User talk:MarkBernstein/Archive2

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


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


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


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


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


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


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

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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


 * Of course, Bus stop is asking whether 172.56.11.104 is actually a brand-new editor, or perhaps an old acquaintance contributing anonymously?  For example, you ask other know-it-all editors to lay off; it would be pretty unusual for a complete novice to Wikipedia to know about know-it-all editors :)  And it would be a fairly amazing novice who already knew about templates.  On the other hand, you're not Director or Producer; they don't need to ask me about templates, they know all about them!  I'm not sure, either, why you're writing to me specifically. So color me confused, but if I'm happy to help. MarkBernstein (talk) 14:50, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I will clarify as this is your talk page and I commented here. I am a newer editor vs brand new and one who does not spend most of my life on wikipedia and/or other internet social media. I do read wikipedia articles but cautiously and have made some edits from time to time but very sporadically. It seems there is much paranoia in wikipedia which lends proof of agenda pushers, a very paranoid bunch that are afraid their viewpoint will not be the dominant viewpoint and thus misuse articles to promote their agenda. See my tongue and cheek talk page about being watched. I identified myself as new because I was sure my question and wiki technical skills could be seen as ignorant of the wiki rules and culture and they are. I have never heard of you until today and was reading an article proposed for deletion and went to the discussion and after reading it decided to ask the question. I did not post it there as it seemed to be a heated discussion and IP's are generally treated like shit on wikipedia. I have been around long enough to know that- of course one can learn that in one edit. 172.56.11.104 (talk) 15:14, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I don't think the IP editor is fishing for anything. It seems that they are just saying that, as a Catholic, they empathise with the discussion at hand, as such an article would be offensive to them if linked tenuously with their given religion. At least, that is what I take from it --Drowninginlimbo (talk) 04:58, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

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

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


 * Please do! MarkBernstein (talk) 20:09, 16 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Pinocchio3000 and MarkBernstein, you're getting close to violating 3R. Please discuss this content on the article talk page rather than edit warring. Liz  Read! Talk! 20:23, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

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

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

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


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

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

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


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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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


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

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

Mark Levine DRN Report
Hello Mark,

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

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


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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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


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

Verifiability and Neutrality may save us in the end
In case anyone is still watching Mark Bernstein’s page for bat signals, I’ve been thinking.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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


 * I think this makes sense. But I'm skeptical that it will work, or that it will matter. And again it only addresses extremists, fringe science fans and other crackpots; it would have no effect at all against a reasonably professional team with reasonable resources. My sense, further, is that many of the people who dominate Wikipedia governance actually like to focus on WP:CIVIL; it makes them feel good without the muss and mess of mastering a subject.   WP:VERIFY is not nearly so much fun for the ego. MarkBernstein (talk) 13:22, 21 June 2014 (UTC)
 * This is me arguing an ANI purely on WP:VERIFY and WP:NPOV. I'm gonna keep trying this, until it maybe it catches on., you can come join the Holy and Sacred Order of WikiVerify as well if you like! I haven't seen you around lately.--Atlantictire (talk) 16:02, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the invitation Atlantictire. In my opinion, the JC article was an unusual case where two people from the same region bought into one version of propaganda of their countries, and they also happened to be very experienced editors. Once their version of "truth" hit the international arena of Wikipedia, it didn't stand a chance. The subject matter is somewhat obscure, so it took a while for other editors to get involved and up to speed, or to even care, about something that happened in 1917. User:Director did us all a favor by repeatedly taking individuals to ANI where this obscure subject matter attracted the attention of uninvolved editors. One person (it may have been you) is a music buff and could care less about Communism, but this article became a poster child for injustice everywhere, and at that point, even the supporters of the 2 experienced editors started to question the article. (I named Director here because I don't want him to think we're gossiping about him behind his back. He may have something to add. No doubt! :-)) It took a long time, but the process worked this time, and I think we all learned a lot, I know I did! I learned a lot of history that I would have never known otherwise. I learned about the last Russian King, and I learned how to keep my temper when arguing with difficult people (thank you Director!) and I also learned the importance of building consensus. I'm also thrilled to know that injustice will not be tolerated in the modern world. Mostly, I regained my faith in Mankind. :-) Thank you everyone! What I'm trying to say here, is that all the discussions that seem pointless at the time, are actually very useful when taken as a whole. After all the endless discussions, MarkBernstein came along and flipped the whole thing on its head, simply because the stage had been set and everyone was sick of it. Apparently that's how revolutions happen. Enough people have to be sick of it. Like the revolution in Ukraine for example. USchick (talk) 19:06, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
 * I know, but we lost Drowninginlimbo and we've more or less lost MarkBernstein. I'd prefer to just go on my merry way and edit, but this culture of intransigence and POV pushing is even starting to seep into my neck of the woods. The people with fringe viewpoints who can't work collaboratively are now lording over electronics and guitar-related articles, bumming everyone out and driving them away. It wasn't like this four years ago. I'm still going to see what I can do about this culture of non-consensus and admin passivity.--Atlantictire (talk) 19:07, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
 * There's collateral damage on both sides. I'm sure some people are still mourning the loss of Producer, ha ha! I'm very inspired to see you getting involved in Wiki policy. It will have a lasting effect on this project and I'll be happy to help if there's something specific, call me anytime. When you're calm and rational, your arguments are very meaningful and thought provoking. There were several times I wanted to thank you for your comments, but I didn't want people to say that we were ganging up on them and take us to ANI. Again! lol USchick (talk) 19:26, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Say rather we "mourn" him ever getting himself into this mess. The user was a more prolific contributor than all you ladies and gentlemen combined, one of the "Old Guard". His work was of high quality and much of it was in defense of the Communist Partisans of Yugoslav military history. In spite of everything, I am not convinced the man was an antisemite. -- Director  ( talk )  10:59, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

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

But as regards Jews and Communism, I'd like to remind everyone that the reliability of the sources themselves was never really brought into question, and it can not be said they were generally misquoted. It is the evidence of their being cherry picked to place undue weight that was inappropriate, and given the subject - disgusting. Indeed, it was precisely over-adherence to WP:V and NPOV that supported the article. The sources, were, as I said, most certainly "verifiable". They were verified by many, including myself. Unearthing evidence of cherry picking and undue weight was not "verification" - it was detective work, and impressive at that... -- Director  ( talk )  10:51, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment. Before anyone loses it and goes off the deep end, I would like to point out that people are entitled to their opinions, even if they happen to be extreme. On Wikipedia, people with extreme view points are regular editors with no special powers. In real life, people with extreme view points are often found in very powerful positions and make life and death decisions about other human beings. It's important to understand that this phenomenon exists, so that you're not blindsided by it. Cheers! (I'm stepping out of this discussion before I lose it and say something very uncivil.) USchick (talk) 17:00, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
 * What "extreme view"! The sources were "verifiable", and to say otherwise is absurd! There was that misquotation USchick found, but by and large they all checked out as mainstream, reliable, scholarly sources. I am merely trying to help by pointing out the apparent misunderstanding of the whole issue. The reason the thing was supported by so many Wikipedians, myself included, is precisely that the sources were so good. Atlantictire doesn't seem to get where the problem was. There was no violation (generally speaking) of WP:V. It was WP:NPOV. That may sound like its less serious, but in fact its a more grievous violation. But how will you get disinterested volunteers to check these things day after day. The evidence of wrongdoing here was such that its a miracle it was unearthed at all on Wikipedia. -- Director  ( talk )  10:14, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Atlantictire is not the only one who doesn't get where the problem was. Actually, he understands it just fine. USchick (talk) 17:33, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

As you see, even the perpetrator of Jews and Communism can make WP:V jump through hoops. Want to find sources for any discredited canard ? You can find them! And they’re quoted accurately! They may be fifty years old, they may be absurd outliers, but hey! They’re quoted accurately! Look: I can assemble them together! Look: I can edit-war any changes to my assembly because they’re OR, or NPOV, or you're looking at me funny instead of being WP:CIVIL! There’s no hope at all. MarkBernstein (talk) 18:33, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Pathetic yes, hopeless no. You turned it around MarkBernstein! :) YOU.
 * What a bunch of sissies. I have been dealing with Director for years. Y E A R S ! You guys had one interaction with him and you're whining. Oh please, stop whining. I hope no one takes me to ANI over this. lol (At least over a year, but it was agonizing sometimes, and sometimes it was a lot of fun. Remember when I suggested that Jesus was the first Jewish Communist and should be featured as the lede image? Then I backed it up with sources. Yes, there are sources for that! That's when Director lost it and took me to ANI. I was dying laughing. He couldn't figure out if I was serious or not. Good times!) USchick (talk) 19:41, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Jesus was the first Jewish Communist. That's why the first communist experiments of the early modern era were German Protestant. The Radical Reformers had a very literal reading of Acts 2:44.
 * I think what Mark is saying is that we don't come to Wikipedia to spend 3 months explaining this to people who don't want to listen, or that "Jews and Communism" is SYNTH with repellant implications. This isn't fun for us. This went on for as long as it did because of who the admins who adjudicate ANI are. It's driving away the ethical editors, and by ethical I don't mean politically correct. I mean committed to fact checking and NPOV.--Atlantictire (talk) 02:49, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
 * I can appreciate that you think your time is valuable. I think my time is just as valuable, and just for fun, I would be willing to compare with you all of our individual hourly billable rates. Director is a medical professional, so you may want to think about his hourly rate before you answer. You seem to be discounting years of effort that it took for people to push this POV and then the effort it took to finally overturn it. I'm not even talking about this last version, apparently there were previous versions that were deleted and then the article reappeared again. And I anticipate that you will see it again in the future, so you may as well brace for it. Like you said, fringe POV ideas are everywhere, even in music articles, so you may as well figure out how you're going to deal with it, not just for three months, but for the rest of your life. Welcome to the real world. I think it's important for every individual to decide what's the best use of their time and then to pursue it. Otherwise, you're just spinning your wheels. USchick (talk) 06:47, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

Huh?
Do you know something I don't? Drmies (talk) 18:09, 15 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Oh, man! I'm so sorry.  It was a misclick: I thought I’d cancelled, and I checked at the time that I'd succeeded in canceling. But obviously I didn't. I'm terribly embarrassed. MarkBernstein (talk) 19:00, 15 November 2014 (UTC)
 * No worries; I think someone else fixed it already. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 00:52, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

Do you really not think this is hypocritical?

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

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


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


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

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


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


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


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


 * Having admins politely discuss a software developer’s (blameless) sex life in public, and state that there are further details he knows but can't yet discuss -- that's just dandy, right? MarkBernstein (talk) 16:21, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
 * MB, I recommend not engaging with this guy. PS you are awesome for calling shit like it is. I can't believe this stuff being OK is what these guys actually believe. Hustlecat do it! 21:20, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

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

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

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


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


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


 * I'm seldom disingenuous. MarkBernstein (talk) 01:22, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
 * If you're unwilling to directly apologize, fine. Consider the matter closed. starship  .paint   ~ regal  10:30, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

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

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

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


 * Sorry. It's hard to keep track of all the rules and customs. I'll replace it with a pointer if I may; or if not, please delete. MarkBernstein (talk) 22:54, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
 * A "pointer" is perfectly acceptable. RGloucester  — ☎ 23:01, 23 November 2014 (UTC)


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

Thank you
for your efforts here. I saw your messages on some other pages and although I don't actually remember seeing you (sorry about that) I can see from your history that you have been a valuable and productive contributor here, and I think you deserve our thanks for that. You do seem to have some concerns about the project that a lot of other people share, and I wish we were able to figure out how to deal with them. Maybe in time we will. If so, I hope that you consider maybe offering some of your time to this project again. Best of luck. John Carter (talk) 00:04, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Wholeheartedly agree with User ! Please stay in touch. There is a teaching in Judaism that "a little light dispels a lot of darkness" and you have been such a light on Wikipedia and elsewhere and I encourage you not to give up. Stay connected in some way. Thank you for all your efforts and wishing you much success. Sincerely, IZAK (talk) 04:21, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
 * I've never made a secret of identity or email, and if Idont answer email within 24 hrs try phone CS spam bucket. My email address has been on the web since 1984, so my spam filter gas to be overactive, but this really is it; until wikipedia has an decent answer, I can't help, and nor should you.nMarkBernstein (talk) 04:52, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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


 * kthxbyeMarkBernstein (talk) 15:36, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Take care, hope you will return and thanks for contributing on IQ and Global Inequality.  Occult Zone  (Talk • Contributions • Log) 04:37, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

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


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

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

Thanks,

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

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


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


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


 * Sigh. MarkBernstein (talk) 16:02, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Don't worry about it. At some point this is just going to get WP:POINTy. — Strongjam (talk) 16:16, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
 * You mean it's not pointy now? I mean, they've forum shopped it to two admins, then ARCA. What’s next? MarkBernstein (talk) 16:23, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Give enough rope and all that. You've got nothing to worry about, an WP:AE against you would be thin on evidence and given what you just mentioned I imagine it would boomerang. — Strongjam (talk) 16:30, 18 February 2015 (UTC)