Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive180

MarkBernstein
''This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below. Requests may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs (not counting required information), except by permission of a reviewing administrator.''

Request concerning MarkBernstein

 * User who is submitting this request for enforcement : 03:11, 31 August 2015 (UTC)


 * User against whom enforcement is requested :


 * Sanction or remedy to be enforced: Arbitration/Requests/Case/GamerGate :


 * Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it :


 * 1) 16:39, 2015 August 28 Out of the blue, Mark starts mentioneing My Little Pony, which is an area I am involved in too. While this is not direct evidence of anything wrongdoing yet, it comes up again, and its inclusion out of the blue seems purposely targeting me. That said, I let this slide beyond asking to not continue personal attacks.
 * 2) 19:22, 2015 August 29 Mark starts using this (to me) passive-aggressive "M____" thing to name me without naming me, reacting to when I referenced a comment he had made as "Mark" simply as common WP shorthand, but which Mark took as "he persists in using my first name as if we were great pals", which is huge assumption of bad faith), and claiming that I want to expose all these accusations ("And once again we're talking about how the nasty liberal press is all bias, naming specific publications but without the least indication of what ethical lapses M_____ dreams they committed."), when I was trying to point out that there have been some claims mentioned and reiterated that we cannot include those claims in WP (see and.
 * 3) 20:17, 2015 August 30 More use of the "M____" thing as well as undermining my editorial abilities, despite my asking him to stop issuing personal attacks and.
 * 4) 23:09, 2015 August 30 More use of the "M____" thing, as well as continuing to try to undermine my character by pointing out what I've written on WP on My Little Pony stuff.
 * 5) 01:54, 2015 August 31 in reply to a comment I made regarding that there does exist two sides in the GG controversy. Besides continuing this "M____" thing, the edit summary he gives is "That it is necessary to explain this to adults -- much less adults who purport to be competent to edit an encyclopedia, beggars belief", which is a full on personal attack.


 * Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any :

These all were prior to the completion of the GG ArbCom case but while community sanctions were active.
 * 1) 17:39, 2014 November 28 by Blocked for "disruptive rhetoric and behavior incompatible with collaborative editing."
 * 2) 00:08, 4 January 2015 by for "violating your topic ban with these edits"
 * 3) 17:00, 2015 January 24 by for another topic ban violation related to GG.


 * If discretionary sanctions are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see WP:AC/DS):


 * Alerted about discretionary sanctions in the area of conflict in the last twelve months, see the system log linked to above.

I have been trying to remain as civil as possible on the GG situation and focusing only on the content (perhaps to where some might call my actions tenacious, which I will not dispute but only because I strongly feel the article fails core WP policies, needs more eyes to help, and the same battleground/ownership attitudes that lead to the first ArbCom case are coming around again; Other editors also agree there are NPOV issues with this article). However, I have been on the long-term end of MarkBernstein's attacks, who has engaged in personal attacks and battleground behavior prior (see above blocks) and through now. The above diffs identify just the most recent episode, and while the first few diffs I would have shrugged off, the last diff is clearly a sign that Mark is not here to work collaboratively but instead make sure the article maintains a very specific narrative, assuming bad faith against any editor that does not subscribe to that. I recognize that Mark is being criticized offsite by GG supporters for his views, and in good faith I can see how that might contribute towards his attitude to fight even harder to make sure they don't get their way on the article. But that said, the Lightbreather case emphasized the need to maintain civility to other editors regardless of the external conditions.
 * Additional comments by editor filing complaint :

I had filed a previous AE complaint here on the same issue of NPA (July), but it was closed due to a technicality and I chose not to pursue it based on the advice of others. However, I will stand that the diffs provided are similar to this behavior and generally part of a long-term problem with this editor. I note that after that closed AE, as Mark had asked during his statement, I did engage with him on his talk page to try to make peace in good faith and try to come to an understanding on the GG page (This is the conclusion of that thread) but he showed no sign of working collaboratively.

I recognize that some might be seeing this as a means to remove an opponent from a discussion and that there's a chance BOOMERANG applies, but I will point out that there are other editors that share the general concerns Mark has and take his stance on the current article's narrative that are much more open to consensus development, even if there are clashes of ideals (which is never a bad thing); these discussions go along fine without any editor breaking decorum. This complaint is specifically due to Mark's personal behavior and not to remove these opposing views from the discussion. I also recognize that some of the things Mark has criticized on my behavior are related to BLP, but I believe that I was very careful to stay within BLPTALK's limits (another editor even asked me about one case), but I recognize that that might be reviewed.


 * @Gamaliel and @Dennis Brown: I am willing (and have actually tried to in the past) to voluntarily step back into the spirit of limited posting that Brustopher's suggestion #1 covers, or at least having some type of TE warning dropped on that GG talk page or my talk page, and I'll back off; however, it is very hard not to reply when editors twist your stance around to make it sound in bad faith, as Mark did above with my bringing up accusations from other sources (which he attributed to accusations I was making direct when I was actually trying to agree with him), or with how both Johnuniq and Aquillion have both misrepresented how I'm asking for NPOV to be upheld by reporting contentious claims made in RSes as claims and not fact (and not that I am saying that we cannot use these RSes or suspend NPOV/RS), or referring back to the RFC that I started back in October 2014 that concluded that it was acceptable to augment our coverage (not replacing) with outside RSes to help provide neutral coverage of the topic. I've been long on the end of having my stance and editorial aspects questioned and twisted around on this topic, and that is probably why I have been wordy and tenacious to make sure my position is clear. I'll voluntarily takes steps to be terse/less involved from now on and avoid unnecessary/reiteration of my own comments, but there are several other issues involved that relate to the same battleground attitudes that the first case identified, of which Mark's behavior here is a prime example. --M ASEM (t) 15:30, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
 * @Dennis Brown I am not against a voluntary 3 month topic ban if that is believed for the best. As I note, I will immediately step back on the talk page, regardless. --M ASEM (t) 18:04, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
 * @Dennis Brown I don't think an interaction ban is the right answer, necessarily. I fully recognize, per discussion here, that I should and will back off voluntarily (ideally under Brustopher's #1 idea, but will do a full topic-ban if that's felt best) which should remove the element of what some have said that myself bringing up the same arguments over and over to be seen as just as hostile as personal attacks. But when it comes to MarkBernstein, as others have pointed out, it is not just something between him and me, it is something between him and anyone that appears to not take the "Down with GG!" side; it's just that the interactions between him and myself appears the most prevalent, making the iban seem like the easy answer. If you discount all the negative behavior (personal attacks, assuming of bad faith, and battleground attitude) MarkBernstein does have very valid points to keep the article tempered against going too far as a pro-GG propaganda piece. But this behavior is interfering with those valid contributions, and something that he has been warned and blocked for before. His behavior needs to be put in check to make him a valuable contributor. A possible long-term solution is to assign some neutral party to watch his edits within the GG topic area and let him know when he's crossing the civility line, with potential to block if he ignores that advice. (I believe I've seen this type of resolution in other ArbCom cases). If there's something more short term that needs to be done, I'm not 100% sure, but I don't think the iban is necessarily the right answer. Regardless, I will still commit to a voluntary step-away from the article as previously discussed. --M ASEM  (t) 23:59, 31 August 2015 (UTC)


 * @Dumuzid: I have let many many NPA statements of various degrees against me by MarkBernstein simply go without calling them out over the last 8-some months, and otherwise ignored them for the most part. However, in this specific instance when I asked him to stop with the NPAs, specifically reiterating the text of NPA about "not to comment on the contributor", he persisted. He continues to persist by his statement below "Masem has been planning this for months on end", which is absolutely not true. He is assuming I am working in bad faith simply for wanting to create an appropriately neutral article on a difficult topic to cover neutrally. --M ASEM (t) 18:02, 31 August 2015 (UTC)


 * @MarkBernstein: You never asked directly to stop calling you "Mark" (as noted it was simply shorthand that is common for WP talk pages to use instead of long names). but I will stop that now regardless, and my apologies if that was offensive. And I didn't decline to help stop harassment on WP on the long talk page, I pointed out that there are several sea changes that would have to come from both WMF (in regard to the open nature of the wiki) and the Internet in general to stop it completely. I did say that I will stop the obvious harassment/BLP violations but recognizing that there are various degrees to what are violations that a single all-or-nothing approach cannot work (all the more apparent based on the recent KWW case), so characterizing my attitude there as "He repeatedly declined" is not correct, my offer of how I will stop harassment/BLP issues is just not the answer you seem to want. --M ASEM  (t) 18:02, 31 August 2015 (UTC)


 * @Liz: "DHeyward has repeatedly mocked both you and I (and others) for editing My Little Pony-related articles but I don't see you bringing him to AE because you are offended by DH's derision" If DHeyward is doing this, I don't see it on the pages I edit or watchlist, and I can't easily see any just checking his most recent contributions, so I would need links to see what you mean. --M ASEM (t) 02:41, 1 September 2015 (UTC)


 * @Gamaliel: A think to keep in mind regarding MarkBernstein and the ArbCom case: at the time of the (completed) ArbCom, MarkBernstein was indef blocked for this same behavior (see first block on the list above which came after he accused me of various things, including that I was leading proGGers in coordination towards WP); as such, his behavior was not a factor in the ArbCom case since it would have been futile. If that block had not occurred, I think its fair to hypothesize that he would have been a party to the ArbCom case, though what action if any towards him that would have been enacted is hard to say. But after the case, the indef was lifted, and he returned to the topic space. The net result was that this process inadvertently created a detour that avoided the larger review of MarkBernstein's actions within the ArbCom case, and hence why we're here now with the apparent conclusion that the Arbcom case didn't nicely resolve everything. There's other mitigating factors, like the Guardian's coverage of the ArbCom decision drawing attention to the topic and new events and coverage of GG since, that I think also created issues that were not present at the time of the ArbCom case and which could not be foreseen, but that's beyond the scope of MarkBernstein's behavior here. But at least for myself, I saw the ArbCom's decision as a template that all new-to-the-topic-area editors should be expected to follow, and not so much as a means to end all current and future tensions on the page. --M ASEM (t) 18:38, 1 September 2015 (UTC)


 * @Bishonen: It is not that editing in the MLP is any kind of shame as I see it, simply that, suddenly, out of nowhere, here's a topic that is something that I am known to be interested, and that, (best I know), no one else involved in the GG discussion at hand was interested in (beyond Liz, I believe), never had been mentioned before as an example to compare the situation again. It has the implication of baiting an editor (which people have used against me before too outside of GG); alone it is clearly not anything actionable but does fit into a larger pattern of him focusing on the editor rather than the contributions. As for what this request may seem trivial; this is one example of 8-some months of MarkBernstein trying to treat me as a proGG leader, or claiming that I have a number of proGG supporters ready to help me, or saying that I support rape and harassment because I am asking to include material that seems favorable to the proGG side, and a number of other points that are focused at me as an editor, even if just to question my abilities as an editor and not the contribution. A request of this scope would take much more than what AE would allow for but I would hope that a simple review of not only this and the previous AE I submitted but other behavior of MarkBernstein on the GG talk page, as well as other points provided here, and would make it clear that he has long engaged in attacking me because I am a contrary voice to his, and attacking others that are similarly contrary to his view. If it is really needed, I can easily create a more detailed list of what I would consider are more examples of this since the start, though it would take a lot more time. Additionally on that closed request, I call it a technicality because I accidentally linked to something that wasn't a remedy, as I am not as familiar with the AE process as other parts of WP editing and missed the appropriate instruction of what to link. When I approached you, I had the same issue, not linking to a remedy, which you did point out was not a valid reason either but advised to ask the community further, which I did, finally figuring out the right remedy (the Discretionary sanctions above) that should have been used in the first place. It was a bureaucratic mistake on my end that would have been an easy fix if the request had remained open, as the rest of the request was still valid towards that specific remedy. When I did approach the community and it started to turn into jumping onto attacks against MarkBernstein outside of the request and additional advice about possible boomeranging, I dropped the issue. I'm still going to abide by the voluntary offer to back off the GG article, with details to be worked out, regardless if action is taken against MarkBernstein or not. --M ASEM (t) 20:34, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

To add one thing, regardless if there is a forced interaction ban or not, I will voluntarily abide by an interaction ban towards MarkBernstein alongside with the voluntary backing off the GG area for at least the same duration. --M ASEM (t) 00:30, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

@SlimVirgin: We already have examples of MarkBernstein acting this way without my (initial) involvement and  , and even  a situation while this AE is going on. MarkBernstein, by himself, is the majority of the problem here; I would say that it only seems to be a him-vs-me issue because I'm not chased off by his rather abrasive behavior and he's targeted me since I am the most vocal objector to how he believes the article should be presented. But I can say that MarkBernstein gets this way with other editors too, a sign of a battleground mentality. I also appreciate that ArbCom would not like to apply any sanctions or the like and find the least conflict-filled route to a solution, but I think it is important to stress that he has been topic-banned and blocked three times before in the GG area for the same type of behavior. Given that I feel strongly this has been a long string of personal attacks and accusations against me (not just the originals diffs here but the 8-some months), and I see no evidence of any apology, a redaction, or a commitment to alter his behavior or even admitting that he has done anything wrong, I feel avoiding any sanction is rewarding that type of behavior - if someone else that speaks out against the current take on the article, the lack of action here (in lieu of any voluntary measures MarkBernstein might offer) would allow him to continue on the same manner against that person too without threat of being responsible for it. A warning might seem okay, but again, three various warnings via the blocks/topic bans before didn't seem to fix it. It would be great if there was a course of action that wasn't a sanction but required MarkBernstein to keep his attitude towards all editors within expended bounds of civil (perhaps the mentor idea I suggested above), but I also think that at some point, behavior like this has to be addressed with a sanction. This is also why I think an IBAN won't be the right solution either, as outside of the GG topic area, I don't think MarkBernstein and I have any other common interest within article space where we might conflict. To add, I am offering to take a voluntary step-away not because I don't think it will settle the problem with MarkBernstein (it might help a small degree but very doubtful that it will remove it) but should reduce tensions and discussion volume on the talk page, as well as giving me a fresh look some months down the road as suggested by other ArbCom members. (I have been trying to cut down since ArbCom in the first place, obviously not to a great degree I would have liked, based on one of the comments in the !vote on the one motion involving me). Sometimes one needs that type of advice from a non-involved party to recognize one's behavior, which that I do appreciate ArbCom for. --M ASEM (t) 06:51, 3 September 2015 (UTC)
 * @SlimVirgin: Again, taking note that I fully understand ArbCom's desire to avoid adding sanctions and agree this should be the avenue avoided whenever it can, and my objection above in that it is only my presence as the root cause, I still think that MarkBernstein needs to be aware that engaging in the behavior here that he did towards me is unacceptable practice even if there's a mitigating circumstance; a simple warning with nothing actionable hasn't worked before. Would it be possible to do something similar as you had done with TheRedPenOfDoom's admonishment in the ArbCom case, so that it is clear he cannot engage in the same type of behavior as identified here with any editor with the GG topic scope without being subject to review? --M ASEM (t) 20:00, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
 * @SlimVirgin: Given the number of times MarkBernstein has been warned/blocked/topic-banned for doing this same behavior in the GG topic area (particularly towards me as before), and, importantly, his lack of any statement in the present to indicate that he now recognizes this is an issue, I don't believe that "no action" is going to fix things, at least limited to anyone else's interaction with MarkBernstein. I would love to be wrong and will assume good faith that what has been suggested by ArbCom might do it, but given what I've seen over the last several months of both his behavior and his apparent intent for Wikipedia, I am not very confident. Hence why I'm looking for something more firmer from ArbCom than just a caution. --M ASEM (t) 20:50, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

Notification
 * Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested :

Discussion concerning MarkBernstein
''Statements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Administrators may remove or shorten noncompliant statements. Disruptive contributions may result in blocks.''

Statement by MarkBernstein
Masem insists on calling me by my first name, despite requests that he not. Perhaps WP:CIVILITY encompasses demeaning or condescending familiarity. If it does, then my parallel use is surely permitted; if not, I apologize for following the example of an administrator and will not do it again.

With respect to diff 5, a recent article in The Guardian quoted Zoe Quinn’s characterization of The Zoepost as abusive. Such reasoning is hardly incomprehensible: her ex-lover discussed intimate details of their life to exact revenge. Anita Sarkeesian -- an expert in the area -- characterized it as domestic violence. An expert interviewed by one of the world’s great papers is free to express that view, and that view is not difficult to understand or justify within the discourse of contemporary feminist critique. Masem repeatedly affects to misunderstand her to be alluding to physically violent prior conduct not in evidence; clearly, the only evidence Sarkeesian uses or requires is the published text itself. Masem may disagree with her conclusion, but Sarkeesian is the expert whose opinion was sought.

Masem has been planning this for months on end, but surely what we have is a gossamer pretext.

Have I insulted Masem? I have said that he misuses the term “begging the question;" I think you will agree. I have said that he appears to misunderstand  the term “new journalism;” if you are familiar with the work of Tom Wolfe, Hunter Thompson, Joan Didion and crew, I think you will agree.  Gently have I tried  to point out instances where his errors of grammar or usage make his meaning unclear; if that's inconsistent with Wikipedia policy, I humbly apologize.

Meanwhile, the Gamergate boards this morning are filled with speculation that and I are gay lovers, calling me a “cunt” (again, among other things), and discussing ways to get more Gamergate supporters to dig up more dirt to throw here. Some have already answered the call. If you think those posts are not coordinated with and part of this action, you are making a mistake.)

I have for months explored every channel to reach a lasting settlement, including a long, long dialogue with Masem on my talk page in which I literally begged him to help end this disaster on any terms. He repeatedly declined. I have written letters, published articles, engaged on talk pages and policy discussions, seeking a lasting resolution consistent with policy and morality.

Few of you have lent much assistance.

What sort of Wikipedians do you want? Yes: you want more Wikipedians, but not just more: you want better Wikipedians. As one admin said not long ago, I’m widely (or wildly?) unpopular in these parts, but my sentences generally mean what they say, and say what I mean. I use facts with reasonable care, and I have never used Wikipedia to spread rumors about the sex lives of female software developers or to encourage those who do.

That Wikipedia has failed to express gratitude and thanks to its defenders is, in my view, neither considerate nor expedient. That I am termed here a harasser and a bully for trying to find a peaceful and lasting resolution, at exorbitant personal cost, is unconscionable. If some of you think my contributions to Wikipedia in this matter unproductive, the wider world appears to disagree. MarkBernstein (talk) 16:59, 31 August 2015 (UTC)


 * says that I did not ask him not to call me “Mark”. I did -- repeatedly -- but I don't have time and inclination to sort through fifty pages of archives to find the diffs for you. One occasion, though, was in verse at ARCA, a contribution that received a fair amount of attention. Find the diff yourselves if you want it; dollars to donuts, Masem contributed to that discussion and I am confident he is aware of it.


 * “Christian” names, to my ear, can sound rather familiar,
 * And I don’t recall that we’ve been introduced.
 * Adversaries adopt (in America) address
 * That’s more formal. I think Dr. Bernstein is fine.
 * I did attend Swarthmore: if perchance you’re a Friend
 * Or don’t like to use titles, my names, please, in full.


 * Of course, if he were genuinely unaware of this, he would have acknowledged that yesterday when I raised the point. Instead, he filed an AE complaint about my raising the point, and now affects bewildered contrition.


 * With respect to his tendentious reading of my effort to reach a lasting solution, he is again mistaken. I did not ask for world peace or an end to all harassment (thought either would be welcome!), I asked that he use such influence as he possesses to dissuade Gamergate from their continued attacks on Wikipedia and Wikipedians -- attacks like the wild speculations this morning that Gamaliel and I are involved in a homosexual relationship -- or that he propose terms under which he would be willing to do so.  You have seen his response. MarkBernstein (talk) 23:10, 31 August 2015 (UTC)


 * I cannot unpublished an essay I wrote many months ago in which I explained Gamergate’s then-current strategy using the terms Pal (chosen to be less insulting than Peon or Pawn), Provocateur, and Boss. Nor would I wish to. I have not used this term on Wikipedia since Masem objected, nor do I recall using it off-wiki recently. Unlike “Masem” and his colleagues, however, I stand behind my writing on Gamergate, and the world press has concurred.   MarkBernstein (talk) 13:34, 1 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Dear admins: why are IPs permitted here? Are we confident that they are not socks of banned users?  Just wondering.MarkBernstein (talk) 19:23, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

Note: I have been instructed and admonished not to respond to every, insult, and insinuation tossed my way at AE and elsewhere.. Here, my restraint has been the subject of speculation, scorn, and insinuation. This is quite delightful! As I have said before, this whimsical approach clearly represents an exemplary way to treat volunteers, and has interesting ramifications for Wikipedia's openness to extortion. I do sometimes dream of a faerie wiki where the protections that administrators extend so readily to brigaded and sock puppet accounts might be extended to protect me now and then, but never mind: the world is what it is. (It's September: I believe that means I've now been Gamergate's main target for as long as the Five Horsemen rode together, but I can't easily check as I'm sitting on the dock of the bay.) If there is some substantive way I can be of service, or if I can entertain you further, let me know, MarkBernstein (talk) 22:13, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

Statement by PeterTheFourth
Really, ? This is what counts as arb report worthy? PeterTheFourth (talk) 05:12, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
 * When you refer to 'poking the bear', what is the bear in this analogy? PeterTheFourth (talk) 20:50, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

Statement by Johnuniq
If taken far enough, politely pushing a point of view (WP:CPUSH) becomes more disruptive than any uncivil outburst. Masem has made 427 edits to Gamergate controversy and 2397 edits to Talk:Gamergate controversy in just under a year.

In addition, there have been numerous noticeboard discussions, for example this NPOV archive has 128KB devoted to some hard-to-pin-down proposal to bend Wikipedia's standard procedures to introduce counterpoints to what reliable sources say.

Masem has had plenty of opportunity to make a proposal that would satisfy himself while being consistent with NPOV and RS. The fact that Masem still wants to discuss who-knows-what such as in this section indicates that it is time for Masem to take a break. A voluntary twelve-month break from all matters related to Gamergate would be fine, otherwise it is time for a topic ban to be implemented. It is not healthy for the community that Masem is able to soak up so much time and energy with polite suggestions that NPOV and RS be suspended for this topic. Johnuniq (talk) 05:27, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

Statement by Ryk72
With respect, ...polite suggestions that NPOV and RS be suspended for this topic, is a gross misrepresentation of the editor's comments and actions, and I invite you to strike it, per WP:ASPERSIONS. A more accurate reflection would be that the editor suggests adherence to all aspects of WP:NPOV, including WP:YESPOV, in the face of other editors tendentiously insisting that opinions & contentious assertions be presented as uncontroversial & incontrovertible facts. - Ryk72 'c.s.n.s.' 05:38, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

While I genuinely appreciate the spirit and intent of the proposal, I cannot concur that it is proportionate to the behaviour of the editors in question. Looking at the history of the interactions, including the diffs above, I cannot conclude other than that has been subjected to a sustained campaign of bullying and WP:HARASSMENT by  et al. In the sections which provoked this filing alone, Masem requested no less than four times that MarkBernstein cease making pointed, personal attacks; at each turn these requests were met with a continuation & escalation of the same. Editors may consider it to be minor; but it is sustained, consistent harassment, and heightened by the off-Wiki attacks to which Masem has been subject.

While I also appreciate the intent to address off-topic or non-productive Talk page discussion, I suggest that the proposal is disproportionate w.r.t the amount and nature of this behaviour. Looking over MarkBernstein's contributions to the discussions, both at the article Talk page, and at various "dramah" boards, there does not appear to be much that a reasonable observer would consider to be productive. The majority seems historically to be given over to quixotic, hyperbolic hystericisms; conspiracy theories about zombies & socks; WP:FORUM hung on the flimsiest of WP:COATRACKs; personal attacks and just plain, common, everyday WP:REICHSTAGing.

The issues with MarkBernstein's involvement in this topic space appear far wider reaching, and far more ingrained, that just the interaction between the two editors, as highlighted by a number of other respondents here; and consequently a one-way IBAN seems manifestly insufficient.

Even if the issues were so limited, I could not support rewarding bullying, harassing and personal attacks through sanction of the victim. - Ryk72 'c.s.n.s.' 15:16, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

W.r.t the claims of off-Wiki harassment, I am not convinced that they stand up to any degree of scrutiny. The suggestion that the Gamergate boards this morning are filled with speculation that @Gamaliel: and I are gay lovers, I presume refers to "I have no idea what the nature of their relationship is, but I'm certain it can't be healthy.", and calling me a “cunt”, to "Pretty much a case of wtf guys here we have a cunt being a cunt, and you want to punish the victims?"; both from this Reddit sub: /r/WikiInAction/comments/3j2vbu/masem_took_mark_bernstein_to_ae_and_by_the_looks/.

I do not see that the first statement makes an implication of any form of homosexuality; perhaps it simply means to suggest that the continued support of outrageous behaviour "buggers belief". The second statement brings to mind the bon mots of, and the advice contained therein; while the language used might not be to polite tastes, the message that editors commenting here are stating that behaviour has been found wanting is entirely appropriate.

Nor do these two statements make "the boards full". The majority of that same discussion is the same musings on Wikipedia internal workings as might be found at any number of external sites. The suggestion that the world of Grizzlegrunters is afire with discussion of Wikipedian sex lives or awash with fierce invective appears to be more of the same overblown hyperbole to which we have been forced to become accustomed. I suggest that it would not be unreasonable for editors to question if it is aimed at influencing the Administrators here.

W.r.t the suggestion that such external commentary justifies or mitigates on-Wiki actions undermined by the participation on sites hosting equivalent discussions of editors with whom you disagree, and the on-Wiki promotion of those sites. See: Special:Diff/669795303 and Special:Diff/669797159. Comparing the usernames, it would appear that a number of Wikipedia editors proposing no action here also post to the same site. While I do not support or participate in external commentary on Wikipedia editors, I do accept that it exists. It is the height of hypocrisy to suggest that it is appropriate for one form of external comment, but not another; that there is sauce enough for the goose, but the gander can "get plucked".

Finally, the suggestion that editors should search through 44 lines of plurdled gabbleblotchits to find a request to not be referred to on a first name basis is, quite frankly, bizarre; and might reasonably be interpreted as indicative of a terrible hubris.

The behaviour towards Masem in this instance is not isolated. It is not justified nor justifiable. It is part of a wider pattern of uncivil, aggressive, unreasonable & unwarranted behaviour towards editors who do not share a belief that Wikipedia should be used to attack, belittle & pillory a group of people for injustices perceived to have been committed by them.

A pattern of behaviour of which the topic area, if not the whole project, would be better rid. - Ryk72 'c.s.n.s.' 11:11, 1 September 2015 (UTC)


 * In line with the "show cause" suggestion in the comment to below; are you able to advise the editors here:

a) How your previous behaviour at Talk pages relating to this topic area has been wanting; b) How that behaviour will change to promote a more collaborative & constructive editing environment; c) How such improvement might be judged to have or have not occurred; d) Any commitments or undertakings that you are willing to make such that we do not need to revisit this forum if such improvement is not made or the previous behaviour should re-occur; e) Why the community should allow you to continue to edit in this topic area (i.e. How the Mainspace & Talk pages will benefit).
 * Thanks in advance for any reply. - Ryk72 'c.s.n.s.' 07:04, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

@ The most recent clarification is appreciated, and the desire to not sanction is understood; though perhaps that one editor is offering (or being asked) to self-sanction, and the other is not makes the conjecture by similarly understandable. I would suggest that given the long, and troubled, history of MarkBernstein in this topic area, that there is ample evidence that we have reached "enough is enough" territory, and that it may be worth asking the editor to show cause as to why they should remain engaged at the article. It is disappointing that we have not seen any admission that there might be fault; just attack & special pleading. I also draw attention to the following diffs; Special:Diff/679039641, Special:Diff/679150027; commenting on &, and ask if these imply that the "problems and personal comments continue". - Ryk72 'c.s.n.s.' 06:39, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

Propose - That if Masem were to take a step back from the topic space - either with the conditions proposed by or as a voluntary topic ban - that MarkBernstein be subject to the same restrictions for the same period. NB: This is in addition to the proposed IBAN; about which I share 's concerns w.r.t futility; and in addition to any topic ban or block. - Ryk72 'c.s.n.s.' 11:11, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

Statement by Aquillion
Masem has, more or less, been repeating the exact same arguments, with very little change, in the Gamergate article for nearly a year now. Roughly speaking, his arguments are that:

1. The mainstream media is biased against Gamergate. Because the controversy includes accusations against the mainstream media as a whole, normally-reliable mainstream media sources on the topic shouldn’t be considered as reliable as usual when covering it; therefore we need to include (and give more weight to) less-reliable, non-mainstream sources we otherwise wouldn’t use in order to balance this supposed bias out.

2. Gamergate is divided into (relatively) clearly-defined factions, including what he calls an “ethics faction”, which he believes the article needs to give more attention to. As I understand it, he wants key parts of the article to be structured around this division.

My point isn’t to debate these arguments here. My point is that he has repeated these arguments again and again with almost no change, regardless of what is said in talk, regardless of the current state of the article, and regardless of the fact that they’ve clearly failed to gain consensus, for nearly a year now. This is textbook Tendentious Editing (specifically, WP:REHASH).

To be clear, having a strong opinion about these things isn’t the problem; almost everyone has opinions on this topic. The problem is that he has repeated the exact same arguments, over and over, with virtually no change, for nearly a year. The frustration visible in MarkBernstein’s edits has to be understood in light of that; many of the arguments he’s responding to there are ones that Masem has repeated over and over and over again on that talk page. I can only assume that Masem is frustrated as well (since he clearly believes the arguments he's putting forward, and has spent so much time and text repeating them while getting nowhere), but simply repeating them over and over for nearly a year is not a solution and has made the talk page a sometimes-frustrating place to deal with. I feel that that is, overall, a more serious problem on the talk page than the relatively mild comments he linked to above. --Aquillion (talk) 08:37, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

Statement by Brustopher
After a lot of thinking I have come up with a solution which I think will satisfy no one but deal with all of the concerns addressed here: Thoughts? Brustopher (talk) 11:38, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
 * 1) The following editing restriction is placed on Masem: "Masem may only edit Talk:Gamergate controversy to, 1. propose a specific change to the article, 2. oppose/support a change proposed by another editor 3. remove obvious vandalism or BLP violations." The main problem with Masem's comments on the talk page is that they're often theoretical discussions of wikipolicy that go nowhere. This restriction will help counteract this problem.
 * 2) MarkBernstein is banned from interacting with Masem. If you dig up the diffs from this request, Masem's previous request and MarkBernstein's original request against Masem on the WP:GS/GG/E page there is probably enough evidence to support this. While it's mostly been minor stuff, it's been minor stuff over a long period of time.
 * 3) Working on number 3/placeholder for any order concerns raised/an attempt to deal with offsite issues
 * My intention here was not to punish Masem. It was to counteract negative and unproductive editing patterns. I know that seems like an incredibly disingenuous and political response, but it's really the truth. Frequently starting long and rambling philosophical policy discussions that don't really go anywhere, and lowkey insults against another editor over the course of half a year are editing patterns which in my opinion ought to be avoided. But I don't think either of the involved parties are bad people who ought to be punished. However as it seems my proposal is unworkable I (for what it's worth) endorse that of Dennis Brown. Brustopher (talk) 20:41, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I strongly suggest you work on your reading comprehension skills. Please note that my intial proposal includes an interaction ban for MarkBernstein. Brustopher (talk) 20:44, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

In another shocking twist it seems like my proposal is back on the table. Thank you Masem for volunteering to keep to the proposed editing patterns. Also I have to disagree with all these comments about growing a thicker skin. Masem has repeatedly asked for Dr. Bernstein to stop implying that he is the secret boss of gamergate, for a period of over half a year now. This is repeated unwanted contact and an IBAN is definitely in order. Brustopher (talk) 10:38, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
 * The press endorsed your claims of GG disrupting wikipedia, not your claims that an administrator/Masem was the mastermind behind it all. While it's true you don't use the Boss terminology the issue is more your claims and comments (which were even included on your response) that imply Masem is the secret leader of Gamergate. You can't deny that these insinuations have been a frequent feature of your interactions with Masem. I'm very skeptical of the idea of Masem being an evil mastermind, but I dont want to go too far into it the why lest it be viewed as baiting you into making more accusations on wiki. If you have any strongly convincing evidence that what you believe is true, I'd suggest you mail it to Dennis Brown and Gamaliel. Please note that the outing policy has changed since before the Arbcom case so "Posting links to other accounts on other websites is allowable on a case-by-case basis." This means a repeat of the pre-arb case nonsense regarding offsite accounts should no longer be able to happen. Brustopher (talk) 14:04, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
 * An infinite wall of text has been generated here so I want to check: are you basing your comment just on Masem's initial enforcement alone or have you taken all other sections into account? Because if you read all the section of this request there is objectively (and I use "objectively" in all seriousness) enough evidence to support an IBAN here. Also please note that Gamaliel (who's been adminning in this area for a year now) and Dennis Brown (who claims to have done a good read through of the GG talk pages) both seem to be leaning towards an IBAN as a minimum. Brustopher (talk) 21:53, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

Statement by Darwinian Ape
I am having trouble understanding editors asking sanctions against Masem, who was extremely patient and always focused on the content. Gamergate controversy article has problems, I think no objective editor can deny this fact. And in order to fix that, you have to challenge the status quo that's not POV pushing. They say Masem is pushing a POV, and being civil. I agree with the latter but not the former, and I urge them to produce any evidence of him pushing a POV before suggesting a yearlong self imposed topic bans. It seems some people think that if you stay in a contentious topic long enough you have to be doing something wrong. Mark Bernstein, on the other hand is both pushing a POV and being severely uncivil to say the least. Apart from the personal attacks targeted at Masem, he questions the motives of anyone opposing his viewpoint. If you are new, then you are either a sock or a part of some evil conspiracy to infiltrate WP, if you are old, well we have seen how it went with. In my opinion he is incapable of being impartial on this topic, and extremely hostile to the opposition, thus a net negative to the project. --Darwinian Ape talk 13:11, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

I don' think it's fair to ask Masem to volunteer to a topic ban. Gamergate article is on my watch-list for a while now, and not once have I witnessed anything remotely worthy of sanction on part of Masem. It really will be a false balance if Masem gets a sanction in here, so I implore you not to. If the behavior of Bernstein was an isolated incident I would wholeheartedly agree with that this is not a big issue, but it's not. It is an ongoing rant after rant from Bernstein demonstrating he is not here for an objective article. I seriously doubt a 6 month block would be enough either, because as evident by his reply here he believes he is not doing anything wrong, and to add insult to the injury, he declares that ...and discussing ways to get more Gamergate supporters to dig up more dirt to throw here. Some have already answered the call. If you think those posts are not coordinated with and part of this action, you are making a mistake. casting aspersions on editors who commented here, not to mention his ridiculous "It's Mister Bernstein to you!" attitude. Darwinian Ape talk 18:10, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

I've missed that. Though it would be, perhaps, nice if you leave the duration of the break to him. Darwinian Ape talk 18:32, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

I can not fathom how, that the offsite discussions(which we have no control over) about this Enforcement hearing can be seen as an excuse for Bernstein's behavior. We know by his comments here he thinks we are collaborating with them, even though there is not a shred of evidence to support that claim. Is that the conclusion of admins also? Frankly, I would not have commented here if some people had not suggested boomerang for Masem who is the wronged party here. And now it seems he will be taking a voluntary break and Bernstein a slap on the wrist.

The problem is that the anti gamergate side here mostly consists of ideological warriors who are oblivious to the nuances of the issue itself or the damage they are doing to their so called opponents. Everything is a fair game for them and you are either with them or against them. This is the core of our problems. It's not what they are advocating, it's how they are advocating. That's why the "five horsemen" was all banned from the article. You can see it in almost every post of Bernstein, 'the world is on his side' he has the moral high ground and shouting from there to us cretins that he is doing the right thing! This is not how we build an encyclopedia, and his behavior is fundamentally incompatible with Wikipedia's goals. If the verdict here comes as it is, we will be back here on behalf of Mr Bernstein again, because he thinks his behavior is not wrong. I hope I am wrong and he corrects his conduct, but I am very skeptical. Darwinian Ape talk 15:22, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

Statement by Starke Hathaway
Pretty much everything says above is true. Whatever the issues with Masem's participation are (and I disagree that he has been anything like a net negative in the topic area), MarkBernstein seems to be almost incapable of making any edit in the Gamergate area that doesn't contain a personal attack, an insult, or baseless speculation about the motives of any editor who does not fully agree with him. Masem is only the most frequent recipient of this behavior-- Bernstein behaves this way toward anyone he sees as not being on his side. It contributes much more heat than light in an already contentious topic area, and it is very disruptive. Bernstein has been sanctioned for incivility and personal attacks in this area multiple times before, and was unblocked after violating an indefinite Gamergate topic ban on the explicit condition that he avoid personally-directed comments. He has utterly failed to meet this condition. In my opinion Bernstein's original topic ban ought to be put back in place. He has demonstrated no willingness to rein in his personal attacks, which were the reason for the topic ban in the first place. I would ping HJ Mitchell, who unblocked MB under this condition, but I'm unsure whether that breaks some rule about canvassing. -Starke Hathaway (talk) 13:39, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I disagree that the behavior complained of from MarkBernstein is best characterized as snark. It is hyperbolic, often hysterical, assumption of bad faith against anyone who does not agree with MarkBernstein's preferred take on the article. In relation to Masem, it is a months-long campaign of baiting and needling that has continued through topic bans, blocks, and numerous polite requests to please stop. And MarkBernstein's response to this complaint is to... accuse those complaining of being participants in offsite harassment (and apparently to complain that he hasn't been patted on the back enough for this behavior). Honestly it speaks for itself. -Starke Hathaway (talk) 18:32, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
 * The fact that you dismiss Rhoark's well-sourced-but-perhaps-intemperately-worded statement as "mocking" and "invective" while defending MarkBernstein (whose stock and trade in the GG topic area has for months been mocking invective, albeit without the diffs) is just more evidence that you really ought to give up the pretense of being uninvolved with respect to MarkBernstein. Even if true, the claim is no longer credible. -Starke Hathaway (talk) 21:30, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
 * MarkBernstein has had no shortage of warnings. If warnings prevented his incivility, we wouldn't be here. -Starke Hathaway (talk) 23:50, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

Statement by Sitush
Since I have been mentioned above, I'll just note that Bernstein is the primary reason I only briefly contributed to that article. Yes, there are some other POV pushing types there but none that come close to the poison he produces. Examples have already been given, and there is no shortage of off-wiki stuff also. - Sitush (talk) 13:40, 31 August 2015 (UTC)


 * regarding Some have already answered the call. If you think those posts are not coordinated with and part of this action, you are making a mistake, please provide the evidence. Looks like more hyperbole to me. - Sitush (talk) 17:03, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
 * and here we go again, I asked that he use such influence as he possesses to dissuade Gamergate from their continued attacks on Wikipedia and Wikipedians. Do you have any evidence to support the implication that Masem has any influence at all over whatever you consider "Gamergate" to be, or is it another one of your carefully-worded aspersions? You're good at that but it doesn't reflect well on you. I know generally seems to sympathise with systemic bias issues etc and that  tries to keep everyone happy but the reality here is that you need an indefinite topic ban. If nothing else, you've done too much off-wiki to be remotely neutral and, if Gamliel is correct, you have also been attacked off-wiki for the same. Unlike a situation in which I was involved last year, it is impossible to determine whether the chicken or the egg came first but the outcome is the same in this case - like it or not, you have become a net negative in this area. I find it striking that Masem is prepared to volunteer a withdrawal and you are not. - Sitush (talk) 23:28, 31 August 2015 (UTC)


 * The further analysis provided here by a few hours ago is further confirmation that MarkBernstein is a purveyor of hysterical hyperbole. Given that his default position is to ABF and to cast aspersions, that he has previously been blocked for it, and that he continues even in the spotlight of an AE request, I really do not understand why he isn't just given the boot. Let him pursue his campaign off-wiki, as he says others do against him: two wrongs do not make a right. - Sitush (talk) 14:21, 1 September 2015 (UTC)


 * I think you are missing the long-term needling effect of MB's continual personalisations on that talk page and elsewhere. Perhaps the best examples were not present in the initial report but plenty of other diffs have been given. Dropping this now is just kicking it into the long grass. See you in a few weeks, then. - Sitush (talk) 19:23, 1 September 2015 (UTC)


 * ... "elsewhere" including his wild accusations on this very page. - Sitush (talk) 19:27, 1 September 2015 (UTC)


 * IBANs do not often work. They simply lead to more litigation. Topic bans etc do work, although there may still be a litigious element if they are poorly worded. Masem has already said that they will take a voluntary three month break but among MarkBernstein's many failures to address issues here (eg: no replies to my above comments even when pinged) is a willingness to offer the same. So force one on him. Don't call it "broadly construed" because that just leads to more problems. Call it "anything, anywhere on Wikipedia related to Gamergate, including drama boards and articles that might conceivably be connected to it, such as BLPs of any person who has been mentioned in connection with it." And then, in about six months' time, after yet another AE request or five, we all know what will happen to him anyway. It is up to him to prove us wrong. - Sitush (talk) 23:26, 1 September 2015 (UTC)


 * sorry but if you think this is merely a Masem/MarkBernstein issue then you really need to start over because you have no clue. Obviously, I'm pretty sure you do in fact have clue ... which begs another question. You are ignoring everything that is being said in this non-arb section. I realise that it might suit your POV if a defender of the Gamergate targets were not sanctioned and someone who was seeking greater neutrality were removed but that is not how this is supposed to work. I'll say it again: Masem has agreed to step back and Bernstein has not. He is an utter pov warrior and he is so not merely on-wiki. He is vicious, single-minded and no stranger to casting aspersions, which is something you have previously intimated is a problem area when offering support to, say, Lightbreather. Wake up. - Sitush (talk) 23:30, 2 September 2015 (UTC)


 * regarding this[ - exactly! I pulled back because of Bernstein's comments, including some that he made about me off-wiki. I'm used to being attacked etc but it was quite obvious to me that if I ploughed on then I would end up being blocked for something that was not my fault. - Sitush (talk) 08:22, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

Looks like MarkBernstein is going to get away with his consistently appalling behaviour once again? I despair. - Sitush (talk) 14:07, 4 September 2015 (UTC)


 * sure, there may be some dross in the diffs but Slim's arguments are completely untenable, bearing in mind prior blocks etc and her own deep involvement in the subject matter (ie: Sarkesian, Wu etc, whom MarkBernstein seeks constantly to protect and even advocate on behalf of). If nothing happens on this occasion, is there anything to stop me starting a full-blown Arbcom case regarding MarkBernstein? Would it be considered forum shopping? Would Masem be prevented from participating because of their self-imposed moratorium? I really don't understand the Gamergate stuff and that is in large part because our article is crap ... and it is crap because of the involvement of people like him. He has been taking the piss on this very page and neither you nor Slim seem to care. - Sitush (talk) 00:28, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

Statement by DHeyward
Echo DarwinianApe. --DHeyward (talk) 13:57, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
 * DHeyward has repeatedly mocked both you and I (and others) for editing My Little Pony-related articles Diffs or please retract the aspersions.  I've never mocked anyone for editing any of those articles.  My only observation was your templating Masem for edit warring   and the fact that both you (3 whole edits) and PeterTheFourth (1 edit) just recently edited that article and I didn't understand how it was gamergate related to have attracted such attention (i.e. why are GG editors following Masem, reverting his edits, and templating him for edit warring) . "My little pony" articles re not on my watchlist but Masem's is so I didn't even know he edited those pages until your templating.  MarkBernstein has commented many times on my edits and ANI statements.  While requesting that the IBAN be lifted or enforced, it was explained that the IBAN only prevented me and MB from bringing enforcement actions, not restricting commenting.   I'm surprised you would single out my mild "echo" statement.  You'll find your "mocking" statement to be false as well.  --DHeyward (talk) 02:52, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the apology. I don't read (or write) on redit and didn't realize people there are giving blow-by-blow accounts of everything.  I know they existed since people complain but I barely have time here let alone having to read the offsite nonsense.  --DHeyward (talk) 15:58, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

Statement by GamerPro64
I usually keep my distance from actually editing the GamerGate page for a reason. Everything DarwinianApe says is spot on. Bernstein will even call editors out for editing on the site again after being absent for a year or two. Masem, meanwhile, is the most cool under pressure editor on that page and has been like that for almost a year. The article is a touchy subject as it is and Bernstein does not make it any easier with his POV pushing. GamerPro64 14:39, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

Why not have an interaction ban between Masem and Bernstein? GamerPro64 23:23, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

I feel like there may need to be more outside opinions from other uninvolved admins right now because this is just astounding now. GamerPro64 23:53, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

I'm with Sitush's remark on why Bernstein hasn't been booted out of here yet. How many times has there been calls and warnings for him to step away from touching the GamerGate article or the like? Also, who cares what a person on the internet says about you? Its the equivalent of someone talking bad about you behind your back and you find out. If insults from some rando justifies someone to continue being uncivil, then God help us all. GamerPro64 16:04, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

How the heck is it just allowing Masem to take a three month break from the page going to resolve the issue? Personally I think the issues will continue even if he is gone. The fact that Bernstein is getting off scot-free is just sad. GamerPro64 02:05, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

Statement by Dumuzid
I can't find a single positive point in this morass. I can't believe Masem thought it wise to bring this small a matter to enforcement. Civility is important, but there will always be sharp elbows in the world. This seems about the mildest possible 'insult' there could ever be. If this is sanctionable, then we may as well Topic Ban all present and future users from the Gamergate controversy page. Having said that, I am disappointed in Dr. Bernstein for sinking to the level he did and bullying Masem for one of his interests. I still don't think it actionable, but this does not cover him with any glory. Finally, the mods, admins, and the rest of the great and good of Wikipedia have dealt with this like a person whose only tool is a sniper rifle. "Who do we shoot dead to solve this problem?" I watch them talk each other up. "One week topic ban?" "No, six months." "NO, PERMANENT." The ever-escalating 'solutions' handed down do nothing more than encourage the continued gaming of the system. This, ladies and gentlemen, is as fine and precise a "what not to do" example of mediation as I have ever seen. In short, (1) Masem: Grow up. (2) Dr. Bernstein: Don't be a jerk. (3) Greater wikians: why not simply retire and set up a peremptory challenge system? That, at least, would have the benefit of being transparent and predictable. I apologize for this splenetic post, and there's no reason anyone should pay attention to me, but there you have it. Dumuzid (talk) 16:55, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

Reply to Dr. Bernstein: Dr. Bernstein, I think you are a force for good at Wikipedia. It does not follow that everything you do is therefore right or optimal. Yes, there are many others who have committed graver sins against Wikipedia. That does not grant you license to act like a bully, or mean that I should refrain from mentioning it. Thank you. Dumuzid (talk) 17:08, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

To, Mr. Brown, I am fascinated. Are new editors less human than IP editors? Dumuzid (talk) 03:07, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

Statement by Torchiest
I agree with Darwinian Ape and GamerPro64. In one of my earliest interactions with him, Mark Bernstein came across as hostile, condescending, and assuming bad faith. On another occasion, he asserted a very neutral edit summary of mine be oversighted, as if I had violated WP:BLP, which was neither my intent nor remotely accurate for the content of the summary. I feel like he creates an environment that's not conducive to consensus building and article improvement, which pushes away a lot of other editors. I feel like I must walk on eggshells when I comment on the talk page, because I'm worried about provoking his wrath. Masem has been exceedingly patient and gets treated pretty poorly. —Torchiest talkedits 17:42, 31 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Disappointed with the response we're seeing so far that's somehow shifting all the blame away from MarkBerstein. You've got plenty of long-time editors in good standing making similar statements about unpleasant interactions with him, and they've barely even been acknowledged, much less examined. As others have noted, the fact that Masem is willing to step away while MB digs his heels in is quite telling. —Torchiest talkedits 20:27, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

Statement by Rhoark
I'm not sure if Masem meant to write "tenacious" when linking to "tendentious", but his choice was the more apt when it comes to his performance. People say as if it were an indictment of his behavior that he's made such-and-such many talk page edits - well, at what point is it best to give up on policy and let factions write whatever they want? There is no such point, so if Masem's edit count troubles anyone, let them bear some of the load of defending the wiki.

The problem is not Mark Bernstein alone, but he's certainly the editor whose contributions have the greatest negative impact. Snide remarks about ponies are just the tip of the iceberg; Mark Bernstein is the Platonic ideal of the tendentious editor. Do not be misled by the notion that he is protecting the privacy or safety of any living people. He will not hesitate to use the flimsiest pretenses to claim a threat has been made. An isolated misunderstanding would be one thing, but the regularity with which he infers malice of melodramatic moustache-twirling proportion can only be explained as incompetence or a calculated ploy.

There are of course actual threats that have been made in the course of the Gamergate controversy. There are also people saying derogatory things about Mark Bernstein. The distinction that seems lost on him is that all these activities are unconnected with his interlocutors on Wikipedia. He continually seeks to connect editors like Masem or myself with various socks, zombies, and IPs, but when it gets down to brass tacks, he cannot substantiate any fault with the conduct or contributions of experienced editors. Nevertheless, aspersions still flow like rivers. Supposed efforts at making peace have included asking AE to permanently lock the article at his preferred version, and a heartfelt essay about why his opponents should give up.

What exactly is he railing so hard against, if not against harm to women? Quite simply the endgame he seems to fear is one in which the article follows the reliable sources. As I put considerable effort into detailing, the reliable sources put the most emphasis on threats and other criminal activity, but recognize a larger context as well. They document other people, of benign actions and legitimate concerns. They document unprovoked threats against Gamergate. Mark Bernstein's response has been a consistent WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. Also, misrepresenting a source to try to discredit it, while also calling it a BLP violation against the author to doubt the reliability of another source. Essentially, Mark Bernstein seems willing to run rampant over any content or conduct policy he can get away with to push his point of view.

There are of course many sources that agree with Bernstein's point of view, but the correct response is to document the range of opinions as opinions - not to WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS. Bernstein's supporters are happy to pile on Masem for his diligence in trying to get NPOV right, while turning a blind eye to Bernstein's calculated efforts to get NPOV wrong. Why does he do this? Is it because visions of Zoe Quinn haunt him in his dreams? All one can be sure about is that it's not about building a better encyclopedia.


 * If describing MB's conduct is taken as ridicule, it just goes to show that said conduct has been ridiculous. If I were to be utterly parsimonious I could simply note, "In my judgement, MarkBernstein's rhetoric is incompatible with collaborative editing on these articles and he has given no indication that he will moderate his behavior in this area."


 * I only also want to be crystal clear that any claim that Mark Bernstein is defending women from attack fails to stand up to scrutiny. The editors he clashes with have not the slightest interest in sexual gossip. He hasn't been baited and fatigued by fighting in the trenches, like some others. NBSB is a true champion for BLP, who let his zeal run ahead of policy. Red Pen is a tenacious watchdog for reliable sourcing who couldn't assume good faith anymore. With Mark Bernstein's behavior, no such underlying core of service to the encyclopedia is evident. Zoe Quinn and Dylann Roof alike seem like just so much fodder for his self-aggrandizement. To MB, re-read the things you wrote about so-called "pajamas" editors: you've become one.


 * Now, someone - I can't figure out who, so it was probably something I saw off-site - suggested Mark Bernstein could do with a mentor or chaperone of sorts to help keep him out of these scrapes. Someone with good sense, but that he doesn't perceive as "the enemy". At first I thought the idea totally unworkable, but then I was heartened to see pitch in her 2¢. Sarah, you've been reticent to engage the Gamergate topic in the past, but if anyone has, you've shown there's no topic so reprehensible that NPOV is in abeyance. You've demonstrated how to document widely rejected views. It hasn't mortally wounded the encyclopedia's reputation, either. If Mark Bernstein were willing, I think he could learn from you. Rhoark (talk) 03:44, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

Statement by Omegastar
I cannot believe the reactions of some of the Wikipedians here. We have, here, an enforcement request regarding Markbernstein, which includes evidence for said enforcement. Yet not only do some Wikipedians here instantly dismiss this evidence, they actually do not even mention it at all and instead treat this as if it is an enforcement request against Masem. If these Wikipedians want to see Masem punished for gamergate-related edits, then they should start an arbitration request about this. What they are doing here is attempting to derail an arbitration request against Markbernstein. Stick to the topic! If you think Masem's evidence is without merit, then say so and the arbitration request can be decided based on that. If you think Masem needs to be punished, start another arbitration request specifically about that.

's statement completely ignores the actual request and the actual evidence that has been made. Instead the sole purpose of this statement seems to be to rail against Masem. Since this arbitration request does not concern Masem and since Aquillion apparently cannot be bothered to even attempt to address the evidence that Masem gives, his statement should be ignored. seems to be under the impression that this is an arbitration request against Masem. He too, apparently, cannot be bothered with discussing the actual conflict or any evidence, instead preferring to immediately suggest punishments against the accuser. Since Brustopher's statement consist solely of a suggested punishment with the most barebones justification I have ever seen, while ignoring the actual purpose of this specific arbitration request (that is, ignoring Masem's claim and ignoring the evidence Masem gives to support this claim), I suggest that Brustopher's statement also be ignored. also seems to think this is an arbitration request against Masem. He does not even mention Markbernstein at all. The only thing he does is rail against Masem. There is nothing in his statement that is actually relevant to this arbitration request. Therefore this statement should be ignored. Address the claim, address the evidence! Omegastar (talk) 20:40, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

Statement by ForbiddenRocky
Masem deserves at least a trout, but I think a boomerang. Nothing MarkBernstein has done is beyond explaining the illogic around Masem's inability to drop the stick for trying to get things into GGC without supporting RS. ForbiddenRocky (talk) 22:16, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
 * The context of what happens on WP doesn't stop at WP's virtual borders. The coordinated nature of socks, hounding, and POV pushing on GGC is easily detected if you spend the time looking. Just look at editors who have made one edit to the GGC and not to the talk page.  Look at who all has been banned for being a sock at GGC and its talk page.  Just look at the block log at the GGC arb page. Consider the various people who have complained and how they have complained at Jimbo's page. The repetition and coordination of themes is obvious, if time consuming to detect. If WP continues to pretend these off-wiki problems aren't problems on-wiki, then they can never be solved. ForbiddenRocky (talk) 20:17, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

Statement by ColorOfSuffering
Enough is enough. This is the fifth time MarkBernstein has been the subject an arbitration enforcement request. He has been blocked twice, and topic-banned once. He has been repeatedly warned against personal attacks, and assuming bad faith. He questions the motives of newcomers,, and will occasionally unapologetically soapbox about the article topic.. I do not doubt this editor is quite capable and productive in many areas of Wikipedia, but in the GamerGate topic space he is uncivil, and his actions and toxic tone has driven away a large number of both new and experienced editors. Would this consistent poor behavior be tolerated by any other editor, especially in such a contentious space? In my view he has exhibited the worst of battleground behavior of any editor in the GamerGate topic space. It is apparent that, at least in the GamerGate topic area, he is not here to build better articles. I fear that another warning and/or an iBan will be insufficient, because it has not worked in the past. ColorOfSuffering (talk) 23:48, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

Statement by Liz
Mark Bernstein has been brought to AE so often for frivolous reasons, I feel like cutting and pasting my previous statements into this complaint. Bernstein might be abrasive at times in making his points but if that was a blockable offense, we'd lose quite a few regular contributors at Wikipedia.

My only comment about Masem's specific claims is that DHeyward has repeatedly mocked both you and I (and others) for editing My Little Pony-related articles but I don't see you bringing him to AE because you are offended by DH's derision. It's not like contribution histories are private or shameful secrets. Also, since DHeyward is "indefinitely topic banned from all edits and discussion regarding User:MarkBernstein" (diff) maybe it is unwise for him to be participating here. In fact, several parties weighing in here have been subject to previous Gamergate sanctions or have been disallowed from editing the article because of Gamergate editing restrictions. Liz Read! Talk! 01:23, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
 * , it appears that I overstated the situation. Here is the diff I was thinking of but then there was also this related comment which was a criticism of me, not you. And I was also thinking of this off-wiki reddit thread that discussed the situation that involved editors who work on both Gamergate and MLP articles but DHeyward didn't participate in this conversation.
 * I apologize to DHeyward for misidentifying his remarks. Two weeks ago, he made a lot of comments about me and my RFA and I got that mixed up with the My Little Pony comments. But this all lies outside of your complaint, Masem. I would strike this statement but can't now that I have responded to your query about it. Liz  <b style="color:#006400;">Read!</b> <b style="color:#006400;">Talk!</b> 14:33, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

Statement by Kyohyi
For a bit of an informational note, I was involved in the RFC discussion about the exception to posting personal information, as well as the subsequent RFC about what would be considered acceptable. While the first RFC created the case by case basis statement, however none of the cases that followed managed to get enough support to be listed specifically. So I would take it more of a crap shoot on whether or not an admin that see's the other account info and considers it a violation or not. --Kyohyi (talk) 14:19, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

Statement by IP Editor
Would it be fair to characterize to the discovery of the off-wiki site that attacked Masem (and to which MB contributed) as enthusiastic? And fair to say you closed Masem's previous complaint against MB rather quickly? Here you outline several criticisms against Masem but none against MB aside from slight "silliness", disregarding apparently several linked examples of tendentious editing (from various editors.) Editing is a privilege and the only relevant test here is whether MB's participation in the topic area is an overall positive or overall negative. It's difficult to see your participation here as furthering the appearance of neutrality. 119.81.250.146 (talk) 19:42, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

Ah, just coincidence then. I'll also assume your for that link, which featured an article discussing editor, followed shortly by your  was also coincidence. My mistake. And so you don't feel I offer nothing but criticism I'll say I found your comment in response to Handpolk's AE appeal (and ostensible justification for his block) and honestly, hard to disagree with: we don't need quarrelsome editors at GG-related articles of all places 119.81.250.146 (talk) 21:48, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

Cooment by JzG
I propose the following remedy:


 * Both parties are enjoined to grow up.

I think that fixes the issue. Guy (Help!) 22:01, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

Statement by Another IP Editor
I really doubt giving MarkBernstein a slap on the wrist will end well. It has been done before, and well... you can already see how poorly that went. 69.5.131.1 (talk) 22:25, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

The reason I edit under an IP is for precautionary measures given the heated nature of the topic. I don't want my comments following me into areas unrelated to Wikipedia. The idea I want to get across is that the experienced editors who are tired of MarkBernstein's behavior will get more frustrated if nothing substantial comes out of this AE. 69.5.131.1 (talk) 03:33, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

Statement by NE Ent
Dear admins: Your instincts are correct; there's nothing worth fussing about here (per JzG / Guy), ibans are more aggravation than they're worth, and leaving this open just foments more drama. {{hat|... is the markup you are looking for ... NE Ent 01:10, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

Statement by Arkon
That last comment makes me think you haven't looked into this at all. Marks's issues are not isolated with Masem in any way. Arkon (talk) 19:22, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

Statement by IP Editor/Lurker
I have to wonder why on earth taking no action against MB appears to be the right course of action? I would like some clarification on why admins are leaning towards that decision, especially as multiple editors have already shown more instances where MarkBernstein's behavior was toxic towards them. Why are these other editors experiences with Mark's behavior not even taken into account? 65.78.150.19 (talk) 21:43, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

Statement by Seren Dept
Before you guys send Dr. Bernstein back to editing as usual, I really think you should ask him to explain the pony references. Calling out the My Little Pony interest is creepy - not quite homophobic, but definitely shaming in gender-related way. In a workplace context, it would be on the sexual harassment spectrum, given the associated gender stigma. If it happened there, I would drag him into private meeting about both the hostility and the connotations.

If this came from a teenager it wouldn't be all that weird, but Dr. Bernstein is mature and intelligent and has a remarkable command of expression and language. I'd love to say he lost his temper in trying circumstances, but he seems pretty liberal -- not the kind of guy who would impulsively target someone like that. It also seems carefully expressed without any contextual hints that would make the meaning obvious to a passing observer. I'd have to go with calculated provocation, and a successful one at that.

Oddly enough, that's one of GamerGate's most popular harassment recipes: discovering or concocting normally private and stigmatizing personal details tied to sexuality, and then promoting them within someone's professional and social communities. It's even more weird given that at least two of Dr. Bernstein's editor allies were similarly targeted, off-wiki and with much less subtlety, earlier in the year. Yes, it's not a death threat, but still...

I'd also point out that when someone comes to you to as the target of a clear and escalating pattern of harassment, it looks bad to encourage them to leave and have the harasser remain, especially when the harasser has a history of sanctions for similar behavior, and when the harasser hasn't even offered to stop. Ironically, Dr. Bernstein himself makes this argument loudly in other circumstances - even when the target has enthusiastically risen to the bait, which Masem has not.

It's a quandary though - if you don't sanction him, you're giving a harasser what he wants - the absence of his target. If you do sanction him, you're giving his harassers what they want. Given who they are, that would be hard to stomach.

I don't care for GamerGaters, and to be honest I kind of enjoy watching Dr. Bernstein's artful use of ridicule and insinuations of misogyny drive them into a white-hot rage. I'm not sure that behavior is appropriate in this context, and in the wider areas of gender-related conflict to which he contributes. Seren_Dept 00:20, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

Result concerning MarkBernstein

 * This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above.


 * I skimmed this discussion earlier this evening after seeing lots of activity on my watchlist. (I'm pointing that out lest anyone thinks I was contacted about this matter by anyone from either side, which has happened quite often over the last year.) While this is not optimal behavior, personally I don't see how it is sanctionable behavior, especially given the far harsher stuff which we regularly shrug off here and elsewhere on the encyclopedia.  This is pretty mild stuff by the standards of the Gamergate article, or really any even remotely contentious article.   It also leaves out the context of the discussion.  While it does not excuse sub-optimal behavior, you have been beating the same drum on the talk page for nearly a year, which is bound to irritate other editors and has just as much of a negative effect on the atmosphere of collaborative editing as snarkiness does.   Gamaliel  ( talk ) 03:48, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Gamaliel echos my sentiments here. I would note that since the article was first created and sent to AFD the next day, Masem has been heavily involved.  This is fine, but I fear Masem is very invested and his threshold is set too low with this topic.  This doesn't excuse MarkBernstein's behavior, which is often filled with ad hominem, but it really isn't an AE issue. Dennis Brown - 2&cent; 09:13, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
 * What do you think about 's suggestion? It might be worth exploring in modified form.   Gamaliel  ( talk ) 12:26, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
 * My first impression is that point 1 is difficult and may end up in more AE requests rather than fewer. In a way, the restriction would be a wikilawyer's dream, as "theoretical" would be bandied about with each comment, causing more disruption.  Point 2 is problematic because all one way interaction bans are, and they edit the same article so it is wrong to allow Masem to reply to MB but not let MB reply in kind, on this heated topic.  The ideas aren't bad, but unworkable in current form. There is also the fact that Masem's verbosity and sometimes tenacity in editing may be inviting some of the incivility, if we are fair about it. In short, both editors are wrong to one degree or another. A limited time, two way interaction ban (say 6 to 12 months) that allows for both to participate in polling situations might be better.  As to Masem's talk page problems, I don't know.  It is a singular problem but I don't have the answer there. Some kind of restriction may be in order but I'm at a loss as to how to word it so it is clear, fair and simple. Dennis Brown - 2&cent; 13:33, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
 * You're right, the goal is exactly what we want, but the result will likely be very different, even with the most careful wording.  Gamaliel  ( talk ) 13:47, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
 * The more I ponder this, the less I like what I wrote. I do think MB is the larger problem, Masem is just being too active there which can interfere and frustrate. This didn't come across in the last comment.  I think MB is just on this side of a traditional WP:NPA violation, but passive-aggressive insults are actually more damaging than calling someone an "asshat", so I'm not impressed with the idea that MB has been somewhat "civil" in his insults.  There is a lot of nuance in this issue.  This requires more thought. Dennis Brown - 2&cent; 13:50, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Looking through the archives of the talk page, I'm wondering if a 6 month GG topic ban (broadly construed) for MarkBernstein, and a voluntary 3 month topic ban for Masem is the right solution (assuming he agrees). Maybe even a 3 month two way interaction ban, to force a cease fire.  This also allows some fresh ideas on the GG pages in their absence, plus no one gets blocked, both get to return to the page in time, and hopefully the break will restore some civility and calmness.  My first obligation is to the community, including the other editors who deserve a drama-free environment, and removing them temporarily is the best way, and this non-level way is the most fair considering the actual activities of the editors. Your thoughts ? Dennis Brown - 2&cent; 16:02, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I do support an interaction ban.  I think it might be best if both parties stepped away for a bit, but I do not support any broad topic ban that is voluntary for one party and involuntary for the other.  (Smaller targeted topic bans are tempting, but the wording would be tough to get right.)   ArbCom topic banned a whole bunch of people, and that was supposed to solve the issue, but it did not.  Both sides are still complaining; all Five Horsemen have been topic or site banned, yet GG boards find new editors to target.  That tells me that these kinds of topic bans have not addressed the real, underlying problems with the article.  The ArbCom decision mostly covered behavioral matters and didn't delve much into other policy matters (NPOV, RS, etc.), and if 's summation is accurate, perhaps we should be focusing on that instead of who was snarky to who, because there will always be editors who will be snarky to one another, especially when offsite commentary is so offensive.   Gamaliel  ( talk ) 18:25, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I did find that it was MarkB that was poking the bear often. Each instance was minor to moderate, but it adds up, which is why I was thinking this kind of asymmetrical sanction.  Masem is bludgeoning the topic, but that isn't the largest problem.  From what I read, Masem needs a break and we would benefit, but we need a break from MarkBernstein on that page.  I thought 6 months was very generous given the amount of passive aggressive behavior, carefully crafted to fly under the radar, yet still do great damage.  Forever hopeful, I didn't want to be forced into an indef for MB.  I don't think Masem has done anything to deserve a formal sanction yet, particularly since he has expressed a willingness to back off GG for a while.  I need to go back and read even more archives I suppose.  Dennis Brown - 2&cent; 18:38, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Bernstein is often his own worst enemy and needs to do a better job refraining from poking and refraining from taking the bait when he is poked. But given the constant level of bile and mockery directed at Mark Bernstein, some of it on this very page whenever one of his many detractors brings him up here (Rhoark's mocking contribution above is a very mild example of the kind of thing regularly thrown at MB at AE, staggering in both quantity and the level of invective), and much of it no doubt directed offsite (note that there are two open threads on this AE request on Reddit alone, in r/wikiinaction and r/kotakuinaction, nevermind the various -chan boards), let's not forget who exactly is getting poked here.   Gamaliel  ( talk ) 20:57, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
 * But how do we parse this out, dividing his reactions between being poked, and just bad behavior? What is "reasonable", or is any?  With a single instance, this is easy, but given the duration of the problem, it is not so simple.  So either we tolerate, or we do not.  If someone has a half measure that makes sense, I'm happy to hear it, but otherwise we will just get more of the same.  Dennis Brown - 2&cent; 21:10, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Sigh. If it boils down only to an iBan, I think it is a bit futile but willing to sign on, assuming it is limited in time, 6 to 12 months in duration. If I have to go read Reddit again, I'm afraid I will jab my eyes out with a fork.  I would want to warn MarkB in a clear and obvious way that the constant low level incivility (no matter how "polite" it is) needs to stop.  Being attacked outside our doors can't be used as an excuse but for so long.  I bet this is what  has in mind as a solution, and if so, he should probably just implement it. Dennis Brown - 2&cent; 23:33, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I do support a IBAN, but that's only a partial solution. I don't have anything particular in mind, I'm just against half-measures like banning one party when we ignore both the offsite attacks (which maybe are beyond our scope, to be fair) and the frequent onsite attacks on Bernstein by a number of editors on this page who are outraged that we haven't banned him again for offenses against gamers.  It seems very much like the Arbcom case, where a bunch off offsite critics and SPAs swore that everything would be fine if we only banned these five editors.  We did, and yet they still disrupting the article.  I am against banning one editor for sub-optimal behavior and ignoring the sub-optimal behavior of others, including three or four commenters above.  Not to mention that it completely ignores any other issue;  we have serious allegations of tendentious editing and long-term civil POV pushing that should be explored.  That said, I commend Masem for voluntarily taking a break from this article.  I have found that when I get far to involved in a heated editing dispute, it becomes more difficult to compromise and to acknowledge that someone you are feuding with may be correct on a particular point, making it impossible to find common ground.  Wikibreaks from an article, or the encyclopedia itself, are healthy.  I hope that Bernstein will take a short break as well, and perhaps heed Dumuzid's advice.   I recall that someone suggested (Sitush?) on ANI that we clear all the editors out of the article to make way for new ones.  This idea becomes more and more tempting.   Gamaliel  ( talk ) 17:45, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Offsite attacks are outside of what we do. Arb can consider them if they chose, but we can't validate them.  We can validate diffs here.  Masem has at least shown a willingness to back off and reevaluate his methods.  Mark has not, and reading through the archives makes it pretty clear his actions are more aggressive.  Again, my first obligation is to the article, the editors on the whole editing it, then these two.  I do think both need to back away a bit.  One is willing to do so voluntarily, the other hasn't volunteered anything that I've seen, so it would have to be imposed. And to be clear, I couldn't give a damn less about sides here, I have no dog in this hunt and don't care what they are "protecting", I just want more peace, and an incentive to other editors to edit in good faith.  If we fail that, we might as well just stop enforcing completely.  This report is a small thing, but it sits on top of a lot of other problems, which I feel are worth exploring and basing my decision on.  Dennis Brown - 2&cent; 01:57, 2 September 2015 (UTC)


 * @: Masem has volunteered. A voluntary topic ban isn't a sanction, it is a binding promise.  Honestly, he probably needs the break and to come back refreshed.  The same is true with MarkBernstein.  This is just my suggestion, a sanction that isn't permanent, where no one gets blocked, but there is a forced truce and breathing time for everyone else at the article. Dennis Brown - 2&cent; 18:17, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm against any sanction of Mark Bernstein per this request. Yes, MB's use of "M—" for Masem, and his mentions of My Little Pony, are a bit silly and needling. But as long as you, Masem, aren't ashamed of working in the MLP area, whatever does it matter? There's worse than silliness in the GG area. I'd recommend you to either respond by pointing out that MLP is a perfectly respectable editing area (which it is) or rise above by ignoring it (which would be my own preference). Those seem very, very small things to take to AE, and I'm baffled to see them inflated into "attacks", "personal attacks" and "battleground behavior" in your opening post. The only crumb of meat in your request seems to me to be the diff in your point five, with its rather rude edit summary ("That it is necessary to explain this to adults -- much less adults who purport to be competent to edit an encyclopedia, beggars belief"). But it's a crumb that wouldn't feed a sparrow. Nothing in the complaint rises to arbitration enforcement IMO.


 * As for the bans that have been mooted: I believe any sort of IBAN would be futile or worse. I'm interested in Masem's offer of a voluntary 3-month topic ban from the area, as I think it would be good for him and good for the pages in question. Masem, provided your offer stands, and is not contingent on any sort of ban against Mark Bernstein (which I'm against), I'd be glad to work out the specifics with you on your page, if you wish. My understanding is that as Dennis says it would be a "binding promise", not a sanction to be logged anywhere, but some details might still need to be made explicit.


 * Incidentally, Masem, I take issue with your statement above that I closed your previous request for AE sanctions against Mark Bernstein "due to a technicality" (you don't mention me, but that was me closing it). Putting it like that implies you had a good complaint per the discretionary sanctions for GG but had it dismissed because I found some obscure paragraph against allowing it on this board. That wasn't the case. This was the phrasing of my close, in full: "I have closed this request as it violates the "Important information" in the big pink box at the top of this page: "Please use this page only to... request administrative action against editors violating a remedy (not merely a principle) or an injunction in an Arbitration Committee decision, or a discretionary sanction imposed by an administrator." Underlining in original, italics added by me. "Decorum" is merely a principle of the Gamergate decision. I would actually have thought it obvious, even where people haven't read the stuff in the pink box, that "Decorum" is too vague and large a concept to be dealt with through this rather bureaucratic and rulebound procedure." Please give more attention to the third sentence there. Not a technicality at all, but making the point that not everything is suitable for arbitration enforcement. (And I could say the same of your request here.) Bishonen &#124; talk 19:14, 1 September 2015 (UTC).
 * "Fair" to characterize my "response" to the "discovery" etc, IP 119.xx? I had no idea what the "treasury of pinnipeds" referred to when I asked that question on TheRedPenOfDoom's page. If I had, why would I have asked? But it's quite fair to say I closed Masem's previous complaint quickly. Indeed I closed it as soon as I saw it, because it was a misunderstanding of the purpose of this page and a violation of the page instructions. Why leave it to linger and waste community time? It's difficult to credit that you don't have an account, whether blocked or not. Bishonen &#124; talk 21:17, 1 September 2015 (UTC).
 * @Brustopher: I've read it all, yes. My experience of IBANS has been miserable, and I'm increasingly reluctant to use them at all. I'm strongly against it in a case like this, where both editors are extremely involved in and interested in the same area. As for Gamaliel and Dennis supporting it, I'm rather surprised, and though they do support it, they don't sound enthusiastic to me. It sounds more like a counsel of desperation or last resort, especially with Dennis: "Sigh. If it boils down only to an iBan, I think it is a bit futile but willing to sign on, assuming it is limited in time". For myself I don't think it's a resort at all. Bishonen &#124; talk 22:38, 1 September 2015 (UTC).


 * I would oppose any sanction based on this report, which should not have been brought here. Masem has volunteered to take a three-month break from those articles. Mark can be asked to tone down the personal comments. I can't see that anything more is needed based on this. Sarah (talk) 19:21, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Sarah, I think it would be unwise to just ignore MarkB's contributions to the problem. Dennis Brown - 2&cent; 01:57, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Dennis, my thinking is that if Masem is going to take a three-month break from that article, the issue will resolve itself, because that is the locus of the dispute between them. If it starts up again when Masem returns to the article, it can be dealt with then. Sarah (talk) 19:13, 2 September 2015 (UTC)


 * , it's not a question of anyone getting off scot-free, but of being able to find a solution without sanctioning anyone. Masem has acknowledged that his contributions to talk were repetitive and has agreed to take a break. We will see what happens when he does that. If problems and personal comments continue, they will not be ignored. Sarah (talk) 05:24, 3 September 2015 (UTC)
 * , your "enough is enough" point is taken, and I agree that there's no need for some of the exchanges I saw on the talk page. But I still maintain that closing this without sanctions, and hoping that the break will solve the immediate problem, is preferable to imposing a sanction just because we need to be seen to do something. Sarah (talk) 19:21, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
 * , I think will take that point without a formal warning. I also think that if Gamergate problems continue a broader solution may be needed. But in the shorter term, I hope that MB will do what he can to reduce, or at least not increase, the tension on that talk page. Sarah (talk) 20:08, 4 September 2015 (UTC)


 * I suggest that should we entertain a request here against this editor again, we restrict statement to lists of diffs only. I'm really tired of trying to sort through screens full of accumulated rage in search of facts.  I made the mistake of taking one statement above at face value today, mining large angry paragraphs of text and unearthing nothing but a few nuggets of fool's gold.  The diffs ranged from over-hyping a minor non-personal over-reaction of MB to a claim that he said something he did not.  AE should be restricted to those who wish to make a formal request and not open for the entire internet to vent its collective spleen.   Gamaliel  ( talk ) 22:36, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

WikiMania76
''This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below. Requests may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs (not counting required information), except by permission of a reviewing administrator.''

Request concerning WikiMania76

 * User who is submitting this request for enforcement : 16:32, 5 September 2015 (UTC)


 * User against whom enforcement is requested :


 * Sanction or remedy to be enforced: Requests_for_arbitration/Palestine-Israel_articles :


 * Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it :


 * 1) 14:00, 5 September 2015‎ revert of this
 * 2) 15:49, 5 September 2015‎ revert of this

NA
 * If discretionary sanctions are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see WP:AC/DS):

The user had previously inserted text on East Jerusalem being in Israel's "sovereign territory" on 30 July 2015‎, which was reverted the next day. The user returned that material, and that continued with users claiming this immediately challenged change to be the "consensus". An RFC was opened on the topic with a majority of users preferring to remove the change made by this user. The user has twice today reverted the implementation of this change. The user was also, on a past occasion, informed of the 1RR (an occasion where the user did not self-revert). The user has once again violated the 1rr, and is actively editing against the RFC on the basis of their immediately challenged edit being a consensus that a clear majority needs to overturn.
 * Additional comments by editor filing complaint :
 * , there's a talk page header at Talk:Israel that says:"The article Israel, along with other articles relating to the Arab–Israeli conflict, is currently subject to active arbitration remedies, as laid out during a 2008 Arbitration case, and supplemented by community consensus in November 2010. The current restrictions are: All articles related to the Arab–Israeli conflict, broadly construed, are under WP:1RR (one revert per editor per article per 24-hour period). When in doubt, assume it is related."I thought that was sufficient. I'm fine closing this as the user self-reverted, though a formal notice of the sanctions would be useful. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> nableezy  - 04:03, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

, excuse me, what? I summarized both sides of the argument as it appeared earlier on the talk page. It isnt my fault that the only argument the opposing side has was "but, but it just really is this way". And no, I'm not treating WP:CONSENSUS as a majority vote, there was never consensus for the addition to begin with, and the RFC demonstrated that at least a majority of the users opposed the addition and as such it should have been removed. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> nableezy  - 04:06, 6 September 2015 (UTC) Notified
 * Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested :

Discussion concerning WikiMania76
''Statements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Administrators may remove or shorten noncompliant statements. Disruptive contributions may result in blocks.''

Statement by WikiMania76
Nableezy is acting completely inappropriately here. It is my opinion that he/she is not editing in good faith, and that this Arbitration Request Enforcement is simply an attempt to enforce his/her own POV. He/she is, in my opinion, taking advantage of Wikipedia's rules to silence me, after an RFC was created by Nableezy in which he/she simply declared his/her view was in the "clear majority" after a month, when no such consensus was agreed upon.

This user has had an aggressive tone in his/her discussions on the talk page of the Israel article for months now, while arguing with other users. He/she has completely thrown NPOV and the spirit of impartiality away. It was stated that East Jerusalem was unilaterally declared part of Israel, a perspective that needs to be included in the article. The perspective of the international community, as put forth by the United Nations, on their view that such a unilateral move is in their perspective illegal was also covered, complete with citations. The user got angry at the inclusion of the first part of this and after being told that there was not a consensus for change by another user, he/she subsequently created an RFC. In that RFC there were differing points of view put forward, ranging from keeping the language, altering it slightly or removing it altogether.

I modified the language to better reflect all points of view as a compromise; this is evidently something Nableezy is incapable of doing, going by the months of obsession to push his/her view over impartiality and the inclusion of all perspectives, into this article. I feel this is a personal attack and I'm not happy about it. I have undone the revert, as per the suggestion of another user.


 * This was my edit, based upon the general consensus on the left, followed by Nableezy's revert on the right: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Israel&diff=next&oldid=679587414

The rest of the paragraph is a basic summary of what is on the talk page relevant to this topic, direct links to the relevent sections are here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Israel#Occupied_territories here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Israel#RFC_on_occupied_territories and here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Israel#Discussion

It's a bit of a read though.

And I believe I didn't break the 1RR because when I made the second edit it was past midnight AEST, so I thought it would be alright. I reverted the edit anyway, I wasn't trying to break the rules.

Also, is it permissible to create my own RFC on the talk:Israel page? Because I don't believe a consensus was reached, and I think that any fair minded individual would accept the inclusion that "East Jerusalem was unilaterally declared part of sovereign Israel" or something alone those lines, if it also included the perspective of the international community, represented by the United Nations, in opposition to the legality of such a unilateral move in their view.WikiMania76 (talk) 20:25, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

Statement by The Big Bad Wolfowitz
WikiMania76 plainly breached the 1RR, but voluntarily reversed their action after a relatively short interval. There appears to be no reason to impose any sanction beyon a warning, if even that, although a formal DS notice on their talk page would be appropriate.

Nableezy's behavior, however, is much more problematic. They created an RFC on August 3 which grossly violates the policy requirement that the RFC "Statement should be neutral and brief". Instead, their statement included a lengthy statement of the arguments supporting their own position and a much briefer presentation of opposing arguments. Despite being an involved editor, they unilaterally implemented their preferred outcome before the RFC had been closed. Their talk page comments treat WP:CONSENSUS as nothing more than a majority vote, and the removal of the 30-day notice as closing the RFC -- even though RFC policy clearly is contrary. Nableezy is an experienced editor and knows their actions are inappropriate. This sort of Wikilawyering and attempts at WP:GAMING in such a contentious area deserve sanctioning, perhaps a 24-72 hour block and a 30-day topic ban. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 20:23, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

Statement by Zero0000
In fact, WikiMania76 was previously informed of 1RR on this article and acknowledged being informed, see User_talk:WikiMania76. Zerotalk 06:31, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

I have no opinion on what the outcome of this should be. However, it is clear that the filer reported a genuine breach of the rules, and the attempts by others to shoot the messenger should be rebuked. The claims made by both WikiMania76 and Wolfowitz that they have consensus for their edit is dubious, to put it gently. Zerotalk 06:31, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

Result concerning WikiMania76

 * This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above.


 * Can you fill out the part of the request where it shows that WikiMania76 was aware of the restrictions? If WikiMania76 was unaware of the restrictions this request is not actionable.   Gamaliel  ( talk ) 19:00, 5 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Can you provide diffs to back up the claims in your second paragraph or remove that paragraph?  Do you agree that you violated the 1RR restriction?  If not, can you explain why this is not a violation?  If so, can you explain why you thought it was appropriate to violate this restriction?   Gamaliel  ( talk ) 18:57, 5 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Given that there's no evidence of this user being alerted of the restrictions and the user self-reverted, I'm inclined to close this with no action if other admins agree or there are no objections.  Gamaliel  ( talk ) 21:02, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

I am sympathetic (I was in a similar situation last year myself, where I thought a user was notified officially and they were not) but an official notification is needed. Since the offense was minor, and the user self-reverted, I think we should all leave this behind us. I will close this later today, with the caveat that another admin can reopen it if they wish to dig into any underlying problems. Gamaliel ( talk ) 13:01, 6 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Aware or not aware, a timely self-revert indicates the editor understands it was a mistake at some point and has already taken action to self-correct. Unless it is part of some larger pattern (and no evidence has been presented to this effect), I can't see sanctioning someone for what can simply be defined as "oops".  We all make mistakes; sanctions are for willful disregard of Arb rulings or policy, not actions that look to be innocent mistakes. Dennis Brown - 2&cent; 13:30, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

Settleman
''This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below. Requests may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs (not counting required information), except by permission of a reviewing administrator.''

Request concerning Settleman

 * User who is submitting this request for enforcement : 08:42, 21 August 2015 (UTC)


 * User against whom enforcement is requested :


 * Sanction or remedy to be enforced: WP:ARBPIA, "general 1RR restriction"


 * Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it :


 * 1) 20 August 2015 14:00. This edit is a revert by virtue of substantially repeating this edit, which adds the paragraph that begins "According to Regavim...". Both edits are intended to convey the notion that the village did not really exist before 1986.  No talk-page consensus supports doing this.
 * 2) 21 August 2015 7:56, straightforward deletion of text added by another editor

I ask that the 1RR violation be dealt with on its own "merits"; the editor has participated on the talk page Talk:Susya and has therefore undoubtedly seen the prominent notice about "active arbitration remedies". There are other issues of POV-PUSHING we might consider; I think this editor is mainly interested in placing the work of Regavim (NGO) on relevant articles here, and if we don't deal with that issue now we'll likely have to do so soon. I'm also convinced that this editor lacks the constructive attitude necessary for editing in this area; one indication of this is this talk-page contribution, where the final sentence ("But they are fighting zionists so lying is not only acceptable but apparently encyclopedic") is a direct attack on the contributions of other editors -- it indicates Settleman's view that other editors believe that it is acceptable for organisations opposed to Regavim to "lie". Nomoskedasticity (talk) 08:42, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Additional comments by editor filing complaint :
 * A recent talk page comment reinforces the impression that the editor is here with a WP:BATTLEGROUND attitude: "Repeating the same speech again and again doesn't make you right, just obnoxious." It also shows the extent of disagreement about this issue that persists on the talk page even now; the notion that Settleman acted per a consensus is simply false. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 20:23, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

Settleman now says that I have not been active at Susya, nor at Grant Shapps which is the article related to the other AE report I filed. Both claims are untrue; Settleman should strike/retract them. (It's not up to me to demonstrate that they're false; it's up to Settleman to demonstrate that they're true.) Anyway, the real cause for concern is when someone is over-active at an article, i.e., edit-warring... Nomoskedasticity (talk) 10:47, 25 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested :

Discussion concerning Settleman
''Statements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Administrators may remove or shorten noncompliant statements. Disruptive contributions may result in blocks.''

Statement by Settleman
Technically I guess I'm at fault but the first edit was a result of a long discussion with Kingsindian and Nishidani which I took for an agreement.

The POV-PUSHING issue it very good description of what I'm doing as I try to change this article from saying "settlers expeled Palestinians many times" to sometimes that is less simplistic and more accurate.

It is interesting a user who didn't participate in the conversation takes the time the analyze the tone I use and even gets deeply insulted. Settleman (talk) 10:21, 21 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Please note additional discussion on RSN. Settleman (talk) 08:56, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I appreciate your vote. I think full protection will not be constructive. Editors are having good, even if heated, discussions on the talk page and I believe they will all agree the page had evolved in a significant way during the past month. This complaint was filed by an editor with minimal (more like non-existing) contribution who have since filed another complaint for a page on which he isn't active. This is quite a disruptive behavior that does nothing but wasting time (unless it is his official function???). Settleman (talk) 20:13, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

You know other editors can see what I said and that you're twisting my words, right? I wrote your contribution was minimal to not existing. You filed this complaint after deleting text in discussion on both the talk page and RSN. 32 hrs later you drop a line in RSN and BOOM, a complaint. Is it 'active'? Sure. Is in constructive? Not in my opinion. Settleman (talk) 18:55, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

Don't recruit 'soldiers' (So, can someone undo "Settleman", please?) and you won't be blamed for declaring a war. Settleman (talk) 19:23, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

Statement by Kingsindian
While this is a technical WP:1RR violation, and I do think Settleman has a rather obvious POV (I do too, quite his opposite one, and so does everyone in this area), I think Settleman's edits are almost all in good faith. The first edit was made after extensive discussion on the talk page, and had a rough, though not total consensus. See Talk:Susya and many other sections on the talk page. Whatever his real world motive might be, his edits on WP are by and large quite legitimate. This should first have been discussed on the Settleman's user talk page, and if he refused to revert, only then brought here. It is very easy to break WP:1RR in this area, even by mistake. See, for example here, where I broke it by mistake (though the editor who warned me was a sock, that is irrelevant), and here, where I only warned the editor, though he refused to revert. Kingsindian &#9821;&#9818; 09:33, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
 * To clarify the content issue here. The discussion on the talk page is about two kinds of sources. First, Regavim (NGO), and second Rabbis for Human Rights, B'Tselem, etc. The first edit only pertains to the Regavim source. The rough consensus was to use it with attribution, which is what Settleman did in the first diff. The point which is talking about, pertains to the use of the other sources and is Settleman's second diff. Both are reverts, technically, the first one had a rough consensus, the second one does not. The second issue is still being discussed on the talk page. Kingsindian &#9821;&#9818; 10:49, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

Statement by Collect
In cases where an edit is made as a result of talk page discussions, it is clearly not in the same class as a "gotcha" for making an undiscussed revert. WP:CONSENSUS supports the use of "compromise language" discussed on a talk page in search of a consensus, and to make that concept void for the sake of someone being able to say "you addition of 'the' in the lead is a clear 1RR violation - you gonna get banned" would make a mockery of what "compromise discussions"  should result in. (Here editors try to persuade others, using reasons based in policy, sources, and common sense; they can also suggest alternative solutions or compromises that may satisfy all concerns. The result might be an agreement that does not satisfy anyone completely, but that all recognize as a reasonable solution. Consensus is an ongoing process on Wikipedia; it is often better to accept a less-than-perfect compromise – with the understanding that the page is gradually improving – than to try to fight to implement a particular preferred version immediately) Collect (talk) 12:35, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

Statement by Zero0000
My view is similar to that of Kingsindian. Although Settleman edits with a strong POV, often at odds with mine, he doesn't fit the standard pattern of armchair activist that the Mideast area of the encyclopaedia is beset by. For a first 1RR violation I'd recommend an official warning as the appropriate response. Zerotalk 12:50, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

Statement by Huldra
Settleman has from his  first edit shown classic WP:BATTLEGROUND behaviour, latest today, with this edit: "Your request above is  a 'declaration of war'." He has also been involved "slow" edit-war on other articles (besides Susya):
 * 2:01, 24 August 2015 remove material
 * 12:01, 24 August 2015 remove same material.

Huldra (talk) 13:15, 26 August 2015 (UTC)


 * User:Georgewilliamherbert: firstly, AFAIK I have edited 2 articles with Settleman: Susya and Regavim (NGO).  Susya I edited first 27 June 2014; long before "Settleman" was made as an account. The Regavim (NGO) -article I found because I regularly "stalk" Nishidani and Zero000 (Yes! I admit it!), and they had both edited the article extensively.
 * As for my warning "A-I alert / DS warning June 15." ; this is the first I hear about it, and there is no indication of that on my talk-page. Huldra (talk) 14:48, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

Statement by Nishidani
The infraction was admitted. There is nothing wrong in having a strong POV - you need one to survive there as it incentivates hard work, which is what those articles require (Settleman's handle openly declares his). But it requires respect for the opposite POV, coherence in the application of policy and a readiness to add important material one encounters that looks advantageous to the 'other side's' perspective, even if you dislike its implications. I concur with Kingsindian and Zero. Settleman hasn't a complete grasp on all of this but is amenable to discussion, and works hard. A warning is all that is needed.Nishidani (talk) 10:33, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

Result concerning Settleman

 * This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above.


 * I don't think acting on the basis of a talk page consensus, subsequent to a single independent revert, is a 2nd revert in a reasonable sense. if that 'screally all it was I'd say not actionable.  But I want to inspect the details.  Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 20:14, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Kingsindian - Ok, yes I see that. But the restriction is on more than 1RR, which would require that we count the first one (which though technically a revert was discussed and consensused first, correct?).  I'm viewing this as a case where the first edit is a consensus change which goes to an earlier version, not a "revert" per se.  1RR (and the more general 3RR) are intended to stop disruptive edit warring; the first one is evidently by all review an OK change, the second one perhaps not but has not been fought over just talked over, correct?  Basically, I am leaning towards us just calling the first one an edit, and the second one the policy-limited 1RR, and lacking further disruption we call it a day.  Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 23:00, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Huldra, you certainly are following him around a lot. Your edit he responded to was not as explicit but contained a bunch of WP:BATTLEGROUND issues. And you received a A-I alert / DS warning June 15. Are you sure you want to keep pushing these buttons?... Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 14:13, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
 * (for others) The log date was June 18 not 15, my mistake, but some tech error happened between thr log and page history. Separate discussions snd email to Arbcom unrelated to Settleman.   See my talk page.  Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 15:05, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I'd favor closing this with no block of User:Settleman but would recommend two weeks of full protection for the Susya article. The protection could be lifted once consensus is found on the talk page for the disputed matters. EdJohnston (talk) 15:20, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I think a strong warning is sufficient, blocking would be overkill and perhaps harmful in this circumstance. As for full protection, I'm neutral.  Dennis Brown - 2&cent; 19:18, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
 * If no other views are made, I will close this by the end of the (long) weekend. (Labor Day in the US). Feel free to close this earlier, though... - Penwhale &#124; dance in the air and follow his steps 00:34, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

Bolter21
''This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below. Requests may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs (not counting required information), except by permission of a reviewing administrator.''

Request concerning Bolter21

 * User who is submitting this request for enforcement : 14:23, 6 September 2015 (UTC)


 * User against whom enforcement is requested :


 * Sanction or remedy to be enforced: WP:Requests_for_arbitration/Palestine-Israel_articles


 * Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it :


 * 1) 6 Sep 9:33 First revert at Palestine
 * 2) 6 Sep 10:48 Second revert at Palestine


 * If discretionary sanctions are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see WP:AC/DS):


 * Was given the official alert about discretionary sanctions in the area of conflict in the last twelve months, on 12 June 2015

(I accidentally delivered another alert while offering Bolter21 an opportunity to self-revert – didn't I use to get an automated notice when I did that? Anyway I now deleted it as the earlier warning stands.)


 * Additional comments by editor filing complaint :

I offered Bolter21 the opportunity to self-revert but only got a defiant reply. Zerotalk 14:23, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

There is another recent 1RR violation noted on the talk page here, but that time Bolter21 self-reverted after arguing. Zerotalk 14:23, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

notified
 * Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested :

Discussion concerning Bolter21
''Statements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Administrators may remove or shorten noncompliant statements. Disruptive contributions may result in blocks.''

Statement by Bolter21
The revert that was made today and yesterday (6-5 September 2015) was an edit of mine who was reverted with no acual reason (Reason was stated but doesn't have nothing to do with the edit) although all sources in Wikipedia back this edit including the main article referring to the subject, in which the same edit was accepted (State of Palestine). The second one, (1 Septermber 2015) was resolved already. --Bolter21 15:21, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

This is nonsense, I reverted an unexplaned revert which canceled an edit that was already accepted in the main article regarding the subject and I get reported. --Bolter21 21:45, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

Result concerning Bolter21

 * This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above.


 * Seems like a clear cut violation.  Gamaliel  ( talk ) 15:16, 6 September 2015 (UTC)
 * It is a clear cut violation. Looks like several people involved in one very tiny incident, however Bolter21 doesn't recognize the fact that 1RR doesn't just apply when you are wrong, it applies equally when you are convinced you are right.  Bolter21 is a newish user but that isn't an excuse, particularly when they were given ample opportunity to revert back before being reported and instead choose to dig in.  I would support a short block. Dennis Brown - 2&cent; 22:46, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

Arthur Rubin
''This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below. Requests may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs (not counting required information), except by permission of a reviewing administrator.''

Request concerning Arthur Rubin

 * User who is submitting this request for enforcement : 21:22, 23 August 2015 (UTC)


 * User against whom enforcement is requested :


 * Sanction or remedy to be enforced:


 * 1) Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Tea_Party_movement#Discretionary_sanctions 5 September 2013
 * 2) Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Tea_Party_movement#Arthur_Rubin_topic-banned 5 September 2013
 * 3) Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Tea_Party_movement#August_2014_.28Arthur_Rubin.29 Arthur Rubin amendment 23 August 2014


 * Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it :

Disruption of an Request for Comment process through deletion of RfC notices and RfC notice updates for Tea party movement-related RfCs notices prior to the expiration of the RfC discussion period.
 * 1) deletion of an RfC notice regarding a Tea party movement article (Americans for Prosperity) from noticeboard WP:RSN with edit summary "Spam"
 * 2) removal via OneClickArchiver of an RfC notice regarding a Tea party movement article from the talk page of a closely related Tea party movement article (Talk:Political activities of the Koch brothers, which is listed at Americans for Prosperity)
 * 3) deletion of an update to an RfC notice, providing a close date, regarding a Tea party movement article from noticeboard WP:NPOV
 * 4) deletion of an update to an RfC notice, providing a close date, regarding a Tea party movement article from noticeboard WP:ORN
 * 5) removal via OneClickArchiver of an RfC notice regarding a Tea party movement article from noticeboard WP:RSN


 * Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any :


 * 1) 5 September 2013 Topic ban as party to Tea Party Movement case
 * 2) 14 December 2013 blocked for violation of Tea Party movement topic ban at Talk:Political activities of the Koch brothers
 * 3) block log
 * 4) 23 August 2014 Amendment request; TBan lifted; indefinite 1RR imposed, with appeal available August 2015


 * If discretionary sanctions are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see WP:AC/DS):


 * Mentioned by name in the Arbitration Committee's Tea Party Movement Final Decision.
 * Previously blocked as a discretionary sanction for conduct in the area of conflict, see 14 December 2013 and the block log.
 * Previously given a discretionary sanction for conduct in the area of conflict on 14 December 2013 by.
 * Successfully appealed all their own sanctions relating to the area of conflict in the last twelve months, 23 August 2014.


 * Additional comments by editor filing complaint :

WP:RFC specifically authorizes RfC notices to one or more noticeboards and the talk pages of closely-related articles. WP:Discussion_notices states that "regular updates may be appropriate" and identifies "setting a time for the discussion to end" as a best practice. An administrator of our project failing to model best practices, as expected of all editors in an area of general and discretionary sanctions, emboldens other editors and is seriously frustrating the goals of the Tea Party movement and American Politics final decisions in fostering an acceptable and collaborative editing environment. The reported user's amended remedy has proven ineffective. Respectfully request review of the reported behavior, re-evaluation of the amended remedy, and consideration of a re-instatement of the topic ban.


 * Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested :

Discussion concerning Arthur Rubin
''Statements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Administrators may remove or shorten noncompliant statements. Disruptive contributions may result in blocks.''

Statement by Arthur Rubin
Hugh already brought this matter up. I can't help it that it got archived without a response from an uninvolved admin. I haven't kept track of Hugh's topic ban, but if it hasn't expired, this is in violation.

As for the edits in question, as far as I can recall, nobody but Hugh ever commented the the edits of his that I reverted weren't spam; technically, making announcements on unrelated pages might not be a violation of WP:CANVASS, but it is still improper. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 04:11, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

WP:RFC does state that announcements of an RfC may be made in various locations, and update announcements may be appropriate, but I'm almost sure that noone has ever posted an RfC notice on all such locations (except WikiProject Conservatism, but including the talk page of an unrelated article and a noticeboard unrelated to this RfC, although one in which the article had been mentioned). — Arthur Rubin (talk) 04:47, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

Hugh should have mentioned his topic ban, and it clearly would have applied to this complaint. I think, though, I need to request permission to redact parts of my statement which have been shown to be inaccurate. I need permission because replied to them, and it would make those parts of his comment look misguided. (I was going to ping GeorgeWilliamHerbert about the topic ban when I got home; I have not figured out how to paste diffs on my smartphone. — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 04:56, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

As this seems to have been closed, I don't feel a need to comment in detail as to the merits of my actions or the complainant's actions. However, I do recognize that my edits were in the Tea Party area, and may very well have been in violation of the general (Tea Party) 1RR as well as my slightly different 1RR. The complainant's actions related to RfC announcements were clearly in violation of 1RR, and would have been in violation of his AfP topic ban if done earlier. I do need to be more careful about reverting "obvious" attempts to disrupt an RfC; I would have liked a clean discussion of that RfC, which was still vaguely possible until the spamming occurred, but it could have waited, as it had to do anyway. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 01:20, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
 * The complainant's further edits are generally in violation of his new topic ban, relating to American politics, except there was ambiguity as to whether that only applied to article-space. I believe it's been clarified now.  In general, topic bans on X include bans on discussing other editors' actions relating to X, even if not "broadly construed".  Here, though, the ban was originally written as "articles related to American politics".
 * I would prefer not to go into the details of any improprieties of the original complainant which prompted my actions, unless deemed necessary, as he is now (I believe) clearly banned from doing anything similar. However, it is quite clear that opening this report without stating that it was delayed because he would have been in violation of his topic ban to start it earlier was withholding clearly relevant information.  That the facts were brought up shortly thereafter (but not by him) is not really a point in his favor; it's not really a point against him, either, because he was blocked shortly thereafter.  — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 01:43, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

Statement by Fyddlestix
I'm not gonna comment on whether or not Arthur needs sanctioning here, but I will say that the drama between Hugh, Arthur, and a few other editors ( springs to mind) seems to be getting out of control - I really think that admin action is needed to fix this, or it's going to just drag on and on.

See Hugh's previous report of Arthur here, the multiple ANI complaints against Hugh (only 1 of which led to any action), Hugh's own noticeboard complaints and the current report of Hugh at 3RR by Springee  - note especially the allegation there that Hugh is being followed from article to article by a few other editors, including Arthur (as I've commented there, I think there's actually some evidence of this).

All that just over this summer, all involving more or less the same small circle of editors, and focusing on a small number of articles like Americans for Prosperity, which was paralyzed for a month by this complete disaster of an RFC. It's a mess; these editors are clearly not even trying to get along, and some of them are clearly "out to get" each other at this point. It needs addressing. Fyddlestix (talk) 22:21, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
 * , Hugh did already make a complaint against you here (it's here), but that was about an entirely different issue (namely, NPOV tagging/tag removal). You're incorrect to suggest that nobody ever suggested the posts weren't spam, see the several people defending them when his edits were raised at ANI. As for Hugh's topic ban, it is here. It applied only to "anything related" to Americans for Prosperity, and included "any noticeboard discussions about the RFC, any further debates about the closing, whatever." It was a 2 week ban, imposed August 8, so basically 14 days ago. (, there's your answer, it looks as though Hugh thought he was topic banned from raising this until today.) Fyddlestix (talk) 04:47, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Your statement here is wildly inaccurate. Your own edits to the article here were a complete whitewash, utterly inconsistent with what the vast majority of reliable sources say about Americans for Prosperity. While I don't agree with all his edits and certainly don't agree with his editing style, Hugh was responding to a very real, very blatant POV problem on that article - which you and Arthur both helped to create. Fyddlestix (talk) 02:53, 28 August 2015 (UTC)


 * You know you're supposed to comment in your own section, right? As for your diff there, funny how the very next discussion started on the talk page was a detailed rundown of how completely and utterly out of step with reliable sources your "NPOV" version of the page was. So the incorrect part of your statement below is the assertion that Hugh was POV pushing - even if he was, this is a rather severe case of the pot calling the kettle black. Fyddlestix (talk) 03:47, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

Statement by HughD
An administrator recently recommended stepping back from Americans for Prosperity for two weeks, and I took the advice. After reflection, there was still something that needed to be done. The behavior of an administrator of our project is a very real impediment to fostering civility in the area of the Tea Party movement final decision, please help. I was not sure if an AE filing would be a violation, but I was very sure some would argue it was, as demonstrated by the reported user's initial response to this filing, now deleted, please see. Thank you for your consideration of this request. Hugh (talk) 14:43, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

This filing is reporting disruptive editing, by an administrator of our project, who is currently under editor sanctions, in an area under general and discretionary sanctions. This filing makes no reference to content and is not a content dispute. Other editors are influenced by the behavior of the reported administrator in deciding how far they can push within the bounds of our Arbitration Committee's directives to us to be "especially mindful" of policy and behavioral guidelines and to "follow editorial and behavioural best practice". This is a very real problem. Please help. Thank you for your careful consideration of this request. Hugh (talk) 14:58, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
 * What do you mean "inevitable"? What do you mean "explosion"? Thank you. Hugh (talk) 15:27, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

, May I respectfully ask, what is the statute of limitations on reports of multiple deletions of RfC notices by an administrator of our project while under editor sanctions in an area under general and discretionary sanctions, approximately? Thank you. Hugh (talk) 16:04, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

wrote on my talk page "Take two weeks off in full from this issue." Thank you. Hugh (talk) 04:49, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

This is not a misleading AE report. It is not a report regarding an article, it is a report on behavior, the behavior of an edit-restricted administrator. I never wrote anything misleading in this report or anywhere else. I did not report my ban here because I did not know it was relevant. I was not prompted by the filing form to summarize my recent history. I did not explain the delay in this filing in the initial statement above because I did not know there was a delay that needed explaining. I did not know of the statute of limitations. There was no intent to conceal. George asked why the delay, and the reported user answered, Hugh was banned, before I could answer (subsequently deleted by the reported user). another editor jumped in, confirming the answer, Hugh was banned, with a diff. By the time I saw the question, I had nothing to add to the answers. I quipped "I was asked to step back" after the ban was clearly and prominently in the record, knowing no one would take me literally. No one did. No one was deceived. There was no intent to deceive. There was no deception. My history is a click away from the first line of this filing. The only way I could have possibly in my wildest dreams succeeded in a plot to conceal the ban would have been if I had figured out some way to disable that link and also prevent the reported user from bringing it up, which he did in the first line of his statement, now deleted, not struck through, by the reported user. I respectfully request we please maintain focus on the behavior of an administrator of our project who deleted multiple RfC notices regarding an area in which he is under discretionary sanctions, and the effect such an administrator has on the editors around him, a real problem for our project. Hugh (talk) 09:40, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

I am not pretending anything. I never argued against the RfC close, I asked questions of the closing administrator to try and understand the close. I did not post an RfC notice at 26 different places, I posted it at three noticeboards and two closely related talk pages. Hugh (talk) 10:02, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

"Collapsing my own section as it is not at all relevant to the conduct of User:Arthur Rubin" Really? Just dropping by to discredit the reporting user Rick? Your work here is done. Thank you. Hugh (talk) 10:10, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

Respectfully, my read of the reported administrator's amended remedy of 24 August 2014 is that it is indefinite. The earliest date available for appeal is specified as one year from the date of the amendment, that is, 24 August 2015. Thank you. Hugh (talk) 21:16, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

This report was filed seeking review of an ongoing problem of behavior in our project, and with the understanding that the reported administrator’s amended remedy of 24 August 2014, which relaxed his topic ban of 5 September 2013, was contingent on compliance with the remedy and on compliance with general and discretionary sanctions, including exemplary behavior, and subject to review in the light of behavior. In his statement in the Original Discussion of the amendment, the reported administrator pleaded for a relaxation of his topic ban in the area of the Tea party movement, in part seeking resolution of a contradiction he perceived in his position as an administrator, and as ArbCom topic banned, stating "I'm allowed to revert banned editors at TPm pages, but I'm not allowed to talk about it." The reported administrator requested a relaxation of his topic ban specifically in order to correct technical errors he encountered in his patrols of articles in the area of the Tea Party movement and to engage in argument on talk pages in the area of the Tea Party movement. Respectfully, I have to believe deleting RfC notices from noticeboards was not the type of edits our arbitration committee had in mind when his edit restriction was relaxed 24 August 2014. Thank you for your careful consideration of this report. Hugh (talk) 15:17, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

The reported administrator was an involved administrator in the RfC to which he deleted conformant RfC notices and updates, posting multiple comments in opposition to the launching of the RfC as well as in oppostion to inclusion of the content proposed by the RfC. Hugh (talk) 16:39, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

The reported administrator wrote above: "making announcements on unrelated pages ... is ... improper." No RfC notices were posted to unrelated pages. No deletions of RfC notices from unrelated pages are reported here. The RfC was posted at noticeboards and the talk pages of related articles, as clearly, specifically authorized by WP:RFC. In any case, there is no basis in policy or guideline for deleting entirely, objectively conformant RfC notices and updates. Hugh (talk) 16:50, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

Statement by non-party onel5969
@Ricky81682: If you think that's not encouraging, take a look at the Americans for Prosperity since Hugh's topic ban has expired, where he has gone directly back to POV pushing on the page, now that other editors have grown tired of his wall of comments on numerous pages. Another editor has even removed the POV tag from the page, even though the POV is even more slanted now.  Onel 5969  <i style="color:blue">TT me</i> 01:57, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

Actually, my edits were an attempt to bring the article to an agreed-upon consensus. At the time those edits were made, HughD was the only editor, of several involved, to have a dissenting view. Perhaps you missed that? Take a look at the talk page on the day I began my edits (June 24). Hugh's was the only dissenting voice, here's a link for your convenience. And what is incorrect about my statement below? He was blocked for 2 weeks; after the block is lifted he almost immediately begins his POV pushing editing. It's not rocket science, it's pretty blatant. But, you go your way, I'll go mine. Take it easy.  Onel 5969  <i style="color:blue">TT me</i> 03:28, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

Statement by uninvolved Jusdafax
Per Dennis Brown, below, you have an admin in violation of ArbCom sanctions. Looks clear cut to me: corrective action needs to be taken. Jus da  fax   18:23, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

Result concerning Arthur Rubin

 * This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above.


 * Why... Are these being made three weeks later?...  ?  Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 22:33, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I doubt that I am the only one sick of the constant dramas around Hugh's editing. This request is a rather obvious abuse of process in an attempt to gain an advantage in a content dispute. Is a sanction in order for this? For example a six month ban from use of Wikipedia process against other editors with whom Hugh is in dispute? Hugh: in response to your point, insert "long stale" and see how that reads back to you. Guy (Help!) 10:12, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
 * It was inevitable, I think. Unfortunately the teabaggers are adept at long-term WP:CPUSH and winding up other editors to the point of explosion. Guy (Help!) 08:27, 28 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Decline as stale, which is not to say it would have been a violation if it weren't stale, but Arthur Rubin could usefully be mindful of the concerns expressed going forward. I hear JzG's point about potentially sanctioning the filing part, but at this point I'm not inclined to pursue that either. Newyorkbrad (talk) 21:38, 26 August 2015 (UTC)


 * I take serious objection to one comment by HughD. There was no admin "recommended[ing] stepping back from Americans for Prosperity for two weeks," and HughD following good advice. I explicitly imposed a topic ban on HughD from the article for two weeks due to a large amount of disruption which resulted in more arguing by HughD at ANI about the ban itself and then a re-iterated comment that any argument about the topic ban would result in a block. I'm staying largely uninvolved but that's not encouraging. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 00:06, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
 * ,, To provide background, HughD was topic banned specific from that article, the RFCs, ANI and everything related to it (JzG may recall the idiocy that was the close of the draft RFC versus the close of the "real" RFC). I'm glad HughD didn't try to take the position there was an exemption for AE but that may explain why this is stale. However, in retrospect, based on other conduct to support a new user User:Kochtruth (since usernamed banned and told to pick another name), I have topic banned HughD for one year broadly from the entire Tea Party movement area. If editors will file misleading AE reports including misstating that they themselves have been topic-banned from the article they want to report on, I see zero reason to allow them to edit in the area. I limited it to the Tea Party movement at the moment as the climate change issues seem to be a subset of these and the broader post-1940s US elections one seems excessive. No opinion on Artur Rubin but we may need another filer then. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 06:40, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
 * HughD, I'm telling you to drop it and take a night's rest. You had cross-posted notices to 26 places for your "real" RFC (and not your "draft" RFC) and after JzG closed it and you wanted to continue arguing with JzG, I topic banned you from one article to get that nonsense under control. I could not make myself more explicit. That topic ban shut down the entire ANI discussion and ended all of it. You don't get to turn around afterwards and act like you just chose to take a break while attacking the behavior of others there. It's clear you said that because if you said "I didn't file it right away because I was topic banned from the article after creating two RFCs and cross-posting it to 26 different places and arguing with JzG here], you'd look bad. And does that affect Arthur Rubin's conduct? No and so I'm done. We don't get to wait around until you go over the top again to be issued another topic ban that you can again pretend never happened. Well at least for one year. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 09:59, 28 August 2015 (UTC)


 * I agree with much of what Newyorkbrad says, however, I think it is clear that Arthur overstepped here, and I hesitate to do nothing considering the sheer number of edits that are arguably related to the Tea Party RFC. I prefer seeing this within two weeks, and quicker to dismiss after 4 weeks, but this is in the grey area.  Also, I note the ban is due to expire, but that doesn't really matter as it is in full effect on day 363 the same as it is on day one.  If I set aside all concerns about HughD, forget that Arthur is an admin, put away all the drama about the Tea Party (and I would ask my colleagues to refrain from calling people "teabaggers"), I'm still left with a violation of an Arb topic ban.  Arthur should have (and I assume he did) know that his actions were in violation of the topic ban, as they were specifically targeted at a Tea Party RFC, not some random topic, nor was it a single edit.  I'm hard pressed to just ignore that.  Dennis Brown - 2&cent; 16:31, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I was hoping for at least an acknowledgement of some kind from on whether or not he feels his actions violated his topic ban, and if it did, why it was important to do so, and what he planned moving forward.  I'm not completely sold on sanctions, but this looks too much like sweeping it under the rug if we ignore the very reason we are here.  Dennis Brown - 2&cent; 22:13, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
 * , I think the main thing here is that we insure the community that you aren't granted special privileges by virtue of the bit, and if anything, you are held to a higher standard. The fact that you have any kind of restriction in an area tells me you have a degree of involvement or at least a history of problematic editing.  As such, you should get outside help with the problem rather than acting proactively.  It isn't a matter of wrong and right as much as the appearance it gives to the greater community, and in this case, I feel you came up short.  With some trepidation, I'm willing to defer to 's judgement and conclusion, but it should be clear that in the future, you need to tread more carefully in areas where you have Arb restrictions.  Dennis Brown - 2&cent; 01:38, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

Please I would like to better understand "stale." Is there someplace I can read more about it? Please I would like to better understand the conditions under which deleting RfC notices from noticeboards is acceptable. Thank you. Hugh (talk) 23:19, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
 * "Stale" just means the reported actions are too old to be actionable, it makes no judgement on whether they were or were not violations or otherwise unacceptable. There is no formal definition of when something becomes stale that I am aware of, however it is on the order of days rather than weeks. Thryduulf (talk) 01:57, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
 * And therein lies a serious problem. It seems to be impossible to address extensive and well-evidenced patterns of "civil-PoV", slow-editwar behavior, even if they're a clearly provable, single-minded pattern going back years, as long as the editor in question studiously stops just short of anything that would trigger a new open-and-shut action against them. I guess this is more a talk page thing, though.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  11:00, 7 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Stale incidents can be presented as part of a pattern of long-term negative behavior, but stale single incidents usually do not result in sanctions. The point of sanctions is preventative, and if the behavior is not ongoing, there's no point in retroactive sanctions.   Gamaliel  ( talk ) 15:58, 7 September 2015 (UTC)