User talk:J0eg0d

Hi! welcome to Wikipedia!

Hope you enjoy contributing to Wikipedia. Be bold in editing pages. Here are some links that you might find useful: I hope you stick around and keep contributing to Wikipedia. Drop a note at New user log. -- Utcursch | Talk to me
 * Try the Tutorial. If you have less time, try How to edit a page.
 * To sign your posts (on talk pages, Articles for deletion page etc.) use 	 ~ (four tildes). This will insert your name and timestamp. To insert just your name, type (3 tildes).
 * You can experiment in the test area.
 * You can get help at the Help Desk
 * Some other pages that will help you know more about Wikipedia: Manual of Style and Policies and Guidelines, Neutral point of view, Civility, Wikiquette, What Wikipedia is not
 * If you made IP edits before creating a user account, you can attribute your IP edits to your account at Changing attribution for an edit.

May 2014 - McGeddon
Please do not introduce incorrect information into articles, as you did to Sarah Silverman. Your edits appear to be vandalism and have been reverted. If you believe the information you added was correct, please cite references or sources or discuss the changes on the article's talk page before making them again. If you would like to experiment, use the sandbox. Thank you. McGeddon (talk) 11:31, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

Response To McGeddon
Please do not correct information I've added to articles, as you did to Sarah Silverman. Your edits appear to be apathetic and have been assumed racist. If you believe the information you deleted was incorrect, please cite references or sources or discuss the changes on the article's talk page before making assumptions again. If you would like to experiment, use any convenient gloryhole for anonymity.

I created MINOR edits as they should not be in review nor disputed before public knowledge. I added her family members. Her sisters to be specific. Susan Silverman (oldest sister) and Jodyne L Speyer (youngest sister "step-sister" specifically). All information is correct. I added info to her partners although not all of them. Joe Franklin raped her as a child - it specifies that in the Wikipedia entry. I simply added the dates. Dave Attell & Colin Quinn both banged Sarah early in her career - is correct. Jimmy Kimmel was posted twice for differing timelines - is correct. Donald Sterling Owner of the LA Clippers was added because that's hilarious - is correct. Michael Sheen and Sarah MAY be dating. They are friends and they MAY be promoting her appearance on the Masters Of Sex SHOWTIME series. It may be a media prank that you've allowed to remain. LASTLY: Your definition of vandalism is very different from my own; as mine should be corrected as performance art literature. Thank you. j0eg0d (talk) 01:23, 12 May 2014 (GMT)

License tagging for File:J0eg0d Icon
Thanks for uploading j0eg0d icon --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 14:05, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

February 2015
ARBCOM

WIKI:Gamergate Controversy Restrictions
Hi there! The Gamergate controversy article and its talk page is restricted to being edited by editors who have had an account for at least 30 days (not a problem in your case) and have at least 500 edits. Per this restriction, I have removed your comment. PeterTheFourth (talk) 04:44, 18 May 2015 (UTC)


 * It's in your best interest to note the restriction. --Neil N  talk to me 04:50, 18 May 2015 (UTC)


 * For clarification; A 500 edit minimum I can work through, but this entry in (TALK) < /br>


 * Women Of Action Media is a website that works closely in relation with Twitter & other social mediums to push immediate action against online harassment. WAM & Twitter's Abuse Problem. In a detailed report released May 13, 2015 on PDF WAM indicated that only 43% of victims actually report harassment. Whereas 57% of the reports were provided by the "Twitter Followers" of the alleged victim. A collection of said reports mention #gamergate specifically; Although WAM's investigation states "death threats", "rape threats", "doxxing", "bullying", "harassment", etc ... had very little to do with the #GamerGate hashtag at all.


 * It was also removed because it's a "primary source"? The very organization that works with Twitter to address abuse & harassment can not be a source without a completely separate source to back it up? --j0eg0d (talk) 05:22, 18 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Hi j0eg0d. The WAM Report can be used, but we can't interpret it. We can make a clear statement, such as "According to WAM, 12% of accounts that were allegedly used to send harassment were identified as Gamergate supporters". However, we can't judge the importance of the report, as we judge the importance by looking at how people use it and refer to it, which means it is hard to know how much to emphasise the findings. We also can't interpret the report in any way, because that is something we aren't allowed to do. Wikipedia's role is that of a tertiary source, reporting on what primary and (most importantly) secondary sources say, rather than engaging in research ourselves. - Bilby (talk) 05:56, 18 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Hello Bilby ... I understand. But there's still some question to what "source materials" can & can not be "viable".


 * For example an article by Fast Company by Sarah Kessler extends the narrative of the 12% findings;


 * Gamergate made up only a small percentage of reports of online harassment. Though the Gamergate controversy has been one the most visible stories about online harassment in the mainstream media over the past year or two, only about 12% of the 512 alleged harassing accounts reported to WAM could be linked to it.


 * Kessler also noted that Twitter only deleted one account in response to the 161 reports of harassments, which lends to the same narrative that the findings presented by Women Of Action Media had determined either no really threats had occurred or Twitter was biased in removing the accounts.


 * Additionally an article from September 2014 in Game Politics carried a POLL asking "What Is #GamerGate About?"


 * Around 1,855 votes were cast (our second largest poll ever), with the majority of them going to the option, rooting out malfeasance in game journalism. Around 70% of the votes (1,298 votes) said that the Twitter hashtag #gamergate represents finding and eliminating alleged corruption in journalism. Around 13% (242 votes) said that it really depended on the person using the hashtag. While six% (119 votes) said it was about silencing those who talk about gender issues in video games. And around 5% (91 votes) said that the hashtag was meant to show that "not all gamers" are bad people. Finally, 4% (77 votes) said that they didn't know what #gamergate is & 2% (28 votes) said the #gamergate hashtag is about eliminating discussions on cultural differences in video games. Poll Image


 * The current GamerGate_Controversy WIKI is lacking news articles that credit any retort to the main controversy; That #gamergate is simply a hashtag and it is used by several diversities. Another website similar to WAM, known as Deep Freeze independently researches the alleged corruption of gaming journalists. Some, I might point out, have written the very articles provided in the current GamerGate_Controversy WIKI. Let alone these same journalist confer with one another through a mailing list on their Google Group Community. It was first reported by BreitBart. It included the contents of those emails along with the original email addresses. Needless to say WIKI demands viable news coverages, and the articles provided have credibility issues with the people writing them.--j0eg0d (talk) 08:47, 18 May 2015 (UTC)


 * As a quick answer, I think the FastCompany source you provided is a good one. I need to run off to a class, but I'll see what we can use from it when I get back. Off the top of my head, though, I think it may be a better source for talking about harassment on Twitter in general, rather than GamerGate in particular, but hopefully there is something we can use. - Bilby (talk) 02:45, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

TALK:Gamergate Controversy Restrictions
Your edit has been reverted as there are restrictions on the article and talk page that only allow edits from editors whose accounts are at least a month old and who have at least 500 edits. You only have 78 edits so at this point, you can not contribute to the discussion on the talk page or edit the article. Liz Talk 01:20, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

--j0eg0d (talk) 01:40, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
 * There's a 500 edit minimum for the TALK page? I could guess why the main article would have this restriction, but for what possible purpose could anyone need to limit a TALK page?


 * That's an issue under discussion. It is an unusual level of protection, but GamerGate is an unusual situation to try and manage, as the off-site coordination causes issues. It is intended as a temporary measure, but it is one that we currently need to work within. - Bilby (talk) 03:16, 19 May 2015 (UTC)


 * there's some discussion on the topic over here. Your voice would be appreciated (at least by me) Riffraffselbow (talk) (contribs) 07:02, 19 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Thank you for the link. --j0eg0d (talk) 07:18, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

Refactoring at Village Pump
Hi, Please accept my apologies for the rudeness in collapsing some of your post at this page. I'm afraid it's likely to be considered off topic or WP:FORUM, and get you into more trouble that it's worth. Other editors can still read the information by clicking on the "show" link. Please let me know if you have any questions. - Ryk72 'c.s.n.s.' 01:20, 20 May 2015 (UTC)


 * I've noticed two individuals Jorm & Alsee ignoring (discounting) the collapsed thread all together. I couldn't tell if this was from short-sightedness or if a thread being collapsed is so readily dismissed? I'm trying not to repeat myself in this page but languid observations were unforeseen. Must I entertain deficient remarks, or will I experience a greater number? --j0eg0d (talk) 09:00, 21 May 2015 (UTC).


 * Hi, To give you the best advice, I'll need to have a look at that thread & a wee think. My personal thoughts are that the "page level restriction" that's preventing you from commenting at the Article Talk page disproportionate; but that is still the right place for the comment that I collapsed. From my observations here, if you post somewhere where it's off topic, you'll likely face a ban or block.
 * If I can offer some advice without having seen the latest in that thread, and therefore without passing any comment on other editors... sometimes the best thing to do on Wikipedia is just "scroll down". We don't need to respond to everything. - Ryk72 'c.s.n.s.' 09:58, 21 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Understandably. My previous post in here was closed for being "off topic" - There was nothing off-topic about this. I kept it focused on the root problem; Unfair Limits on the very TALK section where communication is most needed. Is it the commonality to be silenced on a topic? How are we supposed to have an open dialogue about said limitations when my stance is both feared and opposed? This separate perspective is literally disallowed and openly targeted for not continuing the "popular opinion". I'm trying to be objectively balanced here, but this reeks of bias. --j0eg0d (talk) 10:34, 21 May 2015 (UTC).

Brianna Wu WIKI Page
Hi, J0eg0d, I reverted your edit the other day on this article's talk page because you didn't meet the 500/30 editing restriction. I've since been told that this restriction only applies to Gamergate controversy and not all associated Gamergate articles. I went to revert my edit but there have been dozens of edits since that day including several by you so I'm assuming you have readded that content. My apologies for my premature revert. Liz Read! Talk! 17:01, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

"Are You Aware?" - I am wondering if you are aware that you are skating on very thin ice on the Brianna Wu talk page? Please do not respond with your bold caps style of comment, as your style of pushing the Gamergate POV places you at a very high risk of being blocked. There is perhaps a small chance that you can become a productive Wikipedia editor. But only if you reconsider your approach and stop your POV pushing now. Cullen328  Let's discuss it  06:25, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Of course it's up to you but I wouldn't take any of the above very seriously. A brief search of this editor's history should tell you all you need to know. 208.167.254.15 (talk) 06:40, 28 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Thank you 208.167.254.15. I don't mind critique or passive aggressiveness. I'm an altruist; I'm neither here for awards or whatever (fragile) status feeds egoism. I will keep in mind disingenuous people & with whom they Wikihound. Sincerely, --j0eg0d (talk) 20:37, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

Mark Bernstein's Bizarre Behavior

 * You may be interested to know that on [Brianna_Wu], this user appears to have edited while signed out, and then signed the auto signed post. The IP address was /208.167.254.15; it appears JoeGod is using this page to offer advice to himself, and then to thank himself for his advice. I know Wikipedia allows great latitude for users to edit their own talk page, but....  See also the claim to a 2008 Hugo on the User page, which seems somewhat far-fetched, even for the editorial categories (he's not David Hartwell) or the fan writer (John Scalzi? Don’t think so). under protest MarkBernstein (talk) 22:24, 29 May 2015 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure why you have such difficulty linking simple pages or reading diffs. I made only one comment on Talk:Brianna Wu which stands with its original signature, my own. I have no idea what motivated your misunderstanding nor do I care unless it affects the article in some way you've yet to identify. Perhaps your time would be better spent learning our software than attempting to stir drama.


 * Assuming had posted then redacted his IP address your repeating it may violate WP:OUTING. Your speculation as to 's real life identity and  for further identifying information are wholly inappropriate and likely warrant sanction. I caution you to redact the offending content immediately. 208.167.254.15 (talk) 23:52, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

Your user page claims you won a Hugo Award in 2008. This seems surprising, especially reviewing the list of winners. Would you kindly indicate in which category you won, or retract the claim? MarkBernstein (talk) 22:15, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

File Deletions
File:J0eg0d Icon.jpeg listed for deletion A file that you uploaded or altered, File:J0eg0d Icon.jpeg, has been listed at Files for deletion. Please see the to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination. Thank you. Ironholds (talk) 22:29, 29 May 2015 (UTC)


 * * COPYRIGHT " Artwork designed by j0eg0d. Made by Zazzle Paper in San Jose, CA. Sold by Zazzle." That's my artwork. I made it. The pixelation is because the image was originally a cursor I made using BitMaker . It belongs to me. --j0eg0d (talk) 07:42, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

Possibly unfree File:StinkingBadge.jpg A file that you uploaded or altered, File:StinkingBadge.jpg, has been listed at Possibly unfree files because its copyright status is unclear or disputed. If the file's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the file description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at if you object to the listing for any reason. Thank you. Strongjam (talk) 02:07, 30 May 2015 (UTC)


 * It could be one of these many images:             ... or maybe it's ONE of these two images:  -  Oh wait, those are mine!!!


 * The ever popular and recognizable star-shaped Wild West sheriff's badge, thought to be a Hollywood creation for Westerns was originally designed by the Texas Rangers and fashioned to identify with their state nickname and emblem: The Lone Star State. It was said Texas Rangers badges were made from 1884 Pesos, but the badge in question here is an inauthentic semblance. The quotation "Stinkin Badge" is a derivative from the 1948 film The Treasure of the Sierra Madre. It has been in circulation since the re-popularization of the quote in the 1974 film Blazing Saddles. It is not a promotional item nor a prop & it's freely used across many websites. The image & badge have no ownership claims, no copyright, no trademarks or registration of a likenesses thereof. You can find the image for sale on products from both  eBay & Cafe Press. But I hope you purchase it from my store on Zazzle. --j0eg0d (talk) 07:24, 30 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I suggest that you learn a little bit about how copyright works.--Jorm (talk) 07:39, 30 May 2015 (UTC)


 * COPYRIGHT:  " Artwork designed by j0eg0d. Made by Zazzle Paper in San Jose, CA. Sold by Zazzle." That's my artwork. I made it. It belongs to me.
 * CONTRIBUTION: Recognized in pop culture fandom. --j0eg0d (talk) 01:23, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

Removing SPAM
Hello! Please do not edit other editor's comments, as you did at the Arbitration Enforcement Requests page. I advise you read WP:TPO, as I believe this will aid your understanding of our policies regarding editing other editor's comments. PeterTheFourth has made few or no other edits outside this topic. 07:13, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

PeterTheFourth The edit was to remove Self-Promotion and Advertising. You restored the promotional content - I have made note of it. --j0eg0d (talk) 09:08, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Unless the comments involve copyright violations, BLP violations, vandalism or edits by sock accounts, you can not remove or refactor other editors' comments on a talk page or noticeboard.
 * I do appreciate you answering my question about "brigading". Liz  Read! Talk!</b> 09:49, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
 * The purpose was to remove WP:SPAM specifically Mark Bernstein's Self-Promotion and Advertising of his website.

BLP applies everywhere
You made two comments with speculation and links about an identified person: Bilby removed the first and I removed the second. The rule is simple: do not post commentary about living persons on any page at Wikipedia unless certain conditions are satisfied, per WP:BLP. The conditions could be explored at another time but for now it is best to keep it simple. If you have concerns about an actionable proposal for the content in an article, you need to express those concerns in general terms, without providing opinions on the character of an identified living person. For example, if someone is convicted of murder, and if it is relevant for an actionable proposal regarding article content, it is fine to observe that the person is a murderer. However, if someone is accused of a crime or other abuse, the simple rule is to not mention it. Johnuniq (talk) 10:47, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
 * diff at Talk:Online Abuse Prevention Initiative
 * diff at User talk:Bilby


 * You removed my question to an Admin from their TALK page before the Admin was able to review it? The policy of WP:BLPTALK was enacted to ensure that we could discuss possible allegations on the TALK page of living subjects when it's related to the article or content choices. The whole WP:BLP policy in itself was supposed to ensure that we get information regarding living people correct. It was never intended to purposefully censor or negate any possible new information regarding living people. Only for us to be cautious about them.--j0eg0d (talk) 11:09, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Here's the revised version removing BLP concerns:

--j0eg0d (talk) 11:45, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
 * This is a relatively new website, but pardon if I'm mistaking; ▀▀▀▀▀▀ is the ▀▀▀▀▀▀ (correct?) This same ▀▀▀▀▀▀ has been accused of abuse, bullying & harassment by StopTheGRBullies: ▀▀▀▀▀▀ organized a revolt to write "bad reviews" of Amazon & Goodreads books by authors ▀▀▀▀▀▀ didn't like - ▀▀▀▀▀▀ contacted Amazon directly through ▀▀▀▀▀▀ ▀▀▀▀▀▀ website to get several books (from authors ▀▀▀▀▀▀ didn't like) pulled from Amazon. It was first ▀▀▀▀▀▀ made public by ▀▀▀▀▀▀; '▀▀▀▀▀▀' author & supporter of ▀▀▀▀▀▀ ▀▀▀▀▀▀ through ▀▀▀▀▀▀ Facebook account and continued updates through ▀▀▀▀▀▀ ▀▀▀▀▀▀ Twitter account. ▀▀▀▀▀▀ rallied ▀▀▀▀▀▀ Twitter followers to publicly attack ▀▀▀▀▀▀ and write articles in gossip websites bluntly lying that ▀▀▀▀▀▀ is a harasser. I think it would be best to remove the WIKI 'Online Abuse Prevention Initiative' entry (at least) until OAPI actually establishes itself, because (1) this could be construed as advertisement, (2) we're promoting ▀▀▀▀▀▀ repeated hostilities, and (3) we're certain to see rampant vandalism in response to this WIKI.
 * It's painful obvious from the context who you are referring to. Going with the she-who-most-not-be-named style here is not going to fly. — Strongjam (talk) 12:58, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Obvious to whom, exactly? --j0eg0d (talk) 23:27, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you violate Wikipedia's biographies of living persons policy by inserting unsourced or poorly sourced defamatory or otherwise controversial content into an article or any other Wikipedia page. Playing dumb about BLP is about the stupidest thing you can do. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  00:01, 19 June 2015 (UTC)
 * THERE IS NO BLP VIOLATION Overzealous_deletion I have not used anyone's name. Who exactly am I writing about? Need I remind you that the policy of WP:BLPTALK?--j0eg0d (talk) 00:15, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

The problem is that BLP does apply everywhere, and what you wrote contained significant negative claims. With the GamerGate article, we've tended to err on the side of caution perhaps a bit more than normal, but as a general rule I'd we'd go in that direction - generally the same concerns can be raised without making things explicit enough to raise flags. Either way, I think there is a case to be made that we don't need the OAPI article - I'm inclined to redirect it to Crash Override, as that has a bigger presence and the two are closely connected, but we can make a solid case for that on notability grounds.

An I respect that rewriting the text with names removed is better than mentioning names. However, we still run into the problem that it is clear who is being spoken about - the problem with BLP is making the allegations about a living person, and whether or not we mention them by name. If it is clear who the target is then the problem will persist.

In regard to OAPI, do you think a redirect would be the way to go? I'll look around and see if there are enough sources to warrant keeping it, but at the moment I don't feel it will have had sufficient coverage to warrant a stand alone article. - Bilby (talk) 00:28, 19 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Thank you. I'm unconcerned with the WIKI Gamergate_controversy. I've supported it's current restriction all along, but I still believe it's TALK page should be unrestricted as "being unable to communicate an opinion", editors NOT assuming good faith and overzealous deletions generally incite vandalism.
 * The Online Abuse Prevention Initiative - I currently don't see any controversy with a redirect. The OAPI website and the Crash Override Network are basically the same owners with the same initiative. It's an unestablished website created to be the non-profit organization to which Crash Override was denied. Although I've not involved myself with the Crash Override WIKI I'd suspect it would need some restrictions as well.
 * The comment I posted on your TALK page was to make sure you knew what this was about, as I know Admins are incredibly busy and I'd assume you might not recall who I am nor what I was referring to. I do not think blacked-out names is in anyway obvious of who I'm indicative of - unless someone looks back through history & digs those names out it's unclear who I'm discussing. But (to put it to rest) You've answered my question, THANK YOU and that should be the end of it.--j0eg0d (talk) 02:29, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

J0eg0d, this is not the only time you have surreptitiously edited other editor's comments on your talk page. Refrain from doing so in the future, please. PeterTheFourth has made few or no other edits outside this topic. 07:01, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

PeterTheFourth, the word "surreptitiously" refers to doing something in secret or through stealth. I believe you're using it incorrectly here. The vector graphic (Stop Hand) you've used suggested some sort of authority on your part. I found it misleading & unnecessary. Have a great day. --j0eg0d (talk) 19:48, 22 June 2015 (UTC)
 * It's just a standardized template uw-biog4. You're free to remove it from your page if you don't like it, but please only edit other peoples comments in line with policy. — Strongjam (talk) 19:54, 22 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Are you saying I shouldn't revert the svg to a more fitting one, but it's okay to delete it completely?--j0eg0d (talk) 23:45, 22 June 2015 (UTC)
 * You shouldn't edit the comment, but you're free to remove most things (including this) from your own user space. — Strongjam (talk) 23:54, 22 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Well that's perfectly reasonable. Thank you. --j0eg0d (talk) 23:56, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

“Wiki” isn't an acronym
I’ve noticed that you frequently place the word “wiki” in all caps -- WIKI. But “wiki” is not an acronym; it's a Hawaiian word (or part of a word -- I believe the word is actually “wiki-wiki”) that means “quick”. The original usage was coined by the inventor of wikis, Ward Cunningham, and refers both to synthesizing the pages just in time to serve them and also to the amount of time required to write the first system. MarkBernstein (talk) 20:28, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

Certainly. Because the word "wiki" is used so often throughout the web, most Browsers have probably wondered why we use "wiki" in the first place and I'm sure interested parties (like myself) will look up the meaning. I've known the meaning for about a decade now. I overly use WIKI the same way I use TALK, I don't believe TALK is an acronym either, but feel free to correct me. I use WIKI on purpose, because it's similar to using "WP:" when linking to an article - it's my abbreviation for Wikipedia. Apologies, if this confused you, and again (as I know you're excessively adamant about such things) I do not use a separate account(s) in WIKI. This is the only account I have, or need, and to be clear - I do not like to use my IP address, but sometimes I do not realize that I am not logged in. Have a nice time. Sincerely --j0eg0d (talk) 20:45, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

Hugo Award Claim
This user claims to have won a Hugo Award, but declines to give any specifics. "Hugo Award" is a registered service mark of the World Science Fiction Society, and falsely claiming to have won (or to have been shortlisted) for the Award is a violation of this service mark. I ask the user to provide evidence of having received a Hugo Award or to withdraw the claim.

--Kevin Standlee (talk) 20:05, 23 June 2015 (UTC) Chairman, World Science Fiction Society Mark Protection Committee


 * Is this a non-compulsory request or are you acting in a legal capacity on behalf of the World Science Fiction Society? I ask because Wikipedia encourages users not to reveal their personal information as it opens them to unnecessary risk, which I'm sure my fellow editor would prefer to avoid. Thanks. 166.173.251.171 (talk) 21:27, 23 June 2015 (UTC)


 * Now, we wouldn't be an IP trying to tempt a fellow editor into saying something that might appear to be a legal threat? I think it's quite clear that Kevin Standee has requested that his organization’s service mark be respected. He has asked the user to provide evidence -- I'm expect that private assurance would be satisfactory -- or to withdraw the claim. For example, if the editor were to phone Mr. Standlee and assure him that he was indeed (say) Michael Chabon, who won the 2008 best novel award, that would probably settle the matter.  MarkBernstein (talk) 22:02, 23 June 2015 (UTC)


 * Dying of curiosity here-- just how competitive is the running for chairman of the Committee for Making Pseudo-Legal-Sounding Demands for Personal Information in Places They Cannot Possibly Be Enforced? Are you looking for a vice-chairman? I can bring my own chair.
 * -Starke Hathaway (talk) 23:19, 23 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Grand High Cyber-Overlord, Ministry of Unwarranted Self-Importance


 * Actually, Starke, this demand probably can be enforced. Major awards use trademark protection to avoid impostors and such -- the Academy Awards trademarked the Oscar™ and that worked well for them. Assuming that this editor is in fact the well-known SF fan and WorldCon official whose name he signs, Wikipedia might be infringing on his organization’s service mark -- which is, presumably, covered under the same policy as COPYVIO. MarkBernstein (talk) 23:36, 23 June 2015 (UTC)


 * Don't mind me, Mark, I'll just be over here holding my breath. -Starke Hathaway (talk) 23:43, 23 June 2015 (UTC)


 * The way you become Chairman of the WSFS Mark Protection Committee is first to get yourself elected to the WSFS Mark Protection Committee (three members are elected each year for three year terms) by the members of the WSFS Business Meeting, or to be appointed by one of the WSFS committees who have the right to appoint members. Once you become a member, then you need to convince a majority of the members of the WSFS MPC to elect you to the relatively thankless job of Chairman. While it is at least technically possible that you could manage to do this without being an attending member of the current Worldcon, without actually attending that Worldcon, and without being moderately well known to the people who regularly participate in the process of actually running Worldcons, I would point out that nobody has ever chaired the MPC since its creation about thirty years ago who did not meet all three of those criteria. Oh, and you can expect to spend a few hours each week (on the average) dealing with the job of managing the MPC, a position that pays nothing, including investigating service mark violations that are brought to the MPC's attention. The position is rarely competitive, although it was a close decision two years ago when I was elected to my current run in office; there was no other candidate for the position last year when I was elected for my current term. The current MPC officers are Chairman, Secretary, and Treasurer. The committee in the past did have a Vice Chairman position, but several years ago decided it wasn't necessary and stopped electing one. The MPC determines its own officers, under the provisions of the Constitution of the World Science Fiction Society, the current version of which is available at http://www.wsfs.org/bm/rules.html If you want additional information on the process, please feel free to ask. Kevin Standlee (talk) 01:34, 24 June 2015 (UTC)


 * I find it odd that you request J0eg0d post evidence on the same day the ban was put into effect. 174.30.95.89 (talk) 01:11, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

I've removed the claim until it can be substantiated, privately or publicly. Gamaliel ( talk ) 23:52, 23 June 2015 (UTC)


 * Well, don't I have egg on my face? I guess on some level I assumed there was some level of pettiness in Bernstein-related drama beneath which Gamaliel would not immediately throw himself into the fray to rescue him. Lesson learned, will not make that mistake again. -Starke Hathaway (talk) 23:59, 23 June 2015 (UTC)


 * Kevin Standlee is a legitimate representative of the Hugo Awards and the World Science Fiction Society. What he has to do with Mark Bernstein I have no idea, but if you figure it out, please let us all know.   Gamaliel  ( talk ) 00:01, 24 June 2015 (UTC)


 * Well, I don't know. Sure, he claims to be Kevin Standlee, but I think we ought to remove that claim until it can be substantiated, don't you? And if you're claiming your arrival at this page is unrelated to MarkBernstein's involvement here, I flat out don't believe you. -Starke Hathaway (talk) 00:09, 24 June 2015 (UTC)


 * The issue was raised on a Hugo discussion board elsewhere, which is undoubtedly how it came to Kevin Standlee's attention. As far as I know Mark isn't active there and may not have even heard of the site. I know Mark is the new Overlord Ryulong for you guys, but come on, don't be any dumber than you already have been.209.6.192.97 (talk) 00:12, 24 June 2015 (UTC)


 * I don't know how Kevin Standlee became aware of 's user page and I don't really care. I happen to think having your "chairman" harassing pseudonymous internet users for their personal information is probably worse for your brand than a claim, even a false one, made on a user page that to a close approximation zero people care about, but I suppose that's Kevin's lookout. What I am concerned about is the fact that whenever anyone so much as looks at MarkBernstein the wrong way, in comes Gamaliel with admin guns a-blazing with amazing alacrity no matter how many "busy in real life" messages he has up on his user page. Tell me, Gamaliel, did he call you on the home number or the cell number? -Starke Hathaway (talk) 00:24, 24 June 2015 (UTC)


 * Trademarks are worth money. Also, letting someone run around using your trademark who doesn't have a right to it risks weakening the legal power of your trademark. Protecting your trademark isn't harassment, though of course, you being a Gater, I wouldn't expect you to actually be able to recognize what is and is not genuine harassment. Doesn't all this raging about CONSPIRACY! COLLUSION! ETHIX!! get exhausting? Honestly, it's very bad for your cardiac health. CrataegusBrainerdii (talk) 00:53, 24 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Precisely. Anyone who sees a potential violation of a WSFS service mark is invited to write to the MPC and report it. Kevin Standlee (talk) 02:01, 24 June 2015 (UTC)


 * This potential service mark violation came to my attention through discussions of this year's Hugo Awards, specifically at File 770. It's relatively rare for someone to falsely claim to have won or to have been shortlisted for a Hugo Award, but I elected to investigate the claim. Anyone who is skeptical of who I am or of the organization I represent is welcome to contact the World Science Fiction Society through their Contact Page or the current World Science Fiction Convention through their Contact Page. You'll probably notice my name on that list, but you can certainly write to the convention chair directly if you don't believe that, either; she knows who I am, and we had breakfast together a couple of weeks ago at a meeting in Spokane planning for this year's Worldcon. Since I'm a actual, real, not pseudonymous person, and since I really am the elected leader of the organization that manages the intellectual property of the World Science Fiction Society, I'm not particularly concerned about anyone questioning that authority. Kevin Standlee (talk) 02:01, 24 June 2015 (UTC)


 * Starke: you're confused: has my contact information, .  I don't have his. Since Gamaliel topic-banned the user this morning. I expect Gamaliel put this page on his watchlist; no need to involve me Until today, I hadn't heard of Mr. Standlee, nor would I expect to as I've never been a member of Worldcon,but of course I've heard of the Hugo Awards. MarkBernstein (talk) 00:31, 24 June 2015 (UTC)


 * I do appreciate -Starke Hathaway and the unidentified IPs that have come to my defense. I would advise you each avoid this Wikipedia clickbaiting. Theses are juvenile tactics to encourage disruption only to ban other people for being involved. I do not know Kevin Standlee - I met several Writers, Artists, Fans & Administrators in Denver during 2008, and not one of them was named Kevin Standlee. As far as his edits and as far as the Hugo Award goes; I genuinely do not care if it's listed on my User Page, I stated as much when it was posted. The Hugo Awards has been a farce long before the #gamergate hashtag was ever invented; It has a long history of white guys back-patting themselves and there was always behind the scenes "politics".
 * The sole individual with any ardent concern about that claim was Mark Bernstein. This same infatuation was persistently focused on WP:OUTING me & identifying my IP Address. Doesn't Mark dabble in science fiction writing? I assume his phobia of other people's success has to do with never being nominated by the WSFS? That's a question by the way Gamaliel, not an accusation.
 * If any attention needs to be made in my absence, -Starke Hathaway it would be in ARBCOM here as Mark's kapo and favorite unbanner Gamaliel is seeking to ban me indefinitely ^_^ Aren't these guys adorable? You may also be interested in knowing that Special Contributor 209.6.192.97 (the person who insulted you) is an IP Address from the exact same town Mark Bernstein is currently residing. That is such a coincidence. Sincerely --j0eg0d (talk) 05:11, 24 June 2015 (UTC)


 * Your unsupported accusation remains in the edit summary. I am suggesting that if you do not want the block that was applied because you made unsupported SOCK allegations to be extended because you continued to make unsupported SOCK allegations . Because the allegations are in an edit summary, you will need someone with a mop or better to clean it up for you. Or you can make no efforts to remove the allegation. But if you fail to take action, it should not come as a surprise to you when the block is extended. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  06:10, 24 June 2015 (UTC)
 * TheRedPenOfDoom I'd assume Wikipedia is the biggest part of your day. It's actually the smallest part of mine. I genuinely don't care about blocks or about Gamaliel's interest in banning me; It's not on my karma. --j0eg0d (talk) 07:41, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not the biggest part of my day. My wife and sons, and my small business, and my extended family and friends are more important to me. My Boston Terrier is too. But the integrity of Wikipedia is also important to me, including defending it against any variety of trolling, attacks on living people, and POV pushing. If I posted a claim on my user page that I had won a notable award, I would expect scrutiny of that claim. If I accused someone of sockpuppetry in an edit summary, I would expect that people would insist that I furnish solid evidence or explicitly withdraw the accusation. J0eg0d, if you want to edit the #6 or #7 website in the world, #1 in terms of originally written content, then you need to be honest and respond to reasonable inquiries about the claims you make about yourself, and about other editors as well. This is not Reddit or whateverChan. This is the world's leading encyclopedia. <b style="color:#070">Cullen</b><sup style="color:#707">328  Let's discuss it  07:58, 24 June 2015 (UTC)


 * That's wonderful and all, but there's a blatant hypocrisy about said "defense". Since I first noticed the discrepancies in Gamergate controversy and pointed it out. Mind you that's a vast difference between the "trolling, BLP attacks, POV pushing" that you mentioned. Ever since that day; I have been wikihounded & tag teamed by the exact same group of people, I get trolled in ever edit that interests me, I've been called so many names that the only one I remember at the moment is "meatpuppet", I've been accused of being a SOCK on more than one occasion, I had what-was-thought-to-be my IP address posted above, a call to brigade was included in that post to YOU and Liz, my identity has been scrutinized and researched on other websites, demands for my personal information have been called for, editors continuing with OUTING me, I was blocked for "Personal attacks or harassment: Unsupported sock accusations and apparent attempted intimidation on User talk:Jimbo Wales" because I dared ask Mark why his business address is actually somebody else's law firm, Gamaliel chose the next day to sanctioned ARBCOM to ban me indefinitely, I won't be able to defend myself because I'm blocked (LOL FUNNY STUFF HUH), I've faced nothing but harassment & stalking while on Wikipedia - I think I have one edit that was not deleted in the past 2 months, and I know someone will look for that one edit and delete it just because I've mentioned it, I have not been welcome in Wikipedia from the day I visited Gamergate controversy, from the day I wanted people to know that **it's a hashtag that was created by Adam Baldwin**, all of this high school drama nonsense from people using the exact same claim of "defense" & integrity of Wikipedia. People guilty of the very things I'm being accused of. Do not come to me with this BS and assert otherwise. Why would anyone care if they're banned from a website that provokes & attacks them over a damn hashtag? Defending Wikipedia has nothing to do with some imagined nobility. This website is slowly dying because of the lack of interest and this White Knighting nonsense can (in part) be blamed. --j0eg0d (talk) 09:20, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

Block extended
For repeating unsuppotted accusations of sockpuppetry, and for a particularly gross personal attack ("kapo") both in this edit I have extended the block for a week. DES (talk) 12:16, 24 June 2015 (UTC) If this sort of thing continues, talk page access might be revoked also. DES (talk) 12:17, 24 June 2015 (UTC)
 * DESiegel RE: anti-Semitic claim There's nothing anti-Semitic about the term "kapo" (overseer), I'm half-Jewish and this is a term we call privileged Jews abasing other Jews. Gamaliel & Mark are both Jewish, they know what it means & are lying about it Jerusalem Post. --j0eg0d (talk) 11:00, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

There is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The discussion is in the thread WP:ANI. Thank you. DES (talk) 12:35, 24 June 2015 (UTC)


 * DESiegel You spelled unsupported wrong. --j0eg0d (talk) 21:04, 24 June 2015 (UTC)
 * So I did. It doesn't change the meaning, or your actions. Do you have any more substantive response to the matter? DES (talk) 21:07, 24 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes. To keep it simple ... I've been reacting to the blatant favoritism & hypocrisies within Wikipedia; Please note the hatted discussion here the used of the word “subjective” as a noun (“my subjective is...”), a curious grammatical error which, if memory serves, was also made on Gamergate topics by j0eg0d and, before then, by GhostLourde. Doubtless just a coincidence.) MarkBernstein (talk) 19:39, 14 June 2015 (UTC) and the further behavior here @Liz:@Cullen328: You may be interested to know that on [Brianna_Wu], this user appears to have edited while signed out, and then signed the auto signed post. The IP address was /208.167.254.15; it appears JoeGod is using this page to offer advice to himself, and then to thank himself for his advice. I know Wikipedia allows great latitude for users to edit their own talk page, but.... See also the claim to a 2008 Hugo on the User page, which seems somewhat far-fetched, even for the editorial categories (he's not David Hartwell) or the fan writer (John Scalzi? Don’t think so). under protest MarkBernstein (talk) 22:24, 29 May 2015 (UTC) . There is more, but NO ONE does anything about this. There has been a month-long WP:Wikihounding campaign by Mark and his friends, some of which are Admins that unblock Mark when he gets into trouble - One of his close Admin friends requested sanctions against me one day after you blocked me for 2 weeks ... I won't be able to defend myself. I'm not the only one being harassed as this has been the staple of behavior for a while; People claiming integrity & defense yet are guilty of the very things I'm being accused of, and they're not being blocked. --j0eg0d (talk) 21:57, 24 June 2015 (UTC)


 * Since you continued to repeat the personal attack you were blocked for after the block was issued, I've removed talk page access. Mark Arsten (talk) 16:47, 25 June 2015 (UTC)


 * Block made indef per comments at ANI.  19:13, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

Arbitration Enforcement
A discussion at Arbitration Enforcement has been opened with regard to your defense of the term "kapo" on this page. MarkBernstein (talk) 15:01, 25 June 2015 (UTC)