User talk:MarkBernstein/Archive3

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)

Blocked

I have blocked you for one week under the general sanctions provision for violating your topic ban with these edits: [1] [2]. — 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)

Breach of Topic Ban

This is a notification to make you aware that I made a request for enforcement against you here [3]. 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)

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. [4] --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)

Blocked

You've been warned multiple times not to comment on others, yet you persist. [5]. I've blocked you for 24 hours. Dreadstar ☥ 03:36, 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)

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 [6], 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)

What This Is About

Yesterday, Shanley Kane wrote a series of Twitter posts which explain what's going on here at Wikipedia and why it matters. For ease of reading, I've reformatted into conventional paragraphs and lightly edited.

excellent and moving quote moved to another site

Who do you believe is doing this? Rhoark (talk) 03:33, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

Please do not attempt to bait topic banned users into talking about topics from which they are banned, Rhoark. Further harassment will be reported, especially given that you yourself have been banned from the Gamergate controversy page. PeterTheFourth (talk) 07:17, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

If this is about something in the scope of the topic ban, the cows have left the barn, and its too late to close the door. On the other hand, its not at all obvious that this is the case. Internet harassment is a major problem that affects a lot of people in a lot of contexts, not necessarily within the scope of MarkBernstein's topic ban. If there's some way we can take action on the matter through Wikipedia we should do so, but this tweet-essay lacks actionable specifics. Rhoark (talk) 12:34, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

I have no idea. At the time I posted it, I assumed that I was no longer topic-banned. I expect to see my Congresswoman, Katherine Clark (D-MA), tomorrow; she's taken some recent action with regard to finding out who using the internet to harass women. If In have the opportunity, I'll pass along your question. MarkBernstein (talk) 15:05, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

We can all hope for progress. Rhoark (talk) 18:34, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

Where by "progress" we mean the conviction of the perpetrators. All the best, MarkBernstein (talk) 19:07, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

Topic ban

As per the discussion here, you are indefinitely topic banned from all edits and discussion regarding User:DHeyward and User: Thargor Orlando. You are also restricted from opening and participating in noticeboard discussions or enforcement requests related to these users without the permission of an uninvolved administrator. Gamaliel (talk) 21:32, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

@Gamaliel: Silly question. How would the users involved get permission from an uninvolved admin without violating the tban? Or is the expectation that they should get permission via email first? Having written that perhaps email would be the avenue most in-line with the intent of the restriction. — Strongjam (talk) 17:06, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

They are all veteran editors, I'm sure all three of the users know an administrator they can contact via email. None of them had a problem airing their grievances in the past. If no one else is available, poor, overworked User:HJ Mitchell will probably get contacted. Gamaliel (talk) 17:08, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

I must have done something awful in a past life! ;) HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 17:33, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

Victim of your own success. If ever we meet I'll buy you some whiskey. — Strongjam (talk) 17:35, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

Amen to that. From the top shelf, too. GoldenRing (talk) 03:47, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

Hello!

I thought you would appreciate this rather good, humorous overview of some of the past events on Wikipedia. PeterTheFourth (talk) 19:48, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

Sea Lions of Wikipedia unite! You have nothing to lose but your b.... Nope, let's not go there. No comment: Over the precipice. MarkBernstein (talk) 20:17, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

ERMAGHERD STARZ

		The Barnstar of Integrity
		In a room where people unanimously maintain a conspiracy of silence, one word of truth sounds like a pistol shot - Czeslaw Milosz

Stars are nice. Doing something to fix this nonsense would be even better. MarkBernstein (talk) 14:16, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

Blocked for one month

To enforce an arbitration decision you have been blocked from editing for a period of one month. You are welcome to edit once the block expires; however, please note that the repetition of similar behavior may result in a longer block or other sanctions.

If you believe this block is unjustified, please read the guide to appealing blocks (specifically this section) before appealing. Place the following on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Please copy my appeal to the [[WP:AE|arbitration enforcement noticeboard]] or [[WP:AN|administrators' noticeboard]]. Your reason here OR place the reason below this template. ~~~~}}. If you intend to appeal on the arbitration enforcement noticeboard I suggest you use the arbitration enforcement appeals template on your talk page so it can be copied over easily. You may also appeal directly to me (by email), before or instead of appealing on your talk page. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 21:07, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

---

Reminder to administrators: In May 2014, ArbCom adopted a procedure instructing administrators as follows: "No administrator may modify a sanction placed by another administrator without: (1) the explicit prior affirmative consent of the enforcing administrator; or (2) prior affirmative agreement for the modification at (a) AE or (b) AN or (c) ARCA (see "Important notes" [in the procedure]). Administrators modifying sanctions out of process may at the discretion of the committee be desysopped."

This block is a discretionary sanction, as authorised by the gamergate case. The proximate cause is your use of the phrase "armies of Mordor" to refer to your opponents, who include Wikipedia editors in good standing. More broadly, the block is a response to your repeated refusal to focus your energies on the encyclopaedia, despite having been asked nicely, warned, topic-banned, and blocked, by multiple administrators, to the extent of using that phrase during an enforcement request about your conduct towards other editors. You have been given far more latitude than most editors in this topic area, but it seems that you are incapable of separating editors who disagree with you in good faith from trolls and misogynists. Nobody could deny that the latter exist, but it is possible to hold a divergent opinion from your own in good faith and without being a troll or a misogynist. This block brings me no pleasure whatsoever, and I am genuinely sorry that it has come to this—I believe you are an asset to the encyclopaedia on other topics—but I believe both the block itself and the duration are absolutely necessary to restore order to the topic area and, as you have not only refused to abide by your topic ban but have continued precisely the conduct that it was intended to prevent, I can't see another alternative. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 21:07, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

You write, "I believe you are an asset to the encyclopaedia." This was formerly true.

You persist in believing that the people who regularly libel software developers who have done no wrong are not misogynists. I wish you the joy of the company you prefer. Everyone knows how to reach me if I’m wanted. A “project” or, really, a “boy’s club” which punishes editors for defending the good names and reputations of living people from vicious internet trolls does not deserve to survive, and is unlikely to. MarkBernstein (talk) 22:22, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

The problem is precisely that you are not defending the good names and reputations of living people from vicious internet trolls; you are repeatedly and gratuitously attacking editors in good standing and anybody who doesn't absolutely agree with you—now including me, it seems. I've lost count of the number of times you've been asked to stop, and yet you refer to your opponents as "the armies of Mordor" during an enforcement request about precisely that sort of comment. What misogyny and trolling there is is being controlled; it is simply disingenuous to suggest that it's rife, and certainly what goes on here pales in comparison to most of the rest of the Internet (and we put significant effort into dealing with it). This is not about trolling, this is about your inability to engage in good-faith discussion without attacking your opponents. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 23:03, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

I know of two, possibly three, posted statements that were both libelous and disgusting within the past week. I don't doubt there were more. That’s a fairly mild week, as you well know. The previous week, one of those lasted for many hours. The term “Armies Of Mordor” was coined by Prof. David Millard, as you know, and is self-evidently satirical. As for the control of misogyny, how’re you doing with this week’s plan to purge the page of the term -- launched by a zombie account (again), 6500 words long (again), raised anew every two weeks by your “good faith” goons who always just happen to have a fresh zombie to kick things off, and with which you haven't dirtied your hands (again).

These are not good-faith discussions; they are a sham. As, unfortunately, is Wikipedia.

No need to reply here. Wikipedians seem to think that everyone reads these back-alley pages, but they don’t; it’s a fantasy treasured by little boys of various sizes in their basements the world over. You may think the "rest of the internet" is worse, but this pile of garbage is your patch, HJ, and where you should be cleaning it, you're making things a good deal worse while failing to protect the victims against whom your allies are wielding this project. MarkBernstein (talk) 23:28, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

Asking questions is not disruptive. It takes more than one editor to get a discussion going round in circles, and if others disengaged and ignored there wouldn't be a problem (Assuming there is one to start with). More to the point, that's not even close to misogynistic trolling. There were some very unpleasant edits to Brianna Wu's article the other day, and they were reverted within minutes, oversighted shortly after, and I fully protected the article as soon as I got to my computer. When something nasty happens, it gets dealt with. The rest is not going to be won by calling your opponents names. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 00:44, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

Want to add a concurrence to everything Mark has said. Seriously Harry, if you guys aren't simply here to create drama, you and the others need to do some serious introspection. Everything Mark writes above is accurate. People do not always "ask questions" in good faith - and long, essay like, questions that come up month after month after month from supposedly "new" accounts all in the same long winded style are not in good faith; expecting others to ignore them and simply leave them up unanswered for new, unfamiliar, users to find and take seriously, shows a serious disconnect between the combination of humanity and practicality ordinary people need to live their lives, and the supposed principles Wikipedia's establishment apparently works by.

This ban was for a minor gray area violation of a topic ban that was never justified to begin with. The only reason Arbcom is taking it seriously is because Mark is the current GG target, and because Mark pointed out in public that Arbcom's actions concerning the Gamergate controversy page were morally and practically reprehensible.

But here you are, not only trying to justify this rotten decision, but actually piling on its victim. Have you no shame? --Squiggleslash (talk) 13:59, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

Topic ban

I release you from the topic ban I imposed; and as such I ask the blocking admin, HJ Mitchell to undo the block for violating the restrictions I imposed. Dreadstar ☥ 23:07, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

I don't think the ping works unless you get it right the first time. @HJ Mitchell: --Bbb23 (talk) 23:16, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

Regardless, my t-ban is undone. Dreadstar ☥ 23:22, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

@Dreadstar: Not sure if we're talking about the same thing. I'm talking about pure technical stuff involving pings, nothing else. See WP:NOTIFS ("Note that the post containing a link to a user page must be signed; if the edit does not add a new signature to the page, no notification will be sent."). In other words, when you first posted the message and got the ping wrong and signed your post. When you corrected the ping, you didn't re-sign. That means the ping won't work. Over and out.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:28, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for fixing the ping. Dreadstar ☥ 00:58, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

Since the blocking admin has shown fit not to respond, I've unblocked this user. Dreadstar ☥ 16:36, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

Academics and Wiki's Corridors

I am his majesty's dog at Kew./Pray tell me, sir, whose sock are you?MarkBernstein (talk) 02:58, 5 June 2015 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Every person I know who works in academics warns students away from Wikipedia. That alone will be a problem at the end of the next education generation. The slow evaporation of exhausted editors fighting against kook, fringe, and hate-mongering editors only hastens things perhaps. ForbiddenRocky (talk) 17:44, 28 May 2015 (UTC) I'm not sure exactly which outrage prompts this observation, but of course it's quite true. Still, wikis were not such a bad idea and this wiki, having the example of Ward's wiki to learn from, should have done better. It still should. And someone should witness and record its apparent surrender to the forces of right-wing extremism. MarkBernstein (talk) 21:21, 28 May 2015 (UTC) Pro-tip: It's pretty much this very Mark, who writes articles outside of Wikipedia based on his well known political biases, then being quoted by media outlets and then causing citogenesis which confirm that Wikipeda is not a valid source and makes referencing Wikipedia in an adult line of work professional suicide. 77.97.24.152 (talk) 00:47, 5 June 2015 (UTC) I am his majesty's dog at Kew./Pray tell me, sir, whose sock are you?MarkBernstein (talk) 02:58, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

About that hat...

The core question before you and me is this: is it sufficient to reduce the use of Wikipedia to punish women for pursuing careers in software and to drive them out of the industry?
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Mark, about the hat note you wrote here, could I ask you to take a bit of the "sting" out of it? I saw that hatnote earlier today and didn't get around to addressing it, but I was reminded about it on my User Talk. There were two issues--one is that you made a reference, albeit obliquely, to an editor in a place where that editor couldn't really respond to you directly; two is that the comment was made in a hatnote, which is intended to end a discussion, but the note itself was a bit provocative, making for a situation where you're getting in a pretty sharp last word but leaving no opportunity for responses. Overall this came across to me as, well, unfair. I'm not going to quote WP:BLUELETTERS at you, but the cornerstone of civility is respect, and making a somewhat sharp comment in an unreachable venue isn't showing respect. Incidentally, typically a hatnote shouldn't even be used by an involved editor unless everyone obviously agrees the discussion is over. Just as a discussion strategy, hatting can easily backfire. Reaching for the hat is a form of playing chicken, and if someone calls your bluff by undoing the hat, if you're not in a position to do anything about it (and as an involved editor you can't) you'll actually end up in a weaker position. Anyway, I've been curious whether the 500/30 restriction would be accepted by the overall community and it looks like it will be. I know you've actually said you feel it doesn't go far enough, but it should provide quite a bit of relief. I've been trying to change the dynamics of the Talk page so that editors can actually go back to using it to, you know, have productive discussions about the article that can actually stop when there's nothing further to add that's useful. Can you think about changing your approach by casting off some of the old baggage there, and starting to treat the article like it's any other? I think you have a wonderful writing style, it'd be great if you felt like you were freed up enough from beating dead horses there to actually make significant content contributions, either there or outside the GG topic area. Thanks... Zad68 05:08, 5 June 2015 (UTC) @Zad68:: Thanks for your thoughtful note. As you are doubtless aware, this question I hatted is systematically raised by new, zombie, sock, or brigaded accounts at astonishingly regular intervals. It has been settled many times. At one point, I made a fairly complete list for either AE or ARCA; the typical interval is two weeks, over a span of eight months. These are not naive or good-faith new editors who have neglected to read the archives; they're recruited by Gamergate specifically to raise this question, or to discuss the sex life of one of their targets, or to speculate that one of their targets has defrauded the police. The core question before you and me is this: is it sufficient to reduce the use of Wikipedia to punish women for pursuing careers in software and to drive them out of the industry? I maintain this is not sufficient: either Wikipedia must find a way to end its use as a weapon against Gamergate’s victims, or the educated world must eliminate Wikipedia's power to harm. In recent months, I believe we have made some progress on both fronts. (I assume you've seen Infamous and its sequels?) I'm not beating dead horses; I'm doing what little I can to defend the project -- and the concept of Wikis -- from forces that would first pervert and then destroy it. Most of my colleagues, and nearly everyone in the press who has followed the story, thinks me a Quixotic fool for attempting to help with this. They've already written off Wikipedia as a dead horse itself. To be blunt: it would not be necessary for editors like me to hat these discussions, if administrators like you were willing to do your work. It would not be necessary for editors like me to take a firm line, if administrators like you did. In this respect, your contribution in recent weeks has been very encouraging indeed. Still, I have not seen any definitive sign of real progress and, for that matter, I've not seen an unambiguous indication that you would be unwilling to settle for, say, half the abuse that Gamergate demands as a compromise. I should like nothing better than to end this, and I have urged you (and literally begged other administrators and Arbcom, in prose and verse) to end it. And yet, every day or two, there's a new libel on one of these talk pages, new insinuation that Gamergate’s victims are faking, or not really software developers, or stuff so vile I can't describe it here. Lately, these are buried in great walls of meaningless text -- text that's systematically and deliberately thrown up to bore you and to confuse you in the hope that the good bits will be overlooked. They won't be overlooked by Wikipedia's victims. I'd be happy to treat Gamergate and its ilk like any of the other computer science articles I watch, if only they were like the other computer science articles I watch. We can't treat the question of whether Wikipedia will excuse threatening to rape and kill women because they dare pursue careers in software as a minor dispute that merits calm, civil, and extensive discussion. We can't treat Wikipedians’ McCarthyist insinuations about the victims’ sex lives as if they're minor technical or historical disagreements. If you can find a way to end the ceaseless abuse perpetrated by armies of zombies and farms of puppets and promoted by a small cast of experienced Wikipedians, I'd be glad to help. Let me know how! MarkBernstein (talk) 15:42, 5 June 2015 (UTC) I have, reluctantly, complied with your request regarding the hatnote, relying on your assurance that further brigading, puppetry, and stonewalling will not be countenanced. MarkBernstein (talk) 17:26, 5 June 2015 (UTC) Thank you, Mark. Zad68 17:52, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

Re: your comments at ANI

“What evidence do we have that a crime was committed?” asks the sea-lion. I am his majesty's dog at Kew/Pray tell me, sir, whose sock are you? MarkBernstein (talk) 10:19, 10 June 2015 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
What evidence do we have that a crime was committed beyond the words of the accuser? Is that not the same evidence we have that so-and-so slept around to further her career? In both cases the evidence points to the accused's innocence yet you advocate publicizing the former while vigorously condemning any mention of the latter - why is that? What distinguishes these two cases? 104.254.90.2 (talk) 03:21, 10 June 2015 (UTC) I am his majesty's dog at Kew/Pray tell me, sir, whose sock are you? MarkBernstein (talk) 10:19, 10 June 2015 (UTC) In the one case, a specific individual has alleged that a specific individual committed a crime, and that crime is the subject of a notable art work. As I wrote at AN/I, this raises a thicket of perplexing questions; I did not claim to know the answer there and I do not claim to know it now. In the other case, an individual spread malicious gossip about his former girlfriend; no crime was alleged, no notable artwork was created. This has been another episode of "simple answers to simple questions." MarkBernstein (talk) 15:42, 10 June 2015 (UTC) I favor simple questions, they help to keep discussion focused. I agree fundamentally with your assessment of the two situations: In the one case, a specific individual has alleged that a specific individual committed a crime ... In the other case, an individual spread malicious gossip about his former girlfriend; no crime was alleged -MarkBernstein WP:BLPCRIME indicates it's less appropriate to repeat the accusation and name the accused when a crime is alleged, but here you suggest the opposite. Do you feel the WP:BLPCRIME policy is misguided? 104.254.90.2 (talk) 21:03, 10 June 2015 (UTC) I am his majesty's dog at Kew/Pray tell me, sir, whose sock are you? MarkBernstein (talk) 21:20, 10 June 2015 (UTC) I hoped to engage in honest dialogue on policy and content. Would that be possible? 104.254.90.2 (talk) 21:27, 10 June 2015 (UTC) Since you're presumably a banned editor's puppet, it's hard to call the discussion "honest". I've written a little bit more at AN/I on the complexity of the mattress issue. The Gamergate issue, pn the other hand, is open and shut, clear and simple. Now, please go away and come back with your real account or not at all. MarkBernstein (talk) 21:56, 10 June 2015 (UTC) That was a roundabout way of answering my question but it is an answer. I'll respect your request and not comment here again. It's a shame we couldn't engage more fruitfully or civilly. 104.254.90.2 (talk) 22:18, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

AN/I Notification

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. 168.1.99.209 (talk) 16:49, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

Required notice

I am filing an AE regarding your repeated accusations and ignoring my warnings. This is the required notification of that. It may take me a few more minutes to actually submit it. Handpolk (talk) 01:11, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

Congratulations, Mark! I always knew you could do it. Parabolist (talk) 01:14, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

<popcorn.gif> --Jorm (talk) 01:20, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

Can you counter file a proposal for Handpolk for ignoring everyone's warnings? Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:25, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

He's probably going to be blocked in the next five hours or so. I don't think there's a point in wasting time on it.--Jorm (talk) 01:29, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

Are you saying that Handpolk's hysterical handwringing hastens his hanging? 208.76.111.246 (talk) 02:27, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

Apparent conflict of interest

Disgusting and inappropriate personal harassment campaign. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 13:17, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

As prescribed by WP:COI I am notifying you that an apparent conflict of interest exists, and may be an actual conflict of interest. It has come to my attention through a blog posting of yours[7] that you were involved in Elizabeth Warren's 2012 senate campaign and solicited official campaign representatives as potential clients for your company's software and services. This may constitute a conflict of interest with respect to your edits to Elizabeth Warren and its talk page. Those edits seem aimed at reducing the article weight given to controversies that arose during the 2012 campaign.[8][9][10][11][12] WP:COI particularly notes, "Reliably sourced, notable material written in a neutral point of view should not be deleted from articles with the intent of protecting the political interests of a party, agency or government." Rhoark (talk) 01:14, 18 June 2015 (UTC) I was a campaign volunteer for Warren and voted for her, as did hundreds of thousands of residents of my state. I voted for Warren at the Malden caucus, and may have donated a small sum in the usual way. I baked several dozen breakfast rolls on Election Day. I may have corresponded briefly with my Senator on matters of state and national importance. No other relationship between the senator's campaign or staff comes to mind, and certainly no business relationship existed or exists. MarkBernstein (talk) 01:21, 18 June 2015 (UTC) Whom you voted for or what you baked are not at issue. By your own account, you pursued campaign officials diligently over the course of several months in an effort to convince them to adopt your software and engage your services in doing public relations on their behalf. By WP:NOPAY, you should avoid editing under circumstances in which "you are receiving, or expect to receive, monetary or other benefits or considerations from editing Wikipedia as a representative of an organization" (emphasis mine). This is not to imply that you have engaged in any wrongdoing up to this point. There is not sufficient publicly-available information to make such a determination. What this is is an opportunity to accept and acknowledge that a reasonable person could conclude these circumstances appear to be a conflict of interest, and provide assurances that speak to concerns that have actually been raised. WP:APPARENTCOI suggest "Editors with an apparent COI should try to allay suspicion through discussion. One approach is to disclose personal information, either on Wikipedia or privately to a trusted editor, though editors should not feel obliged to do this". Attempting to enlist admins to attack the messenger is not a trust-building measure. Rhoark (talk) 05:13, 18 June 2015 (UTC) Let's generously assume your assertions are true, Rhoark, in that in the past Mark Bernstein pursued campaign officials. I don't believe Elizabeth Warren's 2012 senate campaign is still running- thus, it would not be reasonable to follow on from that that by editing Elizabeth Warren's page in the present would Mark Bernstein receive any higher a chance of having his software/services used by Elizabeth Warren in her 2012 senate campaign, because it's not running anymore. Remember to use common sense. PeterTheFourth has made few or no other edits outside this topic. 06:22, 18 June 2015 (UTC) The question is: Can you confirm that your activities in babysitting the GamerGate controversy article have led to no financial payment to you? 77.97.24.152 (talk) 09:01, 18 June 2015 (UTC) The burden of proof lies on the person making the claim. PeterTheFourth has made few or no other edits outside this topic. 09:04, 18 June 2015 (UTC) As the weblog post makes clear, I neither sought nor received any payment from the Warren campaign. I know of no Eastgate customer who was a employed by the campaign or who is employed as a member of the senator's staff. Of course, in the United States anyone is free to purchase consumer software without informing us of their affiliation, political beliefs, and without taking any oath or loyalty test, nor do I personally know everyone who buys a book from Eastgate, or know offhand the names of every member of Senator Warren's staff. The IP editor, presumably a sock of a banned editor, asks a new question: has my work on Gamergate led to any financial benefit? That work has indeed attracted a good deal of attention. My writing on or about Wikipedia has been quoted in books and magazines around the world. Of course, that was true before Gamergate as well, but the Gamergate crisis did attract additional coverage. I have discussed Wikipedia's shortcomings with scholars, journalists, publishers, and political leaders who have had reason to read my work. None of this is a conflict of interest; no Wikipedia policy requires its editors to renounce the world or to forego the exercise of their civil rights and professional duties. I do play fantasy baseball with a right-wing pundit who previously held a high position with the American Enterprise Institute. What else about my private affairs do the anonymous gentlemen from Gamergate demand to know? MarkBernstein (talk) 11:17, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

"I neither sought nor received any payment from the Warren campaign" - That's what we need to know; thanks. Rhoark (talk) 13:50, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

And the proof regarding WP:NPOV Points to itself: https://archive.is/vVV2q , Mark Bernstein is merely an article squatter who is targetting GamerGate 'supporters' to ensure they don't get their 'way', regardless of what the sources say, in fact ESPECIALLY if the sources support the GamerGate position. 77.97.24.152 (talk) 09:30, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

You're mistaken. You're also, presumably, the sock of a banned editor. But you're also mistaken. MarkBernstein (talk) 09:49, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

You would be incorrect. However, I came across this gem today : <redacted> . You would appear to have broke every Wikipedia rule in the book. You're welcome. 77.97.24.152 (talk) 21:53, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

Actually, I haven't. But I do know how to use the past perfect of the verb "to break." Thanks for playing. MarkBernstein (talk) 22:13, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

Request for Comment re Apparent Conflict of Interest

You say that you "would be joining a dispute I intend to cover", but that particular horse has apparently left the barn, jumped the fence, and is in your base garden eating your daffodils. MarkBernstein (talk) 16:57, 19 June 2015 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
@Rhoark: and @MarkBernstein: Hi there. By way of introduction I am a UK blogger and journalist. No socking here - my real and pen name are shown clearly on my user page. I recently wrote a series of articles about an ArbCom case in which a Wikipedia Administrator and CheckUser accused a prominent politician of sock puppeting and editing his own page. However it transpired that the administrator in question had been an unpaid volunteer for and supporter of a rival party. ArbCom removed the administrator's privileges, finding WP:COI. My articles were the source of followups in every major UK publication and cited by Breitbart. The ArbCom ruling sounds correct to me. Politicians usually have paid staff and volunteers. I do not see how a politician could escape CoI just by getting a volunteer to make changes. Even if the volunteer acted independently as in the ArbCom case, would the politician's opponents and rivals feel comfortable with an avowed supporter doing edits? ArbCom were pretty clear. With that in mind, I consider that Rhoark may have been too hasty in accepting the explanation. I (and others) are very concerned about the failure to address WP:WikiBullying and other adverse issues associated with some editors. There are also concerns about the contact of some editors with the Guardian newspaper. I invite Rhoark to reconsider whether there is an issue here that needs to be pursued. I will be producing a video on this topic soon and invite Mark to get in touch via the email address on my blog so I can send him some questions I have. Vordrak (talk) 10:45, 19 June 2015 (UTC) @Vordrak: It's not immediately apparent whether you are striving to cover the news, or to make it. Have you contacted Senator Warren’s office? I am confident they will make every effort to oblige you. I believe you will find that the composition of campaign staffs are a matter of public record in the United States, and campaigns are required to comply with a variety of financial disclosure laws. You also have my own article to which Rhoark to kindly linked, and which seems entirely clear on the question. If I can be of any further assistance, don’t hesitate to ask. MarkBernstein (talk) 15:52, 19 June 2015 (UTC) @MarkBernstein: Actually Rhoark misunderstood the policy. Your receiving payment is unnecessary. To cut and paste from WP:COI, '"Any external relationship – personal, religious, political, academic, financial, and legal – can trigger a COI."' Being a supporter is not necessarily a problem but being a volunteer assisting a campaign is, certainly according to the policy as written. In the ArbCom case I linked to the Administrator had done less than you. Donating and volunteering does in fact trigger COI. The Administrator referred to was desysopped. It is therefore unnecessary for me to contact Senator Warren as your admissions are sufficient. I therefore once again invite comment. I do not allege bad faith as both you and Rhoark mistakenly thought payment to you was required. Vordrak (talk) 16:11, 19 June 2015 (UTC) edit conflict There is no conflict of interest. If you believe otherwise, either you or Rhoark are welcome to file a complaint. MarkBernstein (talk) 16:25, 19 June 2015 (UTC) I believe that this can be charitably described as muckraking yellow journalism. Tarc (talk) 16:21, 19 June 2015 (UTC) Ida Tarbell would spin in her grave if the heard you confuse this with the ancient and honorable vocation of raking muck. MarkBernstein (talk) 16:25, 19 June 2015 (UTC) Actually, you're right, I must have had a senior moment there and confused some terms, as I had it in my head that muckraking was analogous to the tabloid-style journalism. Adjusted accordingly. Tarc (talk) 16:31, 19 June 2015 (UTC) @Vordrak: I believe that YOU may have been the one to misunderstand policy. Even those being actively paid to advocate for a party are allowed to edit. The conflict of interest or potential conflict of interest merely needs to be disclosed as this potential conflict of interest has been. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 16:40, 19 June 2015 (UTC) Thank you gentlemen. I believe I have what I came for. Just to reassure MarkBernstein and Tarc I see no need to file a complaint and trouble ANI at this time. I would be joining a dispute I intend to cover. I intend to do a piece about your activities and as a courtesy draw it to the attention of the relevant Wikipedians and ArbCom members, including Mr Wales. I will most likely be covering your conduct on an ongoing basis. Vordrak (talk) 16:53, 19 June 2015 (UTC) You say that you "would be joining a dispute I intend to cover", but that particular horse has apparently left the barn, jumped the fence, and is in your base garden eating your daffodils. MarkBernstein (talk) 16:57, 19 June 2015 (UTC) Mark, there's an issue of you appearing to use Wikipedia to promote your own work and Eastgate Systems more generally. Would you agree to be very clear when editing any related articles to identify any connections you have to the subject and to avoid mentioning or linking your own work or your employer? Would you also refrain from summoning other editors to make such edits on your behalf? Keep it as clean as possible, more so than what "the rules" strictly require, please. I know COI has a lot of gray area and it can be hard to know where to draw the line. To be safe, stay further back. Jehochman Talk 15:19, 25 June 2015 (UTC) Sure. It should be understood, though, that I work in hypertext research and -- thanks to ArbCom -- lots of my colleagues in the field follow my writing about Wikipedia. Obviously, you can’t expect me to discontinue my research for the convenience of Wikipedia? I do mention Wikipedia in talks and papers and other writing from time to time, You might want to consider, too, that you have (for the moment) access to someone who knows the pertinent literature fairly well, and also knows the research community, and who is sometimes inclined to do small favors for this project (though that inclination wanes rapidly). On the talk page yesterday, I left you and other interested editors a half dozen references, chosen for ready access (many of the best sources are books, others are in the ACM Digital Library, but these are all papers, readily accessible online) and providing lots of excellent references. I've got lots more, if anyone is interested. The Hypertext Fiction page as it stands is not distinguished. For reasons that you enumerate above, I've never done much on this page. In 2013, it seems I argued briefly for salvaging a discussion of Espen Aarseth's Cybertext. Aarseth is a distinguished professor in Denmark, and while I've elsewhere criticized this monograph and while it's not especially sympathetic to my own work, the book is very important. I've done some link maintenance, too. As I recall, the passage you excised yesterday wasn't mine; I believe it may have been added by a Norwegian professor who wrote an important dissertation on the subject. The Hypertext page itself is not good. I keep the biographies of some notable people in the field in my watch list; for some reason, the late Douglas Engelbart seems to attract frequent vandals. I've also tried, as a demonstration of faith, to pitch in on biographies of leading software developers and visionaries -- Kent Beck, Martin Fowler, Dan Bricklin, Dave Winer. Again, I have interactions -- most of them very small and casual -- with lots of people in the field, as do most people with expertise and experience in a province of science and engineering. MarkBernstein (talk) 15:45, 25 June 2015 (UTC) I can possibly help because I have an ACM membership with access to their library. Of course your expertise in the topic is welcome. When I get time, I will look into it further. You have many "friends" on reddit. Obviously, you won't toss them any red meat. Like Anthony below, I don't see the big fuss, and don't want to spend my time figuring it out. Jehochman Talk 05:10, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

Your style

I don't know who's right and who's wrong in the gamergate thing, and won't be getting involved (it's a time thing) but I'd like you to know I really appreciate your prose. For a project all about writing there's very little eloquence and wit here. Thanks. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 06:29, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

Thank you. It's not easy. MarkBernstein (talk) 11:18, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

Very easy to read, though. Thanks for the effort. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 00:24, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

Your help at AE would be very welcome, you know.... 02:14, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

I'm not an admin and I don't have the time right now to be of any use as an interested party. Sorry. This place is overflowing with problems, and we can all only do so much. Wishing you ataraxia. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 03:55, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

Notification

Mark, this is to inform you that I have enacted a one-way interaction ban disallowing editor Vordrak from interacting with or otherwise discussing you, with the exception that they may start standard noticeboard discussions (such as WP:ANI or WP:COIN) regarding you and participate in the discussions they start. The full details of the sanction are at their User Talk page. Zad68 23:40, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

Please stop assuming bad faith

For benefit of not clogging the GG talk/Meta page, nor taking this to any more higher resolution forums on tiny bumps in the road: In this edit: [13]:

• If you were including me in your "Gamergate fans", I've said repeatedly: I am anti-GG. I seek to have the GG article neutral and non-judgmental, which might seem like I have to be pro-GG to do that because it requires rubbing against the tone of the story as given by reliable sources which can be taken to seem as if we need to ignore the reliable sources, but that's absolutely not the case. Others involved in that discussion, at least Torchiest and Rhoark to my knowledge and reviewing their past contributions, also are likely in the same boat, so calling any group of editors "Gamergate fans" is a personal afront.
• I gave the example of Tim Schafer not to replace or include any content from him, but simply as an example of a person that has been harassed and slightly involved in contrast to Quinn, etc. to describe independence.
• I gave the article from the Dartmouth prof on the basis of the tag line of the article saying he was an associate prof of a major university and a "Public Voices Fellow", which seems to give credibility. And it was only being presented for consensus consideration, not that it was required to be included.

It would help considerably if you read comments and don't assume the worst from long-standing editors. I think everyone that is presently involved in that page that is far past the 500/30 restriction is clearly trying to work to keep the article within policy and are not trying to change it into a GG propaganda-type article that cannot be sustained by RSes. Assumption of good faith that we are all trying towards that goal would be appreciated. --MASEM (t) 16:34, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

Unfortunately, I do not believe it possible to read the Gamergate archives and to believe with you that everyone is trying to keep the article within policy. Some editors do appear to be working to make the article as sympathetic to Gamergate as they can -- and to cast aspersions on Gamergate’s chosen victims as often as they are able. Those editors, for example, consistently support new sources that repeat Gamergate talking points, even when their reliability is obviously doubtful, while inventing ingenious new arguments to dispute well-established sources that do not.

I make no assertion about you. In your case, however, assumption of anything is hardly necessary: in the recent months, I believe I've read more than a hundred thousand words -- perhaps more than a quarter of a million words -- of your prose on the subject of Gamergate. I assume that this great expanse of verbiage represents your sentiments; we're well past assumption.

How many times have you, personally, written to Oversight to rev-del sexual gossip about Gamergate victims? How many times have you gone to AE or DS or Arbcom to censure the Gamergate extremists? What proposals have you made to stem the continuing assaults on Quinn’s page, and on Wu’s? How loudly to did you denounce the recent conflict-of-interest foolishness?

And -- most importantly: how can we settle this? I offered suggestions on the talk page and at AE, which you pointedly ignored. What’s your endgame?

Speaking of Assuming Good Faith, to what extent is this post actually an attempt to build the case -- extensively plotted planned on the Gamergate boards -- against me, in the hope that picking off Bark Merstein the Sixth Horseman Of WikiBias in the wake of the TRPoD triumph will deliver to Gamergate their much-hoped-for total victory? No doubt, that is the farthest thing from your mind! But how might one know? How could you possibly demonstrate your good faith and your support? MarkBernstein (talk) 17:00, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

Per your comments at the AN, I feel you fairly deserve a reply to this. Per WP:AGF, there should be no need for me to have to demonstrate my good faith - actions done in bad faith are what becomes actionable but we're support to assume good faith of all editors at all times. And you should be able to judge that while there are very specific points on the GG page that I will debate about, there are other factors about GG that I will fully support the current sources and language that would not hold true if I were trying to make it a GG mouthpiece. For example, the overall harassment history section isn't going anywhere or change in any significant way, I fully agree it is the necessary focal point of the topic, the only reason GG is notable, and pretty much the facts of the case. I also point out that I have removed clear BLP violations before, and will continue to do so which should also be taken as a sign of good faith, but keep in mind: as a volunteer project no one is forced to do anything, and some BLP issues may be subjective, and of course there's timing aspects, so asking me to remove everything that you consider a BLP Violation will not likely happen because of differences of what a BLP violation could be. Cleanly I have a more cautious/conservative take on what is a problem compared to your view, so that difference will remain. Also remember that WP should not be involved, and thus we generally are not pro-active unless it has been an ongoing situation where blocks and bans are placed to preemptively prevent further disruption. Being an open wiki that encourages all editors to participate and with an assumption of good faith means we give a lot more leeway and thus don't try to throttle that unless there is good reason.

The only "end goal" that I want is to make sure that the GG article is a proper neutral, academic article that a person unfamiliar with the situation can read and understand the controversy. And that understanding should including nonjudgmental review of the issues from both sides, as best as we can balance them from reliable sources (which means that the pro GG side is only going to have a tiny bit of info compared to the other side) as to allow the reader to come to their own conclusion of who is right. This requires that we put aside any distain any editor might have towards GG to neutrally evaluate what non-judgmental aspects we can pull from RSes, and recognizing that the GG situation rubs against all the moral compass grains that the major media naturally lean towards, thus giving more extremist points of view than other situations. And these are all fair questions to be asking within WP's policies which are meant as descriptive guidelines where we can ignore all rules save BLP to write a better article. The problem is that when my actions are taken in vain as being pro-GG and being made the subject of personal attacks on mainspace/talk pages, that's not helpful to resolve the questions. I want to work with you and others, but when I am attacked simply for taking a slightly different tone than others, that absolutely does not help. --MASEM (t) 22:57, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

You might perhaps perceive personal attacks where there were none. However, as I've pointed out, some people continually plot, on wiki and off, to smear Gamergate victims and editors whom they believe to be their opponents or to stand in their way. If you have suggestions for ameliorating this shameful situation, I'm all ears, and I'm not alone. I assume you agree with me that ending these attacks and silencing the smears is an urgent priority for all good Wikipedians.. MarkBernstein (talk) 00:05, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

I would characterize your latest blog post as "not entirely unreasonable". You can quote me on that. Rhoark (talk) 23:17, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

Thanks! MarkBernstein (talk) 17:40, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

Me too. It is something I would want to look into if I were a prominent member of their community. Discuss-Dubious (t/c) 02:31, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

(Just to note, I am trying craft a useful reply to this, but i keep reworking it to be clear which is taking more time. I am not ignoring your question above as again I feel you deserve a fair, proper answer). --MASEM (t) 00:47, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

First, two things that we have to accept that cannot change:

• There will always be malicious users on the Internet. I've been on the net since before the Endless September, and this has been the case even then - with the ability to mask one's identity, the use of what would otherwise be very amoral means of communication like harassment and threats becomes more common due to the lack of repercussions. We further have the problem that there are people that simply want to see hostility and angry break out as they watch from the sidelines. So as long as the Internet remains as open as it is, we can't make this unsavory element disappear.
• To add, Wikipedia's "the encyclopedia that anyone can edit" mantra allows individual from above to use the work to their own ends. We have many admins and allowances for any editor to revert such nonsense, and other tools at our disposal to make sure their nonsense does not enter into the mainspace. But unless we force all editors to editor with a registered account (from which we can then set hard bans for bad behavior) we can't stop this. And I don't see the Foundation moving away from the openness anytime soon. GG is an exception, not a rule, to how most articles develop in terms of anonymous editors.

That said, here are steps that I would suggest regarding your approach that would help make the editing and discussion on the GG talk page and others more collaborative, as well as step down (not stop) the amount of harassment and the like that WP editors are getting.

• While there is no way I expect you to take a different opinion on the GG situation, wearing that opinion on your sleeve as you edit with a clear dislike and contempt for those that have performed the harassment is making you a target. It's easy to see the pattern that the harassment has followed the most outspoken critics, and that goes for on WP too. No one is going to stop you from you using your blog to express your dislike for GGers, but you should be aware that that will likely follow you to here, and again, WP can't do anything about that. Also keep in mind that taking a strong stance on an issue that we should be covering neutrally is a symptom of soapboxing, though not an assured sign of that. We should be trying to discuss the situation without letting any personal feelings on the matter influence the editing process, but we'll also all human, so there's a proper balance here, and I would say, cautiously, your approach is out of balance (but more on that later). Also keep in mind: the type of people that engage in this type of harassment go for after people that are easily provoked. Ryulong is a perfect example. There are times where not saying anything can be better in the long run.
• While there may be 39 archive pages and 10,000s of words written discussing the situation, this is the right way to resolve a complex situation rather than editing warring to the extreme. To try to shut down any discussion simply because you feel the 39 archive pages should have answered it is very much battleground and page ownership behavior. Consensus can change (particularly with new-to-GG but experienced editors offering opinions on the matter. This was the behavior I pointed out at the ArbCom case, that others were flat out rejecting any type of dispute resolution in matters. Granted, there have been new editors (before 500/30) that asked questions that were in the FAQ and thus already answered and shutting down those discussions to prevent massive rehashing was fine, but that is not always the case now. I myself will try not to rehash arguments as well. But there is a very complex situation with the GG situation that our policies are not as cut and dried as one would expect for other topics, which itself is a larger discussion needed by more people in a better venue.
• With the 500/30 rule in place on that page, I would ask that you assume good faith that everyone now editing the page is acting in good faith in terms of writing a neutral, encyclopedic article on the GG situation, and are not pushing any pro-GG agendas or the like. If that does come to light, eg by manipulating the 500/30 rule in odd ways, we now have ways of dealing with that, so I would assume that everyone editing there is trying to make a neutral article for WP. This means that you should avoid making comments directed towards other editors' behavior as opposed to their content (such as calling some "Gamergate fans")
• On that same aspect, keep in mind that WP should not be involved in the GG situation. WP cannot be used to act as a mouthpiece to condemn the GG supporters, nor go out of its way (beyond the protection BLP has) of trying to prevent further degradation and harassment of Quinn et al. Similarly, WP cannot be used as a loudspeaker to explain the GG's ideals and goals. It works both ways. What can happen (and what I and others are stating has happened) is that while we are supposed to summarize the predominate views of the sources, if we mirror or parrot them too much, taking the same tone they have, we lose our objectivity and are no better than these sources, which to the GG side makes WP as complicit to them as the mainstream press articles which they take as involved. This goes to a larger discussion that needs to be had about the role of the press in the GG situation and our role as a tertiary source to cover the press side properly but with WP's goals in mind, as the press and WP have two very different goals here. Calling out that we should be trying to protect Quinn et al more because of the death and rape threats they got is something that WP has to say dispassionate about, as long as these threats weren't issued on WP. Outside WP, those threats are deplorable, but on WP they are date points on some of the hostile actions that has been done under the GG hashtag, they should not be treated as calls to action by editors.
• Finally, and this is more on the content side than behavior: Rhoark's recent posts outlining the way GG is described in many of the highly reliable sources highlight the fact that we should be separating the actions of GG (which is primarily only harassment/threats/etc. that can be documented) and whatever the membership/makeup of people of GG. The actions, we can clearly include all the negative points about them and treat them as illegal, misogynistic, etc.; that's clearly fact. But the sources point out that whom is actually doing the attacks is of question, because they are coming from just anyone using the hashtag which there are lots of people using it for a lot of different purposes. As a nonjudgmental work, we should be giving the people that say they aren't harassing but only want to talk ethics the benefit of doubt that the most reliable sources also inject into their stories. We can't take a more narrow cut of these same sources, which could be read to be cast blame on all of the GG supporters for directly harassing others, when there's they have contestable statements in the same article. We should be writing more conservatively (cautiously) given the situation, fully acknowledging that the harassment actions are bad, but staying as far as possible from casting the entire group GG supporters as direct actors in this harassment. Many of your posts lately have not shown this separation, which again is part of the issue with SOAPBOXing listed above (in how you strongly express your take on this) and why you're seen as a target.

As noted, there's a few points that would require larger discussion that is above and beyond the issues I've identified with your conduct, but I am trying to help on the conduct side as to help make you and the GG article less of a target to others. It will likely never stop, and no matter what changes on the GG article, there's always going to be a contingent of GG supporters that feel that if the article doesn't mirror their stance perfectly (which WP would never be in a position to do based on current coverage), it will always be biased. But you're reading the same KIA boards, it seems, and it is clear that a more sizable and sensible group of those that do not support the harassment are also aware that WP is bound by reliable sources, will never be a GG shill piece, but do see what other editors have pointed out that there's a more neutral stance we should be taking based on those sources instead of a narrow reading that is overtly dismissive of GG rather than objective. Also note that outside of your vocalization of your opinion on GG, very little of these are steps that are due to influence of GG supporters, but within proper WP policy and guidelines regarding content and behavior. Or in other words, I am not suggesting that you make these changes because GG influence offsite forced you to, but to recognize that this is part of expected behavior on WP.

And finally, to add, I continue to try to keep my behavior in check too; I believe I have kept civil, outside of some bouts of tenacious discussion, but that's far from being uncivil or against practice, but I will still watch for this. I hope that you recognize that the key thing is that by documenting the GG situation in as neutral a voice we can, a goal I hope we all share, the less of an "issue" that WP would be to GG and thus reduce the amount of harassment that WP editors will get for it. --MASEM (t) 16:12, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

That's a nice set of bullet points. Indulge me in my own.

• Does neutrality require sitting quietly while a parade of brigaded accounts, zombie accounts, and truculent sock puppets arrive to use WIkipedia’s servers to rehash sexual innuendo about Gamergate's victims?
• If not, what specifically do you propose to do to stem the tide?
• What have you done to stem the tide this month?
• You assert that neutrality requires amorality. Do you fancy that Joseph Pulitzer, Upton Sinclair, Ida Tarbell, and Edward R. Murrow would agree? Is this sentiment reflected in the work of David Halberstam or Seymour Hersh, Christopher Isherwood or Stephen Ambrose?
• A month ago, you wrote at AE that " In this situation, Handpolk seems to have done a reasonable amount of varied edits within the year, so it would definitely by against good faith to assume they are an SPA for this purpose." In the intervening month, Handpolk has been constantly disruptive, climaxing this weekend with simultaneous appearances on different matters at AN/I. AN/3, SPI, and AE. It turns out that he’s been a patent sock of a long-banned user all along. How many hours do you estimate the community has spent on this matter in the past month? Do you remain quite so certain that Handpolk has done "a reasonable amount of varied edits" and was in good faith an asset to the project? How might you have reached a sounder conclusion more quickly, which is to say at a lower cost?

You say that my being outspoken makes me a target. Of course, if only I agreed with Gamergate, I wouldn't be a target at all, would I? I'm not the first person to whom Gamergate has said, "Nice reputation you have! It would be a shame if something happened to it."

Again: most importantly: how can we settle this? As I wrote elsewhere: "The facts on the ground are now clear. It’s time to end the conflict which has raged over nine months, a dozen Wikipedia pages, more than a million words of debate, and dozens of blocks and bans and sanctions that extend from The Gamergate Controversy to Campus Rape and Lena Dunham’s sister." There’s no need anymore for 50,000 words of wrangling and five banned zombies every month. I await your suggestions on how best to proceed. MarkBernstein (talk) 17:46, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

The absence of an answer after so many months suggests there is no "best way" to proceed. Perhaps earlier, but disruption's now spread to all corners of the encyclopedia. I can't see a way to reverse it without drastic site-wide action: prohibiting IP-only accounts, banning and blocking accounts more readily, imposing strict editing requirements in all controversial articles. All of which seem to sow the seeds of Wikipedia's demise. 46.28.53.4 (talk) 19:54, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

point by point:

• Yes: neutrality (and WP's open-wiki format) does mean that we will have attacks on living persons, controversial articles, and editors happen. We cannot stop it, only react to it by imposing blocks, bans, etc. as necessary. Taking any stronger stance means WP becomes involved.
• Second point is moot given the first, but again, as I've said, the nature of the Internet and the open-wiki nature of WP will mean these will continue to happen period.
• There is zero point in asking this question on a volunteer project. No one is required to do anything nor expected to. The only expectation is that if someone is clearly aware of an existing clear-as-rain BLP violation or similar and does nothing in their clear ability to remove it, that could beg the question of not taking action, but you'd have to show a pattern of this behavior before that would be actionable.
• Yes, neutrality does require amorality, to a point. We don't need to go as far as to beg the question about how to treat the harassment - we should clearly start that harassment and threats like this are unethical and potentially illegal. But that's the action, which can be clearly documented, but we cannot document about the people behind it beyond very broad strokes (young, male, video game players). As such, we should very much not take the upright moral tone that the press has done, justifying why GG should be condemned, but keep it to a neutral stance, while still including the various opinions that GG is far from being morally in the right. This is why we have looked to examples of Scientology, Westboro BC, and the Flat Earthers to show how those articles treat the subject of questionable morality by not ascribing any morals to it in WP's voice or tone.
• Handpolk is an exception; the mass of edits that tripped them to 500 was after what I had said (and again, I will stand by that at the time I stated that, Handpolk's contributions appeared legitimate. The ones since, the mass of tiny edits to film pages, obviously not). I would have no surprise if there are other editors that have long-dormant accounts that will pull them out to engage at GG. But we assume good faith first and foremost, and if it becomes clear (which has been relatively quick in all recent cases) that the account is pushing an SPA agenda, we can deal with it. The problem is that there are also editors that may have dormant accounts and have earnest interest in improving the article too, so per AGF we cannot prejudge an editor here. And this is normal practice.
• On being a target, obviously no, agreeing with GG also makes one a target by the anti-GG side. I know this because I know I'm ridiculed on other reddit boards and a certain blog, simply because I'm taking a slightly contrary position to the anti-GG side and not even proGG; yes, they've not forced edits onto WP (that we know of) but its still the same mentality. Both sides (external to WP) have engaged in this type of behavior.

On how to settle this, I have made several points but the biggest one is that you need to drop the presumption that this current version of the article is right, given that several established editors have called into question how it is written, and that consensus can change. Wanting to shut down any further discussion is clear BATTLEGROUND behavior that was the core of the previous ArbCom. Instead, read at what others have said about sources, that there's a more moderate take on the situation they present that "every GG supporter engages in harassment". Hold back on your feelings towards GG when you participate on as an editor here, step back and think of the situation in a neutral, academic manner, how do we make a reader, unfamiliar with GG, understand the situation without judgement. I can't vouch for everyone else involved, but I would say that you and I are working towards the same common goal of making sure that the article documents all the problems with GG as seen by the press and others - they aren't going to be smelling like roses, but where we collide is the tone and approach to the article, where I am suggesting one that is more cautious, while your approach is more combative already having decided GG is a bad thing. The problem is that the continued use of battlefield tactics - presuming everyone that doesn't agree with you is working in bad faith, and trying to shut down discussions claiming too many words have been written already - which have persisted from before the ArbCom case, gets in the way. The only 100% surefire way that we could end this is to change WP's open wiki policy, but that's basically a non-starter, so we have to work within the bounds we can and a lot of that starts with civility and temperance towards other editors. --MASEM (t) 20:13, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for telling me what I "need to do." I assume I have your permission to soldier along without your help, trying to keep BLP violations out of the encyclopedia while you are busy doing whatever it is you think is more important. If someday you do want to help, I'll be here for you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MarkBernstein (talk • contribs) 21:23, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

You could also let other editors deal with the BLP violations. Taking matters into your own hands attracts a ton of attention from off-site. Sure you can try to do it yourself, but then the attention just causes more editors to come, meaning more potential BLP violations. 174.30.95.89 (talk) 21:42, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

None of the steps I list interfere with removing BLP issues from WP. What I am saying is that, per your request that I provide suggestions of how to alleviate the offsite harassment towards you, is provide a number of steps that would help do that as well as to help improve the situation at the GG article in terms of collaborative discussion. I would hope you are aware of how the combination of your outspoken opinion and your behavior influences those offsite (judging by readings at KIA and elsewhere). No one can expect you to change your opinion, and no one can expect you to voluntarily distance yourself from the GG article. But what one can ask is to adjust your behavior more in line with standard WP practices so that you don't stand out so much as a target to them. As a point of note, there are other editors that have a clear anti-GG bias at the GG article but are far less outspoken or far less confrontational on the GG talk page, and I do not see anywhere near the same stance that those at KIA/elsewhere have towards you, so it is not only being anti-GG that is leading to them targeting you. This is advice from a fellow editor, not someone on the opposite side of the field from you. If you wish to ignore it, that's fine, but I'm being perfectly honest with how you can help cut down these external attempts to influence WP by what you can do now in your own power, as you asked. --MASEM (t) 22:20, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

Masem said one thing that wasn't quite right: "While there is no way I expect you to take a different opinion on the GG situation, wearing that opinion on your sleeve as you edit with a clear dislike and contempt for those that have performed the harassment is making you a target." It would be more correct to say that constant insistence that particular people are performing harassment, when they are not performing it, encouraging it, condoning it, benefiting from it, or even overlooking it is the main cause of friction between registered editors in the Gamergate area, and of the enthusiasm for IPs hurling themselves at the barricade. Rhoark (talk) 22:24, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

People seem to think I was asking how to alleviate offsite harassment toward me. I was asking as well, how to alleviate the unending offsite harassment that exploits Wikipedia to harass Zoe Quinn, Brianna and Frank Wu, Arthur Chu, Anita Sarkeesian, and so many others. The tendency to ignore their concerns in order to focus on one Wikipedia editor is, alas, alll too common on Wikipedia. MarkBernstein (talk) 12:13, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

You did ask how to stop editor harassment, which based on KIA talking points, I'd consider you one of those that is harassed. But as to Quinn et al, first I assume when you say "exploits Wikipedia to harass (them)" you are speaking to the editors that introduce BLP violations or similar, as opposed to any type of organized activity on WP to directly harass them, since that I've not seen at all. Regardless, the first two points I made above are why this can never be stopped: the Internet has a malicious element that will never be satisfied, and that WP is an open wiki and prides itself on that, and closing it to IP edits is likely never to happen. To take any more of an active role would be making WP involved in the situation, and that's not going to happen either. We have to realize we have to live with this and take the more re-active role and use the tools that are more restrictive, like page protection, 1RR sanctions, and so forth, judiciously where there are problems.

Now, I will say that it is far to late to put this cat in the bag, but I would argue that the neutrality of the GG article, as well as other related articles, is a factor why WP is seen as a means to use to insert malicious material against Quinn et al. Some of those on KIA and other forums see WP as involved as they see editors (like yourself) that do not downplay their personal take on a situation and editing right in line with that as the same "Social Justice Warriors" as they would classify Quinn, etc. They see the fact that the GG article takes the press's side to a fault as a problem, grouping WP with the other media and press sites that they are criticizing. And because the GG article has been locked down, they express their discontent going to other articles related to GG like Quinn's, etc. If our article took the more cautious tone as has been suggested for some time, and demonstrated by Rhoark's source evaluation, there likely would be less hostility towards WP from the GG forums. Unfortunately, it is far too late to eliminate the hostility towards WP due to the GG article, but we can still do steps to reduce that and by extension the attempts to sway other articles. --MASEM (t) 14:05, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

If Wikipedia cannot put an end to the use of its servers to harass women in the software industry, forces outside Wikipedia can and will. If Wikipedia is indeed unable to police itself, to prevent its use for these ends, the world will find a way to police Wikipedia. Yes -- acceding to Gamergate demands might indeed be one solution, but of course that would only be a temporary measure, one that would likely bring further extortionate demands in its wake, and one which would summon widespread indignation and even more widespread ridicule than Wikipedia has already endured.

The recent experience of Handpolk -- like so many severely neutral Gamergate editors in his wake -- reminds us that while we are instructed to assume good faith initially, we need not assume it after bad intent has been demonstrated.

I submit that we can do a better job to stop the use of Wikipedia to harass women in the software industry. We can make the task of posting vile innuendo more difficult, and we can respond more quickly and more forcefully to whatever does slip through the cracks. In my view, our current aim should be to ensure that no such post endures more than five minutes, while taking steps to reduce this response time to an average of 30 seconds. This is, in my view, the responsibility of all Wikipedians who participate in this area, and even more so the responsibility of all admins and WMF officers. MarkBernstein (talk) 17:44, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

Having reactive controls - such as your idea of removing any BLP stain off the articles on the people that have been targeted by GG or related articles within 5 minutes - is completely reasonable. (It would be an interesting evaluation to see how fast that the collective GG article set have rapidly dealt with such obvious BLP problems, but only going by pure observation, I would probably say that the average time is 5 minutes or less, with the worst case being 10 minutes). Given the number of eyes in terms of watchlists on these articles, that type of response is completely reasonable to ask for. Thirty seconds is probably far too aggressive as long as we are only volunteers for this. I know the joke is "Wikipedia editors do it for free" but this is important to understand we cannot be as fast as you'd like without actually have outside lives and jobs that earn us money to live by. You could ask the WMF to create a for-pay department that would be responsible for watching specifically tagged pages that are known for havens of BLP violations where protection metrics do not work and patrol them 24/7 to respond faster. However, I think between page protection (to keep out unconfirmed accounts and IPs) and # of watchers, we're going to be easily able to make the 5 minute cut. Just remember: what can be a BLP violation might be a subjective. There are clear obvious ones that must be dealt with immediately when seen, but others might be legitimate criticism that can be documented and included but that at the surface may look like BLP, and that might need discussion to determine if it is the case or not. --MASEM (t) 18:20, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

Everyone who has read the talk page archives with attention has seen how some editors will leap to the defense of BLP violations, especially when sexual speculation about Gamergate's designated victims might ensue. And of course we all agree that, too, has to stop. While of course discussion of marginal and doubtful examples cannot be avoided, it might prove possible to make that discussion less visible to the public, and thus less rewarding to the harassers. MarkBernstein (talk) 18:44, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

Do you mean something like a talk space that requires autoconfirmed or 500/30 to read? Rhoark (talk) 20:43, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

In considering what Rhoark just said, that effectively the only editors that can participate on the GG page are either those that earnestly want to improve the article or in the very rare case of someone with the patience to wait out 500/30 before they can act like an SPA, it would make much more sense to assume good faith of what other editors are doing until it is clear they are trying to go against Wiki principles. In that, I very much doubt that whenever established editors bring up the central accusation that started GG, they aren't engaging in "sexual speculation" but instead are talking about how to word and phrase the situation within WP, which is completely allowed within WP:BLPTALK. I have not seen anyone "dig" into the accusation beyond what the RSes say or on their own original research, so there's no new potential BLP violations happening. It's just that to determine the proper article content, it might be necessary to discuss the accusation, which is what BLPTALK recognizes. This is again where I ask you to consider assuming good faith of at least established editors as no one there that is established seems to be acting in a manner to try to expand upon the existing disproven accusation or include others. --MASEM (t) 00:03, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

Again, the litany of names of now-banned Gamergate editors who tried valiantly to smear Gamergate's chosen victims, and were ultimately banned for doing so, is long. Assuming good faith when an allegedly "new" editor tries once more to do precisely what their fallen predecessor was banned for doing, when we all have seen the recruitment threads off-wiki, can be difficult for those who aren't accustomed to games. MarkBernstein (talk) 03:42, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

For "new" editors, who say may have just cleared 500/30, that appear, I would agree that caution of intent should be considered, particularly if they start going on on BLP issues right away. Again, Handpolk is an exception but a fair example: when he first asked for exception from 500/30, his edit history appeared legit (many different, non-GG topics), but then to clear 500, did a whole bunch of tiny edits and began problems, sure those concerns have merit and thus was subsequently topic blocked. Realistically, I am sure we might see other cases like this, but 500/30 is meant as tough protection to hinder most problems. However, when you apply the same scrutiny to long-standing editors with clearly sufficient history, you should be assuming good faith and not immediately treat these editors as acting in bad faith simply because they present a contrary viewpoint or might mention (but not delve into) that accusation. That type of outward behavior is a key symptom of WP:BATTLEGROUND. If a long established editor suddenly dips into BLP violations left and right, there's plenty of people that will jump in to resolve that. The lockdown of the talk page has gone a long way to prevent the type of abuses you are rightfully concerned about, and the outside cases that might still happen are now more readily dealt with so that we can now focus back on improving the encyclopedic nature of the article in good faith. --MASEM (t) 18:03, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

A single BLP violation could conceivably cause great damage and distress, not to mention exposing the project to crippling financial loss. I don’t think "dipping into BLP violations left and right" is the best standard to apply here. I also think that we may reasonably assess experienced editors from their extensive writings. It's not necessary to make assumptions when we have actions before us. Thanks so much for your support, incidentally, as Gamergate yesterday turned its engines lot destruction against me and against several of your colleagues here. MarkBernstein (talk) 19:12, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

You mean Voldemort? Rhoark (talk) 05:30, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

First, I have seen what you are talking about in terms of the new approach/attack at Wikipedia, and that's why I stress the more we stay neutral and only document without judgement, the less likely that those within GG or other venues will want to try to affect Wikipedia's approach; I know this won't end it ever, as WP as a target for these types of campaigns will never go away with the most extreme of those, but we can minimize it. But as to your first point, if you want to go by reviewing editors' past actions, that's fine, but that would not explain any reason why you should treat me or other long-standing editors in bad faith. It would be different if we had an editor that had long-standing problems of dancing around BLP violations, warned but not blocked, and then suddenly participated here with similar tactics. I feel that in your approach (based on your writings here and your blog) you are far too hasty to mark other editors as acting in bad faith simply because they do not share the same extensive drive I perceive you have, the drive to protect those already harassed and to condemn the people that do it. That's a difference of opinion and that is likely irreconcilable and will lead to heated discussions to find consensus (and why there's 40 archive pages now), but that is not operating in bad faith. --MASEM (t) 15:35, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

I don't treat you in bad faith. I expect you mean that you believe that I treat you as if you were writing in bad faith. That’s a completely different thing.

Even there, I think your expression is imprecise. Prevarication and dishonesty may have been attributed to some now-blocked Gamergate editors, but seldom by me. You don't prevaricate: even when you have adopted an apparently-indefensible position, you defend it to the last, and beyond.

I am admittedly puzzled by your seeming disregard of Gamergate’s victims, and by your apparent obliviousness regarding the very real danger this poses to Wikipedia. You may in the past have thought your advocacy might achieve some valuable gains for Gamergate and its supporters, though whether this can be reconciled with the extent of your efforts (two volumes of writing!) and with the costs that have been unwillingly imposed on so many bystanders seems open to doubt. Nonetheless, the facts on the ground are clear. If Gamergate wishes to be viewed in a new light either here or elsewhere, they will need to accomplish something new. Until then, the world has decided what it thinks of Gamergate, and that Wikipedia reflects that decision. That is the message of my essay, “In The World”.

What bothers you, I think, is not my opinion of your faith, but my opinion – or perhaps the world’s opinion - of what you've written. What goal do you have in mind that is worth the ongoing pain Wikipedia helps inflict on people who have done you little or no harm? And if there ever was such a goal, have you any reasonable expectation of achieving it?

Today is a new day. This is not a game -- not for Wikipedia’s victims, anyway. Do good, or intercede between miscreants and their victims, and I’ll be the first to sing your praises. MarkBernstein (talk) 17:49, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

WP:AGF applies to how someone writes as well, not just towards the person. Eg for example, we are human, we typo, we make accidental clicks that (for those with such tools enabled) may accidentally revert an edit. I fully admit my typed words will sometimes come out all screwy because I think faster than I can type and want to get my point down, so I might state something that could be taken a different way if it wasn't clear. That is no reason to jump onto an editor if that type of language was nothing indicative of their behavior before. Bad faith requires a pattern of behavior to identify. And I'll refer to the point above: you cannot expect any editor to do any action at all. It is not that I will not try to protect people that will try to inject BLP violations on GG pages, but that you cannot expect a volunteer on the project to be as active 24/7 to remove it moments after it appears, and all other ways to control such vandalism are tools that have means to be engaged quickly by other editors but are not meant to be abused. Anything else would require having control on the parties that are trying to attack WP, and that's far from something to expect. I take issue that you claim the only way you would trust me is to be more active in trying to stop the harassment but as pointed out, that is a completely unreasonable goal. There is literally only so much that one admin can do to stop that.

And to the last point: it is not that I disregard the plight of those being harassed by GG, but that when I am putting on the Wikipedia editor hat, I write emotionlessly, and thus that they are harassed is a fact, but I keep disinterested about the emotional/moral aspect of the situation, and that's how we should be keeping to our writing. We have more than enough emotionally driven pieces to describe the empathy towards the harassment victims, but the core of NPOV is avoid taking any stance on the matter, and that includes not elevating the victims beyond the facts in WP's voice. In the same manner, we cannot express the anger and dislike there is for GG in WP's voice. Again, plenty of press to push that side but WP needs to avoid speaking critical. And here's the hard part is that even though GG is trying to influence and harass WP editors, we cannot let that sway the writing in any manner to keep within NPOV. It's very easy to let slip on this presuming one enjoys Wikipedia and does not like seeing it used in a negative way by others, and thus easily to speak negatively in WP's voice about that. To stay dispassionate on writing the article involving the group while the group is attacking our site is difficult, no question, but we need to do that. As soon as we abandon that, we become involved and that's the last thing we should be.

And I want to stress that my personal take on what the GG article should be is not advocating GG, but simply doing what any academic would want to see : documenting both sides of the argument without judgement (within scope of WEIGHT of course), and without advocating either side as right, as to provide enough historical details for a reader to determine the situation for themselves. This rubs against how the current block of sources present the situation, and that is what I allude to as part of a larger discussion that needs to happen to consider the goals of WP vs the goals of mainstream media, but that's not for here. It also means we should not be actively trying to bury statements that can be stated that may be seen as advocacy for GG if they are being made by third-party reliable sources (which we do have); excluding any clear BLP violation claims that have been made, we cannot act like these should not be covered because they would give this group more credibility they deserve as presented by the press - we shouldn't be caring about whether factual information affects a group's credibility either direction. The GG article is a tough one due to a conflation of a number of issues that WP is not well prepared for, but they can be worked out. But that requires all parties to be open to working it out and trusting that other editors are working towards this same goal. --MASEM (t) 18:36, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

I explained above that I did not question your good faith, and here we have 789 more words about your good faith. You say we are working toward the same goal, but these 789 words appear once again to argue that our goal should be to ignore what all the reliable sources agree to be true. My goal is, first, to end the use of Wikipedia as a weapon against blameless individuals, and second, to ensure that its articles reflect as closely as possible our state of knowledge, without undue regard to the PR goals of shadowy cabals. These are the goals that policy dictates. I assume these are your goals, though you do appear reluctant to state this plainly.

You allude to "what any academic would want to see." This is sailing very near the wind, as you are aware: I'm a researcher, I contribute to the academic literature, and if we're to be friends I’d ask you to keep that in mind. I also have a modest background in historiography and contemporary Critical Theory. I'm not sure how deeply you've read in these subjects. Some things you seem to assert as evidently true in this passage, if I follow you, have not been widely accepted for some decades. Eagleton’s two volumes are a good introduction; I often recommend Landow as a preliminary to scientists and engineers who may find Eagleton heavy sledding. Going back still farther, historians since Mommsen have posited that it is necessary to follow the sources unless the sources are demonstrably wrong, and neutrality (which historians need not practice and which Theory would problematize, but which is here imposed upon us) constrains us to adhere more, not less, closely to those sources. Thucydides was there; he can sometimes be shown to be wrong but, since he was there are we were not, the presumption must be that he knew what he was talking about. MarkBernstein (talk) 19:56, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

WP already does have the steps to prevent WP from being used as a weapon against individuals, that's BLP policy. It is still working, it is just that in contrast to normally being re-active, we have had to take pro-active steps on the GG with full awareness that there's a ongoing attempt to change these articles. So I'm not disagreeing, but until there's a sea change at WMF or the like to alter the open-wiki nature of en.wiki, we should assume that BLP + sanctions are working, and not beg the question of what more we can do, because there is literally no more that we can expect anyone to do under current policy.

The second goal on "to ensure that its articles reflect as closely as possible our state of knowledge, without undue regard to the PR goals of shadowy cabals" is where WP has a problem and where we do need to have a wider discussion of more people involved (eg not here); understanding exactly what the extent of "state of knowledge" should be. It is not a simple straight-forward answer and why it needs more discussion by more people not involved with the situation to resolve. --MASEM (t) 21:23, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

What the state of knowledge should be is not our concern here; advancing the state of knowledge is the definition of research.

I'm not begging a question: you might want to check what that expression means. While in principle Wikipedia policy should prevent Wikipedia's use as a weapon against blameless individuals, that policy plainly failed here. We cannot assume that the combination of policy and sanctions are working, because the evidence before us plainly contradicts that assumption: if we were to persist in permitting damage to blameless individuals because we assumed a conclusion contradicted by evident facts, we would be very much to blame. Wikipedia's role in Gamergate has already been widely derided and ridiculed, and if you support the open-wiki nature of en.wiki, it would be prudent to take steps to end the problem. If the problem is allowed to persist, external action can and will end the the problem, though perhaps at the cost of ending the project in its present form.

Though I hesitate to mention it, these discussions might be more pleasant for our audience if you could take a moment to proofread. I know I’m in no position to complain, and I’m a famously sloppy writer myself, but I all four of your sentences above suffer from significant problems of punctuation or usage and I’m frequently uncertain what you intend to say. MarkBernstein (talk) 22:01, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

With the exception of articles popping during Arbcom, there hasn't been much in the news about articles on GamerGate (and related topics). Who do you think will take action against Wikipedia? 174.30.95.89 (talk) 22:54, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

Courts, legislators, regulatory agencies, and learned councils are among the candidates. I'm doubtless forgetting something. And I am his majesty’s dog at Kew/Pray tell me, sir, whose dog are you? Another sock of a banned editor, presumably? MarkBernstein (talk) 23:04, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

I'm more of a lurker actually. But if you are certain I'm a sock, you know where to go. 174.30.95.89 (talk) 00:33, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

Good lord Mark, you talk like you haven't seen what happens to the political BLP's every day all day. It's like babby's first wikipedia here. Arkon (talk) 23:07, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

Politics involves a different standard, both in law and common sense. Nonetheless, how many politicians are said to have literally prostituted themselves? Repeatedly? To have infected their spouse with AIDS? If this is endemic on Wikipedia for politicians you follow, let me know; I'll be happy to lend a hand. MarkBernstein (talk) 03:42, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

It's certainly a different standard:

• (i) Political slander is more likely to be repeated in major publications
• (ii) A politician's livelihood depends on reputation and public perception

Witness the recent "Chase me ladies" controversy where a Grant Shappss suffered substantially from a wikipedia claim. Was there similar or worse damage from the AIDS/prostitution claims? Not that these claims shouldn't have been removed, of course they should have, but in terms of significance you've got your apples and oranges reversed. 104.156.228.149 (talk) 05:05, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

Nonsense. But you're free to petition Congress for changes to the law if you like. MarkBernstein (talk) 11:24, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

I think the takeaway point in referring to politicians and BLP that comes to their articles is that what the GG situation has done is nothing new to WP; BLP vandals have happened before, they will happen again. Policy and controls have been set up to do as much to enable editors to fix without impunity vandalized articles, and to limit further BLP vandals. The only thing new GG has brought to the table is when there's a larger-scale effort to drive these, and as such adding the 500/30 edit limit to prevent more. You're still begging WP to do much but that requires monetary resources to enable editors to do that, or to close off the open-wiki nature, the latter which will never happen. Narrowing the focus of how to protect those harassed by GG when this type of behavior happens dozens of times a day across the board is perhaps not seeing the forest through the trees, and it does not make sense to get so hung up on the apparent lack of renewed effort to protect these targets, because we're at the best we can possibly do right now without funding and without deviating from WP's core principle of open knowledge. That's the price that is paid in that the wisdom of the crowds will include the contributions of bad apples.

On your above point, where you state "historians since Mommsen have posited that it is necessary to follow the sources unless the sources are demonstrably wrong," the thing is, any person that spends time reading not only the mainstream sources but also what sources that GG has presented for their side show that the mainstream sources are wrong, but as you argue above, we can't use those sources to prove the mainstream sources are wrong, which creates a massive catch 22. While an essay, WP:TRUTH#Social sciences is very applicable to how we should be treating the situation given that we don't know who is exactly right here (beyond that harassment has happened by those using the GG Tag). The larger discussion that I describe, we need to consider if there is a natural bias that the mainstream sources have (which I believe they have, not because of some grand conspiracy to write against GG, but that they are implicitly and unintentionally writing in alignment with the popular moral compass of the readership that they serve to maintain sales figures; the Guardian article on the ArbCom case is a prime example of this) and how to account for that, which was something that was agreed to be a possible option from the first RFC I opened. A fair question to consider is to ask yourself if you honestly believe that the situation painted by the mainstream press is 100%, no-questions-asked, accurate in taking account all the stated facts about makeup, intentions, and activities of GG (given that you have stated you are aware of such threats at KIA and elsewhere)? Do you honestly believe that every self-claimed GGer is directly engaged in harassment, as some sources want to say? If this is no, that's begs the issue about how we write the article and not blindly accept stated facts as facts. --MASEM (t) 15:35, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

I honestly believe that every individual who unreservedly supports Gamergate necessarily supports Gamergate’s actions. If one does not support Gamergate’s actions, one cannot be said to support Gamergate.

I honestly believe that you really ought to look up what "begging a question" means.

I honestly believe that encyclopedias accept facts as facts. I agree that this is a naively modernist epistemological stance, but this enterprise was, after all, launched by Diderot and Descarte and Wikipedia's pillars are quaintly free from recognition or awareness of postmodern thinking. Wikipedia does blindly accept stated facts as facts; sorry, but that's its nature.

This discussion is now featured at Sea Lions of Wikipedia! MarkBernstein (talk) 18:17, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

If you honestly believe such then it's rather clear how you view the GG article, man. I didn't want to step in but you really do need to have a close look at what you're writing, man. You're claiming that GamerGate supporters are all supporters of actions done in Gamergate names. That's akin to saying all Muslims are supportive of the Taliban and the terrorist acts they use to fight against the unholy ones. I don't even know how to use wiki properly and I feel like I need to step in to say something. You're acting like a child, especially with the blog post you linked to here. You're acting like a bully, Mark. You need to stop before you do something you might regret. (Also, I'm gonna guess you were gonna use that last statement as a way of saying I'm threatening you, but I'm telling you this out of concern for someone I used to respect. Seriously, I enjoyed your writing style and humor until it turned pretentious. Also, apologies if I messed something up doing this wiki thing; I have no clue how to properly use this format.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.78.150.19 (talk) 08:34, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

But that's not what NPOV says. We can report facts as claims and we are not required to take facts at face value if we know there's discrepancy in exteral situations, and that's the overall issue with how the GG article is being reported. The work that Rhoark has done has clearly demonstrated that the "shape" of GG is pretty much vague and unknown from the most reliable sources, and that's not even taking into account the implicit bias that I've mentioned above (which we are allowed to consider per the RFC I started). This is why I ask you to consider how narrow your take is on the situation and review the sources to show that there's a lot of questions that no one really knows the answer to. You seem to want to find these answers by taking the most extreme points of view from a narrow slice of the reliable sources that try to answer them, but when you look at the overall body of sources, the answers are conflicting and per NPOV we should absolutely avoid taking the absolute. You may wish to condemn every single person that states they support GGer, and that's your opinion and no one should try to stop you, but as soon as you start editing on WP, we have to use a lot more care to avoid trying to establish which side is necessarily correct in a controversy as GG is. --MASEM (t) 17:11, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

You do like to repeat yourself, but that doesn't change policy, it doesn't change the fact, and it doesn't change the sources. The sources agree that the notable actions of Gamergate are its campaign of harassment, and its assault on Wikipedia. Gamergate is the organization that harasses women in the game industry, and the organization that repeatedly tries to use Wikipedia to launder its image and to harass its victims. That’s what the sources say, that’s what the facts say, that’s what Wikipedia says. My view is only extreme or narrow to the extent that The New York Time, The Guardian, The Boston Globe, and Boston Magazine are extreme. WP:FRINGE says that we cannot condone what all the sources deplore; does any source support threatening to cripple Zoe Quinn, or to rape Brianna Wu? If so, do enlighten us! Until then, if you have an opinion about the real shape of Gamergate or what Gamergate really supports, publish that opinion in the New York Times. We'll weight it seriously then. MarkBernstein (talk) 17:27, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

No matter what the sources say wikipedia neither condones nor condemns - this is non-optional and the heart of this disagreement. And you conflate "notability" which determines whether a subject is reported with "reliable sourcing" which determines what elements are reported - e.g. few people are notable for their birthday but birthday is reported in most BLPs. These are straightforward interpretations of core policies which you must be aware of. Feigning ignorance or trying to confuse the issue is unfair to Masem, who initiated this discussion in good faith. He is not your enemy. 65.190.207.96 (talk) 18:18, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

No: Wikipedia follows the sources. I am not feigning ignorance; that phrase violates two core policies, as you well know. I observe that acting as a sock puppet or meat puppet for purposes of block evasion also violates policy. Supporting the harassment of editors off-wiki in order deter them from opposing you on-wiki is also in violation of policy. Kindly edit here under your own user name or not at all. MarkBernstein (talk) 18:53, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

The point I have been trying to make is that we should be following the sources with the aspect of non-judgemental reporting that NPOV outlines. I'll say this again: the high level sources taken as a whole and read without any prejudgment of GG paint a far different picture than what you state. They separate their clear distain for the actions (which I don't think anyone of any note, even Yannopolis or Sommers, support in any way), and their criticism of the people behind the GG supporters, who they don't know if they are involved with the harassment in any direct manner but that they creating a bad atmosphere and working under a tainted name. In other words, they don't have much respect for them but these RSes still cover the fundamental points about the GG side. There is no way that could been as condoning the actions of harassment at all. In articles on convicted murdered, we write neutrally on the reasons they murdered people if that is something documentable; we document the causes of terrorist groups and drug rings, despite their actions being morally bad. That's the whole issue about being non-judgemential and trying to document the controversy, since outside the question about harassment and threats, there is not necessarily any right answer, so we can't pretend the press's stance is 100% right. It's by far the most predominant position but that doesn't it fact. No, this also doesn't mean the GG's side is right either. To be neutral, we have to put away any type of disdain we have for a group and document them to the best of our ability, following the sources but looking at them at the overall scale and recognizing that there is a broad array of opinions on what GG is actually about. If you can't do that, that's a potential behavioral and battlefield issue. --MASEM (t) 02:43, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

Ah. Another day, another 300 words, another lecture on Policy According To Masem in which we must carefully follow sources except for certain super-special cases where, because the reliable sources can't be 100% right, we must be more neutral than the sources, which is to say more neutral than neutrality. Or something.

Another day, another 300 words which you have not troubled to read yourself. “Distain” is not a word, Milo’s last name is Yiannopoulos, and the reader may draw their own conclusions about the sentence

It's by far the most predominant position but that doesn't it fact.

because I cannot.

You do mention "behavioral and battlefield" issues, which returns us to your presumed purpose here, but we are now 11,500 words along here and I don’t think I’ve fallen into the pit yet. I suppose you fancy that I might be dismayed or demoralized by having to read these oft-repeated and unconvincing arguments again and again, and it is sometimes a burden. We pay a heavy price, those of use who defend Wikipedia from Gamergate.

Gamergate’s campaign of threats against women in computing is despicable. This is abundantly clear because the reliable sources do despise it. You believe that a broad array of opinions "on what Gamergate is actually about" exists. (Have you ever met a participle you didn’t want to dangle?) When the consensus of reliable sources agrees with you, Wikipedia will neutrally report that. Until then, why don’t you take your special insights to reliable sources and get them published? How many rejection slips have you collected?

Meanwhile, I remind you that Arbcom has again found that sexual harassment at Wikipedia continues to be a problem, and that vile harassment off-wiki intended to sway arguments on-wiki poses serious threats to the project and its editors. I hold that our concern is not limited to Wikipedia editors, but extends to all against whom Wikipedia is weaponized. What do you propose to do about it? Again and again I have asked this, and repeatedly you decline to respond beyond repeating that you're just a volunteer. You're a volunteer, but you are willing to spend an awful lot of time writing about my disdain. It’s not my disdain that should concern you, and the disdain of the audience that matters would become praise and admiration were you to bring us peace. MarkBernstein (talk) 14:22, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

I'll note that my questions posed to you, about what you propose to do about it also go unanswered. You insist that we follow reliable sources, by which you mean what you imagined them to say. When confronted with what they actually say, you switch tack to accusing your interlocutor of supporting harassment. When pressed for details, you switch to haranguing the latest IP. Then it all starts again with some bit of spurious equivocation between what's true, verifiable, notable, mainstream, or socially responsible. Each of these dimensions should be accounted for in the appropriate context and proper measure, but you use them interchangeably in whatever way is convenient to putting an opponent on tilt. Rhoark (talk) 20:45, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

Rhoark -- what I propose to do is what I've done: uphold Wikipedia policy and defend it from the efforts of Gamergate supporters to use Wikipedia to harass women in software. I do insist we follow reliable sources and that we interpret their consensus intelligently rather than cherry-picking isolated factoids. I do believe that Gamergate supporters support Gamergate's actions, and that Gamergate’s notable actions are its efforts to harass women in the software industry. I believe I've been perfectly consistent in this. MarkBernstein (talk) 21:21, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

This is an example of the equivocation I'm talking about. The most notable Gamergate actions are harassment. That is not the same as the totality of notable actions nor what is typically supported by those who self-identify as Gamergate. The general theme in the most reliable sources is that of ambiguity. Rhoark (talk) 21:48, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

On the point of harassment, I've said it before, and the ArbCom decision appears to be in line with this, in that as long as we have an open Internet and open access Wikipedia, harassment will happen, there is absolutely nothing that can be done to stop it as these are set up now. We can minimize and retroactive remove such when it happens but to be more proactive would require significant infrastructure changes, and even then, there will still be people that will have no problem harassing under a self-identified name (See the recent SCOTUS case on online harassment). You can't expect ArbCom or any editor on WP to do more to protect and prevent harassment - that decision resides with the WMF whether to fully close the openness that WP has been and that would be going against the mission itself. ArbCom's advice is spot on in that in a world where harassment cannot be eliminated, the best is to avoid engagement of it. GG has shown there's two things that harassers want: to either silence their opponents, or to have those they target respond in anger, as they are entertained by this (read: see what happened to Ryulong), and to not give the harassers a reaction in either direction is the fastest way to make them go away. It's sound advice and within the scope of what ArbCom can actually do. We cannot do more than that within the current framework set by the WMF. --MASEM (t) 20:38, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

Another 407 words. Great. Let me answer each point briefly.

• Everyone ought to work toward consensus: that does not mean ignoring the sources because a faction finds them inconvenient or believes that the mainstream press is biased.
• It is not that I am "set" in my characterization of Gamergate, but rather the sources are set. Gamergate is synonymous with harassment and with an assault on Wikipedia; nothing else of note has been widely reported.
• I am perfectly willing to describe the stream of brigaded, zombie, sock puppet, and brigaded accounts that arrive to support Gamergate, and the experienced editors who invariable support and assist them, by whatever term of art Wikipedia prefers; we need no longer debate whether the phenomenon is unmentionable because it's now the basis for the 30/500 rule.
• I do expect Wikipedia to use its best efforts to prevent harassment and to protect its editors as well as others harassed in its pages, and I expect the same from Wikipedians.
• Arbcom's advice, which you praise, was shameful and, once exposed to the light of day, hastily retracted.
• If you cannot do more, in the long run you will have no Wikipedia at all. MarkBernstein (talk) 21:21, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
  • "I am perfectly willing to describe the stream of brigaded, zombie, sock puppet, and brigaded accounts that arrive to support Gamergate, and the experienced editors who invariable support and assist them, by whatever term of art Wikipedia prefers". Unless you have evidence to this effect (the italicized part), this is maintaining a battleground attitude which Arbcom said should not happen. If you have clear evidence that someone is aiding GGers to abuse WP policy, then take it to AE; otherwise, you're drawing battle lines and refusing to work towards consesnsus and that's something ArbCom said had to stop. --MASEM (t) 03:04, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

I've answered this many times before. If you have any questions, feel free to ask. 03:14, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

Notice of AE enforcement against you

I have opened an AE enforcement request regarding your recent behavior, that is opened here: [14]. I did try to offer the olive branch above, but you want to continue to assume myself and others are acting in bad faith. --MASEM (t) 21:06, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

Reply to AN questions

Hi MarkBernstein, I wanted to assuage your concerns that my comments at the AN request earlier today contained any sort of request for you to explain yourself. Since the request has been closed I hope to reach out to you here at your talk page so you don't feel like your question has been ignored (a pet peeve of mine). Let me start by acknowledging that I haven't yet read all 2000 of Masem's posts at "Talk:Gamergate controversy" nor have I read the thousands and thousands of other posts on that exceptionally active talk page. To tell the truth I've rather been avoiding it. My objection at AN was to the implications that Masem is a misogynist. The basis for my comment was my own personal experience gained over the last half-decade since I ran into Masem. Nothing more. My comment had nothing to do with Masem's AE enforcement filing against you and I certainly didn't intend my comment to sound like a prompt for you to explain yourself. I apologize if that wasn't clear.

Despite my doubts that the practice is approved by Masem, however, I am intrigued by your comments regarding "the persistent use of Wikipedia to harass women in computing". I am interested to learn in the next few months about the Wikipedia-related aspects of the GamerGate controversy and I was wondering if I might get a statement or two from you on that topic for a feature on GamerGate that the WP:VG Newsletter hopes to run next quarter (the first quarterly anniversary of the whole brouhaha). The details aren't fixed yet, but at this point we're hoping for something along the lines of a retrospective seeing where we've been, where we are, and where we're going (Have things improved? Are there persistent problems? What are the broader implications? That sort of thing). This feature will not be touching on the controversy itself except indirectly via its manifestation within Wikipedia and the WP:VG Newsletter is keenly interested in hearing voices from all sides of the Wikipedia disagreement. The issue with this feature will be coming out some time in early October so there's plenty of time. If you're interested in contributing I or another Newsletter editor will give you more specifics about how to participate. Does this sound like something you might be willing to help us with? -Thibbs (talk) 18:36, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

I'm not familiar with WP:VG Newsletter. I might perhaps be willing to write something, but I'm not at all sure you want me to! As I said at AN, I don't necessarily disagree with you about Masem -- and in any case I've not disagreed with you on-wiki for months and months. But we may not agree about Wikipedia and the Arbcom decision. Before you rush in, you ought to read what I wrote in the wake of the original Arbcom proposed decision: Infamous and its sequels -- all linked from my user page. Press fallout from those is here: [15]. So, you may want to rethink the whole thing.

And I'dl also require some assurance that none of the other editorial will be truly shameful -- that it will, for example, treat Gamergate's designated victims with respect and observe the principles of BLP. I only mention this because some other publications have not done so, and as I said I’ve not heard of yours.

But, yes, I might be able to put something together for you if you want it. MarkBernstein (talk) 20:06, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

Great! I appreciate it. I've looked through the writing you've linked and although I don't necessarily agree with every word it's clear that you are articulate and that you have been thinking deeply about the issues in relation to Wikipedia. Your participation would be very welcome. Regarding the potential for shaming of victims, I think I can safely assure you that this won't be a problem. The article won't be rehashing the events of the incident/controversy as the emphasis will be on the fallout within Wikipedia. Anyway the WP:VG Newsletter respects the wishes of anyone who contributes to the article and all contributors will have the opportunity to review, tweak, and approve the article before it is published. -Thibbs (talk) 13:01, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

"we have seen this pattern before" Let's talk about that.

“ There are a thousand internet forums where the evils/merits of gamergate and harassment can be discussed. Please find something else to do while at Wikipedia.” MarkBernstein (talk) 14:26, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Humans are prone to see patterns. Especially when they have preconceptions about a topic and see their "opponents." There is a quote from the video game Skyrim that I think would suit our situation here: "The Old enemies assume that every calamity must be a plot by the other side." Oh yes, I love video games, another suspicious trait? You see, people can read everything you wrote without ever being an editor. As I said at zad's page, I came to Wikipedia because I saw that this gamergate issue was fundamentally changing Wikipedia. I haven't come here to defend or tarnish "Gamergate movement" or whatever you call it. I haven't come here to defend or tarnish Gamergate targets either. I come here to protect the wiki from becoming a club for few editors with an agenda other than writing a neutral encyclopedia, and that includes both camps. How new users are treated in gamergate article is a prime example of what I'm saying. Gamergate will eventually be forgotten, but there will always be contentious topics and how we act on this topic will partially set the tone on how we will act in the future contentious topics.   I have my opinion of gamergate of course, and it is most likely different than yours. I don't see gamergate as an ISIS like evil organization trying to take over Wikipedia for one. But believe me when I say I really don't care much about gamergate. I only tried to contribute to that article once, months ago. I actually opened an account for it, because I did not remember the password for this one. That account is still there, I think it was called burzumdraud. Ironically I don't remember the password right now:) That is the beginning of my experience with the editing of Wikipedia. From then on I watched the talk pages, AE discussions, read through the old arbcom decisions, and wiki policies that are constantly being thrown around, hence my knowledge of wiki rules. I come to the point where I could not stand by and watch while Wikipedia was becoming a "dystopia" so I decided to return.(also, free time, boredom.)   You will probably see me as a supporter of gamergate, since you also implied Masem is one. This is the problem, your camp sees anything other than complete agreement as being the other side. Gamergate article does have problems, and frankly you are a part of those problems. But you can be a part of the solution if you like, I understand you have strong feelings for the issue and it's good to have someone adamant to prevent anyone's name being tarnished in Wikipedia. But to best way to go about it is to be neutral as possible, the current BLP policies already forbid slander and such.(By the way I've edited the Mattress performance article because of a similar reason, some kid's name was being tarnished there too, he was being accused of a heinous crime without any evidence. I think you would feel the same enthusiasm to protect this person who was cleared by authorities, but condemned in the public eye.) From what I can see you are in a self declared battle with not just Gamergate, but also Wikipedia, and that creates a disruptive environment. I think that article is in a serious need of new impartial editors, but more than that it needs entrenched editors to pause, and reflect... Anyways, I tend to be a bit tedious when I'm trying to explain myself, can't keep my focus for some reason, sorry about that. I hope you will have time to read this, I tried to make constructive criticisms and I don't wish to be in a conflict with any editor in Wikipedia, cheers! Darwinian Ape talk 01:34, 6 July 2015 (UTC) There are a thousand internet forums where the evils/merits of gamergate and harassment can be discussed. Please find something else to do while at Wikipedia—see WP:NOTFORUM. There are a never-ending stream of good faith new and returned editors who want to re-litigate every tiny step in the gamergate saga, and continuing that path will not assist the encyclopedia. Instead, stick to actionable proposals intended to improve an article, supported by reliable sources. Wikipedia is not a place where everyone has to be satisfied. Johnuniq (talk) 01:47, 6 July 2015 (UTC) I just responded to Mark Bernstein's veiled accusations at another part of Wikipedia, and tried to explain myself. That is hardly using wikipedia as a forum. If you don't like it don't read it, it's same for M. Bernstein he could delete it and not respond if he likes to. Darwinian Ape talk 02:01, 6 July 2015 (UTC) There is absolutely nothing in policy prohibiting or even discouraging your post above. Some editors find ever-time-consuming ways to avoid building content. I suggest you weigh their advice in proportion to their necessity to the encyclopedia. 199.167.138.49 (talk) 02:33, 6 July 2015 (UTC) I think it is much more useful to look at the advice and judge it by its own merits. Darwinian Ape talk 02:53, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for showing the quality of your character, next time please do not throw veiled or unveiled accusations of me being a sock. I, In good faith, explained myself to you, whether you read it or not. Feel free to move this above. cheers! Darwinian Ape ^talk 14:55, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

Excuse me? I said nothing about socks or other forms of puppets at all -- though, with today’s revelation that Handpolk was in fact a sock all along, I can understand why the question would be fresh in your mind. What I said is that the pattern you present -- a brand-new editor, thoroughly versed in arcana corners of WikiLaw and editing extensively in those esoteric corners while insistently proclaiming Good Faith and displaying eagerness to discuss again old and settled Gamergate controversies -- is one that is indeed familiar to the Gamergate controversy. The 500/30 rule was intended to reduce the impact of this pattern, and this discussion reminds even skeptics like me that it might be useful. MarkBernstein (talk) 15:10, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

The reason I responded to you here was your remarks at zad's talk page : "New but very knowledgable editors who immediately engage in Gamergate targets and in Wikipedia rules discussion: this is a pattern we have seen before." That to me was a veiled accusation, so I wanted to clear the air. I don't know what happened to handpolk, I just logged in and saw you hatted this section. So nothing is "fresh" in my mind. Skepticism is a good trait, yours is not so much a skepticism, its just predetermined assumptions. Darwinian Ape ^talk 15:29, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

(TPS) These "predetermined assumptions" have, thus far, been 100% correct. Statistics is not on your side of the argument, I'm afraid.--Jorm (talk) 15:34, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

Darwin: we know that Gamergate recruits editors; we have seen it the discussions and their consequences. We know that Gamergate obtained a stack of dormant accounts; we have seen the zombie parade. We know that several of these accounts followed a common pattern of editing. These are empirical facts. None of them necessarily involve puppetry, which is completely beside the point. MarkBernstein (talk) 15:41, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

Anyway everything I wrote in that hatted section is true. I haven't been dishonest in my life, I am not going to start here. And I reserve my right to take umbrage at any implication that I am being dishonest. My only concern in all this is the future of Wikipedia, not gamergate or some other party. Darwinian Ape ^talk 15:54, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

WP:AE

I have removed your comment here. Regardless of what offense an editor may or may not have committed, it is inappropriate to belittle what topic areas they choose to contribute to. Gamaliel (talk) 20:52, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

OK -- that's fair enough. I expressed myself poorly and apologize for any offense. I didn't intend to belittle those topics but rather to allude to their ample coverage, but I can see how a different interpretation could easily be placed on my comment. MarkBernstein (talk) 20:55, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

I see what you were getting at. I agree, there are areas, especially pop culture ones, where we have more than ample coverage. Gamaliel (talk) 20:57, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

Arbitration Request

Per my off-wiki discussion with an arbitrator I have opened an arbitration request about you. I consider that this request falls within the express exceptions to my iBan with you, as does this edit. The request is here. Vordrak (talk) 15:43, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

Mark Bernstein case request declined

Hi, MarkBernstein,
You were recently named as an involved party in an arbitration case request. This is a notice to let you know that the case request has been declined by the arbitration committee. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:40, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

AN mention

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.Sitush (talk) 17:00, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

Last Sunday: groundless smear campaign filed at Arbcom. I guess this is the followup? MarkBernstein (talk) 18:37, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

I have no idea what happened last Sunday, so I guess the answer to your question is "no". - Sitush (talk) 10:22, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

So it is fine for you to spout unedifying crap on Twitter etc but not when others do it? Pot and kettle. - Sitush (talk) 15:26, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

Did I spout anti-semitic nonsense about you on Twitter? What I said was:

Another day at Wikipedia, another orchestrated attempt to smear me. Because ethics.'

Boy howdy, this is driving me up a wall. Just a week ago we were dancing at Arbcom.

This seems quite mild, and if you feel singled out by it, well, sorry dude. Did I openly strategize how to procure your topic ban, by fair means or foul? Did I call you funny (ethnic) names? Did I contemplate your public burning? Nope. Actually, I haven't seen anyone saying anything bad about you on the Gamergate boards: they’re huge fans. OK, Sea Lions Of Wikipedia did say you might have flippers, I guess, but the whole thing is about the sea lion show. (Seriously: I thought pretty well of you before this, and could be persuaded to think that again. I don’t believe I've mentioned you on Twitter at all, and aside from the Sea Lions piece, which is mild and you might think amusing, I haven't seen whatever it is you're talking about. ) MarkBernstein (talk) 15:59, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

I am talking about you being a duplicitous, hypocritical contributor who is here to further a cause rather than build an encyclopaedia, You'll be long gone before me. - Sitush (talk) 18:51, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

I'd respond if there were something here to which response was possible. MarkBernstein (talk) 20:43, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

On a side note...

I note on your website that you have a review of the first Novik Temeraire book. I read the first three of that series and enjoyed them, but stalled out partway through the fourth one several weeks ago and haven't managed to go back. (That may be, however, because I tried to read it on my phone while I read the first three on paper, but that's not hindered me, however, on other books that I've read on my phone. I may try it again on my tablet, where the reading is easier.) I note on your author's list, of which I'm envious and somewhat in awe, that you've also read Grossman's Magicians series and Gaiman's American Gods which were the last two things I've read, both of which I particularly enjoyed. If you liked the Grossman books, they reminded me somewhat of Stephen R. Donaldson's books, especially his Thomas Covenant series, which isn't in your list. The similarity isn't so much in plot or tone, but that some of the richness comes from the fact that you don't much like the main male character. Indeed, Donaldson's titular main character is very close to being despicable (and not in a cute, endearing, or fascinating way that makes you kind of like him as is often the case with villain-as-hero fiction). Along with the Middle-Earth work of Tolkien, Herbert's Dune (the first book, not so much the series), maybe King's Dark Tower (especially — but not necessarily — when expanded to include all his connected works), I think Covenant is probably one of the top half-dozen works of modern fantasy literature. Finally, not on that level but pretty darn fascinating, I can strongly recommend Peter F. Hamilton's The Night's Dawn Trilogy which is an interesting combination of hard science fiction/space opera and supernatural fiction; all of Hamilton's work is pretty good, as well. Oh, and just one more, going from the sublime to the ridiculous and taking us kind of back to where we started with the alternate-slightly-silly-history of Temeraire, you might want to try the even-sillier 1632 series by Eric Flint and co-writers; read the Wikipedia description that I've linked and if you're interested read the first one, 1632; lots of fun, not much substance. Best regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 17:09, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. I read Donaldson in college, and Dune even before (and I've reread it a few times since). The book you don’t mention, and which you really must read, is Jo Walton’s Among Others -- a brilliant story about an magic and science fiction. MarkBernstein (talk) 17:13, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

And thanks back, I'll look for it. Best regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 17:32, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

Jo Walton is becoming one of my favorite authors. I'm convinced she's going to become a Grand Master some day. I also recommend The Just City and its sequel. Gamaliel (talk) 18:02, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

The only thing standing between Jo Walton and Grand Master is her flexibility: she does so many things so well. I'm saving the Plato books for a rainy day. If you've not read the Small Change trilogy, you have a treat in store. And Tooth And Claw is amazing -- a Victorian sentimental novel recast so women (well dragons) act that way because they really have to act that way. Walton�’s criticism is fine as well. MarkBernstein (talk) 19:11, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

I've only read the first of the Small Change books. It was excellent, of course. It appeared to be a regular country house mystery with some dark historical overtones, complete with a typically overqualified UK police detective...and then it became something else entirely. Gamaliel (talk) 16:47, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

A question

Hi mark :) can i ask you a question? Retartist 11:57, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

Looks like you already did. Tarc (talk) 12:16, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

How can I be of service? MarkBernstein (talk) 13:35, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

During my absence i had a look at eastgate systems (being bored) and i was wondering about the hypertext style of writing. Is it like a choose your own adventure book or is there more to it? (sorry if this isn't the right forum for this question) Retartist (talk) 21:11, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

Most hypertext fiction is more concerned with tone and point of view and nuance than with changing what happens -- with what the reader know and how it's told, rather than with piling up the gold pieces are defeating the big bad. I like to distinguish between "story" -- what happens -- and "plot" -- how it's told. [[16]] is a decent starting place. MarkBernstein (talk) 21:32, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

Thanks Retartist (talk) 22:46, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

Edit War

Your recent editing history at Margaret Sanger shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you get reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.

Your last edit on Margaret Sanger represents your second revert on a sanctioned page with a 1RR in place. This page is 1RR for a reason. I know this could be an accident due to you not reading the gigantic notice on the edit page but if you repeat this infraction I will file a request on Wikipedia:AE asking for a topic ban. Chrononem ☎ 14:19, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

I have no judgement or involvement in the article subject itself, not really in to old peple & historical figures, but upon reviewing the edit history it does not appear that Mr. Bernstein has at any time recently performed a revert at all, much less participated in a revert/edit war.

• 12:03 17 Aug
• 12:09 17 Aug
• 11:22 19 Aug
• 09:46 20 Aug

The 19th was a standard edit, and the edit of the 20th was at most a partial revert of text that had been changed in the interim. If thie initial edit was not a revert, then the edit of the 20th cannot be considered "revert #2" in any manner. So please, be more mindful in the future of the difference between editing an article and revert-warring an article, which, judging by the history there, you yourself are awfully familiar with. Keep in mind that an article on 1RR restriction does not confer a right to 1 revert per day. Tarc (talk) 14:49, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

"Reverting means undoing or otherwise negating the effects of one or more edits, which results in the page (or a part of it) being restored to a previous version. Partial reversion involves restoring one part of the page to a previous version, but leaving other contributions intact."

Mark has been involved in an edit war that resulted in the page being protected a while back. The goal seems to be to remove the longstanding "controversies" section without integrating its content into the rest of the article, compromising NPOV. Both of his edits are partial reverts and the second one in the last 24 hours represents a violation of the 1RR. Chrononem ☎ 14:56, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict)(twice!) @Tarc: (a) Isn't there also a policy about templating experienced editors? (b) This page is headed to AE and then, I expect, to Arbcom. How can this be done in a way that minimizes drama and time? I can see this making it up the line, with much gnashing of teeth and mayhem, just as Arbcom is ready to wrap up Shabbazz/IP, and that would not be a good thing for the project. Nor will it be great for the project to have this page be a coatrack of Ben Carson campaign talking points, especially in light of all the scrutiny we're attracting in the wake of GGTF/GG/Lightbreater. MarkBernstein (talk) 15:07, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) No policy, just an essay, WP:DTTR, suggesting it is more effective to leave personalized notes. — Strongjam (talk) 15:10, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

If you would stop edit warring on the page it may help out a lot. Or at least work to reach neutrality instead of just working against what you perceive as Ben Carson talking points. If someone visits the page on wikipedia in response to hearing his talking points and doesn't see anything dealing with it they'll potentially add it themselves. Wouldn't it be better to deal with it in a NPOV manner? Chrononem ☎ 15:20, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

I've been doing things like moving the description of the subject’s views to a section titled Views, since a section on "Controversies" would naturally include controversies in which she was engaged. I’ve also been correcting grammar and trying, thus far unsuccessfully, to tighten an article that is filled with a coatrack of quotations, many of them poorly contextualized, which are clearly intended to embarrass the subject of the article. I am dealing with this in a NPOV manner, and I do wish you'd either drop your pointy stick or take this straight to AE or wherever you like. MarkBernstein (talk) 15:33, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

So far the edits you have made have had a focus on not dealing with it. I can only presume your intent to be an attempt to whitewash the page, an attempt that will likely hurt the pro-Sanger lobby in the long run. Chrononem ☎ 16:02, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

Sanger died fifty years ago, in her late 80s. Her best-known writing appeared more than a century ago. There is no Margaret Sanger lobby. Your characterization of my edits is simply incorrect; please stop the personal attack. If you’ve got some reason to complain, WP:AE is thataway ⇒. MarkBernstein (talk) 16:26, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

Palestine-Israel articles 3 arbitration case opened

You may opt-out of future notification regarding this case at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Palestine-Israel articles 3/Notification list. 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/Palestine-Israel articles 3. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Palestine-Israel articles 3/Evidence. Please add your evidence by September 8, 2015, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Palestine-Israel articles 3/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 15:43, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

Talk:Gamergate controversy

Hey, please try to be less...personal attacky? on that talk page. Drmies (talk) 22:31, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

As you know, we've had a long history on that page with accounts fitting this profile. The 500/30 rule was created to deter zombie accounts, and has in part succeeded, though we have seen a recent upsurge in IP socks in their place. Almost invariably, these account debut with a declaration that they are severely neutral, and they are upset that Wikipedia is hostile to Gamergate. I do not think that a brief observation to this effect is an unwarranted personal attack, especially in view of (a) the protracted harassment of Wikipedians who have tried to uphold policy on that page, (b) the adoption of policies specifically intended to deter zombie accounts, and (c) the fact that Gamergate boards have just started a campaign to donate sock puppets to the homeless! (I kid you not.) I continue to wish you, or someone, would take steps to end this interminable drain on volunteer morale and the continuing threat it poses to Wikipedia. MarkBernstein (talk) 23:22, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

Look, the comment you made, it may make you feel good, but why should it encourage me to dig deeper into that shit pile to maybe find something to take action on? Post it on ANI, or on some ArbCom related DS page, and phrase it in a way that makes it easier and maybe inviting to volunteers (I don't get paid for this) to look into it. You've been in this business for a while, and I haven't--so, for instance, I have no idea what 500/30 you're talking about; I assume it's got something to do with numbers of edits over time. Either way, saying "hey admins, this account seems to be flaunting some rule" would sound a lot better, and it also wouldn't make you look like a rude person. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 23:38, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

@Drmies: I have no idea what 500/30 you're talking about Accounts require 500 edits & 30 days to edit the article or it's talk page. A kind of "super-autoconfirmed" status I guess. Zad68 implemented it and it's enforced by an edit filter. It was quite controversial at the time, but it's stuck around. — Strongjam (talk) 23:44, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. Sounds exciting--I almost wish I was still engaged with Gamergate. It's kind of fun to be tweeted about. Drmies (talk) 23:47, 26 August 2015 (UTC)