulate to make your point without resorting to sarcasm. A less sympathetic admin might not. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 20:56, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

I happen to be less sympathetic for continued disruption by this editor. When the 90 day topic ban I've imposed below expires, another comment that isn't about content will be met with an indefinite topic ban. Dreadstar ☥ 21:10, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

Topic ban 2

Due to your continued comments about other editors [25], I'm imposing upon you a 90-day ban on all edits about, and all pages related to, (a) GamerGate, (b) any gender-related dispute or controversy, (c) people associated with (a) or (b), all broadly construed per Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/GamerGate. Dreadstar ☥ 21:05, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

Excuse me. Did I comment on other editors? MarkBernstein (talk) 21:18, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

Wouldn't at all mind seeing Dreadstar explain how exactly that applies to the diff linked either. PeterTheFourth (talk) 21:45, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

Sure, check out the link I provided above, it contains this comment about other editors It is fascinating that the particular group of editors who recently were so eager... Dreadstar ☥ 21:47, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

I'll admit to not understanding exactly how this is a comment on other editors, although it certainly mentions them. Without full knowledge of the discussion between HJ Mitchell and Mark Bernstein, however, I am somewhat fuzzy on the exact spirit of the sanction. Given your larger understanding of the specifics of what these two other people agreed to, I'll bow to your judgement. PeterTheFourth (talk) 22:01, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

I'm really puzzled that you think a comment can 'mention' other editors, yet not be a comment on them. And this has nothing to do with HJ Mitchell's prohibition, I've warned MB several times to not comment on other editors on article talk pages - yet he continues to do this over and over. It stops. Dreadstar ☥ 22:07, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

If it's not pursuant to HJ Mitchell's agreement, I'm very interested to hear which policies support a blanket ban on mentioning other editors (and how it's to be selectively enforced on only one person.) Perhaps you misspoke? To mention something is not to comment on it. A comment is defined on google (regrettably, not a published source) as "a verbal or written remark expressing an opinion or reaction." Emphasis is mine. PeterTheFourth (talk) 22:17, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

Per WP:TPNO, WP:CIV, WP:NPA and WP:DR; rules which are especially tightened under Discretionary sanctions. Since I've enforced this against several other editors, I'm not sure how it's selective on my part. Dreadstar ☥ 22:25, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

Other editors? Really? Did someone from that round of discusssion get topic banned? ForbiddenRocky (talk) 22:57, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

@User:Dreadstar, just a reminder that the person you are engaging with has a very different standard as to what is considered incivility towards other editors with different backgrounds phttp://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Gamergate_controversy&diff=650066626&oldid=650065764], so I think it is probably a waste of time trying to reach agreement with them. 96.245.254.115 (talk) 18:27, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

Just a note of support Mark. I'm watching this train-wreck unfold and wondering if there's going to be a Wikipedia in a year's time. Banned for mentioning that there are editors doing certain things, without naming those editors? I'm 99% sure nobody proposing these rules ever expected them to be interpreted that way.

There's a microscope on you within Wikipedia, by an unholy combination of gamergaters, and a Wikipedian establishment that apparently has a very thin skin. Outside though, I think the microscope is on the Wikipedia establishment, and they still don't appear to understand that sanctioning editors for "being uncivil" while protecting Wikipedia from libelous vandals - after those vandals ran a sustained off-wiki campaign to provoke an uncivil response - might just be seen as very, very, very, bad.

Not about to become a regular editor again, and I'll be honest, I cannot fathom why anyone of good faith wants to stay associated with articles under attack. My hat off to the few people left protecting the Gamergate controversy article, but I can't imagine it staying protected for much longer.

--Squiggleslash (talk) 22:04, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

Just how are we supposed to deal with building consensus when some editors do switch to arguments contradicting previous arguments they made depending on how the feel about the sources? ForbiddenRocky (talk) 23:00, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

Brief comment coming after 6:32 EDT. MarkBernstein (talk) 22:08, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

Best make sure to include the fact that you cannot seem to abide by Wikipedia Policy, even after many warnings. Dreadstar ☥ 22:10, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

Best make sure to include the fact that you and ArbCom's first priority appears to be covering up Wikipedia's culpability in this debacle and sweeping it under the rug. My apologies for mentioning some inconvenient truths. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 22:15, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

---

In a discussion about what articles should be listed on the talk page’s list of media reports on Wikipedia's Gamergate page, I wrote:

“It is fascinating that the particular group of editors who recently were so eager to cite Gamergate wikis, weblogs, and Breitbart are reluctant to inform newcomers to this article of this important new essay. Why would that be? There is no question that Lauren Williams’ study is the best examination of the Wikipedia scandal to appear to date. It is also very widely read.”

In my reading, this was not a comment on any editor, but rather a comment on Wikipedia, on its shameful collective behavior which has continued for months, and on the active conspiracy whose operation and effect was most recently chronicled in the article under discussion, Lauren C. Williams masterful account of how The ‘Five Horsemen’ Of Wikipedia Paid The Price For Getting Between Trolls And Their Victims.

The specific question being discussed on the talk page was whether this article should be excluded from talk page mention. It is remarkable that so many proponents of excluding this article from mention were, just days ago, strong advocates of including material from the Gamergate Wiki and from Breitbart.com. Because the phenomenon is remarkable, I remarked on it; not to remark on it would be as false as not to remark on the article itself, an article in which a superb and dauntless editor reminds Wikipedia that "We’re not here to be a weapon of slander, libel and character assassination."

The facts speak for themselves, as does Wikipedia’s complicity.

NorthBySouthBaranof writes: “A project which punishes editors for defending the good names and reputations of living people from vicious internet trolls does not deserve to survive.” – . MarkBernstein (talk) 22:53, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

---

So it is, and posted on an article talk page....so it's WP:NOTFORUM, so lose-lose, unless you can change Wikipedia Policy. And be clear, MB talked about other editors on article talk pages; as he was warned not to do over and over and ever again. Dreadstar ☥ 23:07, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

I've no idea what Dreadstar means to say immediately above (other than he imagines himself to be right), but that doesn't matter. I requested email clarification and was refused that courtesy, so we'll do this in public. @Dreadstar: Is it your intent that this topic ban include pages relating to Campus Rape, which might conceivably be construed to be a controversy and arguably is related to gender? One might say that opposition to rape is uncontroversial, but doubtless campus rape has supporters, too, or controversy of some sort. (Then again, one might assume that commenting on other editors involved commenting on actual editors!) I ask only to advise an organization seeking my advice on promoting wider participation by women in the areas of its expertise in the wake of recent press coverage of Wikipedia. MarkBernstein (talk) 23:38, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

I'm sorry, are you saying that I condone rape? You'd best back that one up or retract it immediately. I have never and NEVER condoned such a thing and you'd best retract it. Dreadstar ☥ 00:06, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

No, @@Dreadstar:, I am not saying that you condone rape. I asked whether or not the topic ban should include pages relating to Campus Rape, a topic which might conceivably be construed to be a controversy, and that might also conceivably be construed to be gender-related. I further observed that the question cannot be easily dismissed -- at least not by someone who is not a great authority on Wikipedia like yourself, because it's quite hard to know precisely what is (or might become?) a controversy in your eyes, or what might be gender related? I think the answers to both questions is clear, but as I also think I made no comment about any editor, you asked for clarification. You replied by calling me a "motherfucker" in email, incidentally, a charming sentiment.

Go take a deep breath, laddie. Make yourself a pleasant beverage. You're seeing threats where there are none, you're demanding satisfaction where there is no satisfaction to be had, and you're making a mistake worse. I'm off to make some duck confit with caramelized mirepoix, crepes, and hoisin sauce and a nice right-bank Bordeaux. MarkBernstein (talk)

Topic ban 2 section break

• I think a topic ban is a little over the top, but within the bounds of reason and certainly editors have been sanctioned for less (usually because they've contributed less) and a break won't do you any harm, Mark. Perhaps give it a few weeks and then ask Dreadstar if he's willing to reconsider. As to "libellous vandals" and other remarks, I haven't seen any of that for a few weeks, and what I have seen is being stamped on very quickly (including by me) and met with blocks, page protections, revision deletions (even oversight in a few cases) and other measures. If I'm looking in the wrong place, somebody please point me to the right place and I'll go and eradicate that sort of abuse there too. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 23:15, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

• • Guess you'll have to find your own now, Harry, or live with those consequences. You might start with the claim today that ThinkProgess does no fact checking despite its explicit About page claim to do so -- the claim to which my argument responded by quoting chapter and verse -- and trying to draw your attention. MarkBernstein (talk) 23:38, 8 March 2015 (UTC)
    • One more threat from you, either here or via email and I'll indefinitely ban you from Wikipedia. Dreadstar ☥ 23:57, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

Threat? I can't imagine what threat you're imagining, or suppose yourself to be responding to. Or perhaps there is no threat at all, and that indefinite ban is the point?

Harry Mitchell says, “We've got the libel tamped down”; I pointed out to him an apparent libel he'd overlooked a few hours ago -- as you overlooked it, too. Hard to imagine, I know, escaping your vigilant eye! As Lauren Williams observes, though, these little slanders and libels don't really seem to bother you all very much: "I (and Wikipedia) neither support nor oppose Zoe Quinn."

Of course, there's the threat of even more ridicule being heaped on Wikipedia, but that’s not my fault -- or not mine alone, even if you agree with a certain other editor who wrote not long ago that “it still must be said that his inflammatory and erroneous description of the situation is what caused all this nonsense in the first place.” I don't happen to agree with that completely (inflammatory? sure. erroneous? nope. all my doing? you flatter me, sir.). Perhaps you do? Be my guest.

Still waiting for advice requested above and by email. MarkBernstein (talk) 00:19, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

• • • @MarkBernstein: What you seemingly fail to realise, is that a reliable source is characterised by a "reputation for fact-finding and accuracy". That's a very different animal from a website claiming it's accurate and checks facts itself. Here's a claim on a website. Is that sufficient for you to add me to the article on the Royal Shakespeare Company and to call it libel when somebody objects? --RexxS (talk) 02:27, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

Take it to WP:ARCA, my ban stands, you don't edit anything regarding living people. You're lucky I haven't increased it. And yes, I call you an unpleasant name whenever you accuse me of condoning rape, what would you expect, candy? Dreadstar ☥ 00:39, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

Do you even realize how depressingly ironic it is that you keep saying "you're lucky im not punishing you more" while demanding he stop 'threatening' you? Parabolist (talk) 00:48, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

It's nor ironic at all, I ask an editor to stop violating policy over and over, yet after this, I receive false accusations that I condone rape and other false defenses against the obvious misbehavior of the concerned editor. And yes, at this point, I would feel quite justified in an indefinite block of this user for their their continued threats and accusations on this talk page and via email harassment. So no irony involved - only that less public editors have been banned while this one continues to violate policy. There's your irony. 00:53, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

Further discussion here between Dreadstar and MarkBernstein is obviously not going to be helpful. The dispute-resolution step of discussing with the sanctioning administrator has been exhausted, and it's up to MarkBernstein whether to appeal or not. Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:14, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

I would say the recent behaviour by Dreadstar invalidates the admin action he's taken. He has been far more personal and threatening than Mark, by the enth degree. I now impose an interaction ban between the two and lift the topic ban. Making threats to numerous editors and reading into comments things that are not there is enough to invalidate the topic ban. Dave Dial (talk) 01:26, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

And you'll need to take that to WP:ARCA, you can't unilaterally undo an AE ban; nor can you unilaterally impose an 'interaction ban:. Dreadstar ☥ 01:29, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

• • Regardless, I'm done with MB and with GG, I leave this burden to the community. Dreadstar ☥ 01:38, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

You don't want this going to any board, you've made it personal and have engaged editors with threats and false accusations. Mark can be a pain sometimes, but so can many editors on here. Of course I can't dictate punishments by fiat, or any other means. I'm not even an admin. I was trying to get you to see the manner in which you are coming across. You're probably a good person and admin, but from my observations in this short month so far, you have started to take issues in a very personal manner. You need to rescind and step back. Thanks. Dave Dial (talk) 01:40, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

Mark, your options for appealing an AE topic ban are given at WP:AC/DS#Appeals. Admins who have attempted to enforce any of the Gamergate sanctions are used to the feeling that no good deed goes unpunished. EdJohnston (talk) 01:46, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

Hi, @EdJohnston:. I'm not sure what (or who) you're responding to here, though I agree that your general observation is likely true. I am accused, it seems, of commenting on an editor -- though I seem not to have actually done so. I am accused, in email to arbcom which I have not seen, of making a threat of some sort; I cannot see that I have threatened anyone with more than the justified condemnation of public opinion, and that threat was (a) extremely indirect and (b) is bound to be implicit in anything I say at about Wikipedia, and so it's not a threat at all. I am accused of saying that Dreadstar support rape; this is a wild fantasy. I am accused of being a motherfucker. I'm not sure what good deed is going unpunished -- perhaps the defense of ThinkProgress, that vile bastion of the radical moderate center -- but perhaps you'll explain it all to me someday. MarkBernstein (talk) 02:40, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

All of this is WEAPONS GRADE BULLSHIT. Dreadstar, I cannot understand how you imputed any threat from Mark Bernstein's statements nor do I see in any way shape or form an accusation that you condone rape. This statement is clearly, clearly a statement about what articles are or aren't controversial so he can determine where to edit. It's Mark Bernstein, so instead of doing the right thing and simply saying "I plan to work on thing X, I assume that won't be a problem." he turned it up to 11 and left out any tact. But COME ON. And if you were so shocked by the apparent personal attack on yourself that you failed to see or care to see the context the policy on involved admins might have clarified it. That's why it exists, to avoid things like this. This block is completely unacceptable. Following it up with threats like this (among others) is completely unacceptable.This block sanction should be appealed immediately to allow uninvolved administrators to review it. I should hope it is lifted. Protonk (talk) 02:03, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

There was no block here, and certainly no sanction based on my reading of MB's comment that I believed to be accusing me of condoning rape. Since MB has stated that he in no way intended it in this manner, then I'm happy to retract my accusation that they did. Nonetheless, prior to this current drama, MB did indeed continue to comment on other editors on the article talk page, and not on content, thus violating not only NPA but multiple warnings by several administrators; and he was therefore sanctioned; so I stand by my 90 day topic ban and apologize for any part I may have held in the subsequent thread with MB regarding his question regarding rape. Dreadstar ☥ 02:59, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

Any interested party is welcome to open discussion of this matter on any applicable Wikipedia forum. If convenient, I’d appreciate notification but don't insist on it. MarkBernstein (talk) 02:40, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

Oh, and will someone advise me whether the topic ban does or does not apply to Campus Rape and related topics? Again: Campus Rape would fall under the topic ban if it's a gender-related controversy. Is it a controversy? I think not, but obviously only Dreadstar's opinion (or whatever administrator steps up to the plate next) counts. And is Campus Rape gender-related? I think not -- but who knows? Or is that the point? MarkBernstein (talk) 02:47, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

FWIW, I think only you can start a forum discussion about your sanction. ForbiddenRocky (talk) 03:20, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

To everybody here: I haven't sorted through all this drama yet but I think those of you piling on User:Dreadstar would do well to remember that he has nothing to do with the actions of GamerGate or the decisions of the Arbitration Committee, and if you are angry about those things you should find somewhere else to vent your frustrations. He has done more work than most of you realize to attempt to keep order and sanity on GG-related articles. If you disagree with the call he has made here, then the appropriate noticeboard is open to you. Gamaliel (talk) 02:58, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

Hi, Gamaliel! I agree that ArbCom is not Dreadstar's fault, though of course this little debacle is. MarkBernstein (talk) 03:02, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

No, MarkBernstein, it's your debacle. You seem unable to not talk about other editors. That is clear. It comes up again and again and it's the same issue. Harry chose to warn again while Dreadstar chose a topic ban. There is, however, no disagreement that your comments violated policy. A topic ban is probably the best course if you do not comprehend the violation that is plain for others to see as it will keep you from repeating the error. Your participation on articles regarding campus rape is up to you to decide whether your edits veer into the topic ban. There are no mind readers and it would likely depend on the edit you make. --DHeyward (talk) 04:43, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

You realise, of course, that people are aware of your constant hounding of MarkBernstein, DHeyward? Your involvement here is not a secret, and you are not doing yourself any favours by continuing this. PeterTheFourth (talk) 06:25, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

Section Break 3

Just to clarify the "libelous vandals" comment Harry responded to: that phrase was referring to the underlying dispute, the attacks on the Gamergate article by said vandals last year with the subsequent sanctioning of the so-called Five Horsemen by Arbcom for being supposedly uncivil trying to protect the page from them, not anything that might be occuring now. That is what the Thinkprogress story was about, and that is what Wikipedia's admins are under a microscope about when they sanction outspoken critics of the sanctioning such as Mark Bernstein.

I must admit to increasingly having difficulty making sense of the current dispute, as Mark's now been accused of three different things by the same admin, none of which apparently have any real basis beyond a possible twisting of rules designed to avoid personal attacks to include criticisms of self-identified groups of editors. I'm glad Dreadstar has chosen to walk away from the Gamergate articles, as I understand it from his talk page comment, but if I were put in the same situation, I'd have reversed the ban too for much the same reason. If the ban were fully justified, other admins would re-impose it anyway.

Wikipedia is not going to learn from its mistakes if it continues to comb through the words of every good faith critic, looking for anything that could, if squinted at, be interpreted as a breach of an, again, squinted at, rule, providing some excuse to silence and eject them. Bernstein is not your enemy. Hubris might very well be, however. --Squiggleslash (talk) 14:13, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

Havoc

AN/I: Dreadstar

Arbitration: Gamergate and Campus Rape

Arbitration Enforcement: Thargor Orlando

Arbitration Enforcement: DHeyward

---