User talk:MarkBernstein/Archive5

A barnstar for you!

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

Socratic Barnstar

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

Defender of the Wiki Barnstar

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

A barnstar for you!

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

A cup of tea for you!

Re [1] . don't let the trolls get to you! -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 20:25, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

Belated

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

A barnstar for you!

	The Special Barnstar
	For taking a metaphor for a walk, a run, a marathon! -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 01:13, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar
	You have been accused of trying to right great wrongs, and sanctioned along the way, but I think your intent all along has been to build a better encyclopedia, and you have my admiration and thanks for it. Vanamonde93 (talk) 22:57, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

Thanks -- it's always nice to know that someone else gets it. MarkBernstein (talk) 23:46, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

Notice that you are now subject to an arbitration enforcement sanction

The following sanction now applies to you:

You are indefinitely prohibited from making any edit about, and from editing any page relating to, (a) Gamergate, (b) any gender-related dispute or controversy, (c) people associated with (a) or (b), all broadly construed.

You have been sanctioned for a pattern of tendentious editing, assumptions of bad faith, battleground mentality, soapboxing, and contributing to a toxic atmosphere in the Gamergate topic area, as partially outlined here.

This sanction is imposed in my capacity as an uninvolved administrator under the authority of the Arbitration Committee's decision at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/GamerGate#Final decision and, if applicable, the procedure described at Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions. This sanction has been recorded in the log of sanctions. If the sanction includes a ban, please read the banning policy to ensure you understand what this means. If you do not comply with this sanction, you may be blocked for an extended period, by way of enforcement of this sanction—and you may also be made subject to further sanctions.

You may appeal this sanction using the process described here. I recommend that you use the arbitration enforcement appeals template if you wish to submit an appeal to the arbitration enforcement noticeboard. You may also appeal directly to me (on my talk page), before or instead of appealing to the noticeboard. Even if you appeal this sanction, you remain bound by it until you are notified by an uninvolved administrator that the appeal has been successful. You are also free to contact me on my talk page if anything of the above is unclear to you. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 01:39, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia email

Receipt of message is acknowledged. I do not wish to receive further commentary from you regarding the Gamergate topic area, and do not wish to disclose my personal email address to you. This will be my only response on the matter.

Regards,

The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 17:18, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

Gamaliel and others arbitration case opened

You recently offered a statement in a request for arbitration. The Arbitration Committee has accepted that request for arbitration and an arbitration case has been opened at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Gamaliel and others. The scope of this case is Gamaliel's recent actions (both administrative and otherwise), especially related to the Signpost April Fools Joke. The case will also examine the conduct of other editors who are directly involved in disputes with Gamaliel. The case is strictly intended to examine user conduct and alleged policy violations and will not examine broader topic areas. The clerks have been instructed to remove evidence which does not meet these requirements. The drafters will add additional parties as required during the case. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Gamaliel and others/Evidence.

Please add your evidence by May 2, 2016, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Gamaliel and others/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. This notification is being sent to those listed on the case notification list. If you do not wish to recieve further notifications, you are welcome to opt-out on that page. For the Arbitration Committee, Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:39, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

April 2016

An editor could justifiably bring you to AE for this comment. I redacted to help avoid that. Nothing to be gained from skirting the edges of multiple bans except more bans. Sometimes it's best to step away, reevaluate, come back with a clear head. Maybe not the advice you want to hear right now but it's good advice. Good luck. James J. Lambden (talk) 17:52, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

I don't agree. Not a good redaction. -Starke Hathaway (talk) 18:07, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

As the person who placed the Gamergate ban, I don't believe the comment made violates that one. It probably isn't a good idea to get involved in that case since the topic area is certain to come up, but as of now I don't see a violation. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 18:19, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

I cannot fathom how ArbCom procedure can impinge on Gamergate. Nothing I wrote relates in any way to the topic of DHeyward. If James J. Lambden wishes to raise the question at AE, he may, and so may any editor (but will they answer when you do summon them?). I don't recall meeting this user before; they do have a deep interest in obscure ArbCom talk pages and plenty of advice for an editor with 135 lifetime edits. Then again, their diverse interests -- Gamergate, White Pride, Japanese cartoons -- do mesh well with drama boards and seem appropriate to ArbCom's current concerns. My head is clear, thank you for your concern. Good luck, whoever you are. I'd suggest in the future, though, that you might leave the duties of ArbCom clerks to the ArbCom clerks.

As to getting involved in the case, I did not choose to be vilified in the evidence, but there I am. The scope of the case specifically excludes Gamergate, and I have no involvement (as far as I know) with the April Fool’s joke. I believe my hands (which, like jellicle cats, are of moderate size) are clean. MarkBernstein (talk) 18:30, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

I personally don't see any issue with what you posted. There is, though, something to be said for allowing the Aweful Battle of the Pekes and the Pollicles, with the participation of the Pugs and the Poms, to go on for awhile without you. (If only there were a Great Rumpus Cat on the premises who could put an end to so much of this nonsense....) Newyorkbrad (talk) 19:32, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

I respect that, @Newyorkbrad:. On the other hand, an admin has, on the evidence page, used phrases that echo -- unconsciously, no doubt -- an allegation current on certain chat boards that Gamaliel and I have what used to be called an untoward relationship. I discreetly pointed out to ArbCom that (a) this was inappropriate, and (b) the comment is in any case clearly outside the emphatically-stated scope of the case, and therefore should be removed. I’ve received no response. Now, we have a drive-by editor expressing concern that I lack a clear head -- the other common chat board trope in those dim precincts.

So it’s not all Rumpus Cat, not for people like me. Why anyone would wish to edit Wikipedia under these circumstances is a mystery to me -- notwithstanding the murder threat (to which Wikimedia Foundation responded "Thanks Mark, we're looking into it." and has since been silent). Unfortunately, I have a duty of care; you should have the same duty. I say no more here at present -- I may have more to say elsewhere and you know where to look -- but if you would welcome your thoughts. MarkBernstein (talk) 20:10, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

Arbitration evidence response

Hi, MarkBernstein. I noticed your "Procedural Question" at the Gamaliel and others arbitration case. Allow me to try to respond:

1. I will be enforcing the case scope over the next few hours (I've already started). Thanks for bringing this to our attention.
2. WP:BANEX allows you to [e]ngag[e] in legitimate and necessary dispute resolution. If you feel the need to respond to anything at the evidence page, I advise you to contact the Committee (at arbcom-en-blists.wikimedia.org to clarify whether that exception applies in this case.
3. I've notified four editors to shorten their statement according to procedure. Thanks for bringing that up.
4. Would you consider moving your statement to the evidence talk page? That way, we can avoid cluttering the page with non-evidence.

(3 is "for the Committee" as that was specifically authorized by procedure. 1 is binding and in my role as a case clerk. 4 is a non-binding request but still in my role as a case clerk. 2 is simply my advice as an uninvolved editor.) Thanks, Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 20:05, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

@L235: For reasons about which I have already informed the committee (and oversight), I would prefer not to write, view, or call attention to that talk page until the problem has been resolved. I’m happy to send you a copy of this morning’s letter off-wiki; it cannot be discussed on-wik. Once it’s resolved, I'll be happy to delete the query. With regard to #2, I'm familiar with BANEX, but clearing this up in advance would reduce drama. Once the scope is actually enforced, since I am (as far as I can tell) completely uninvolved with the small hands brouhaha, there should be no reason to discuss me in this case. MarkBernstein (talk) 20:58, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

Question for someone else

...but I'll ask it here since it's relevant. The Wordsmith, the sanction you applied was, and I quote, "You are indefinitely prohibited from making any edit about, and from editing any page relating to, (a) Gamergate, (b) any gender-related dispute or controversy, (c) people associated with (a) or (b), all broadly construed."

I'm sorry, but it is not entirely clear to me what you mean with "people associated with". For instance, does "people" include editors--like a certain editor/admin/arb currently entangled in an ArbCom case? Or is it limited to "real" people in the real world? Mark Bernstein, I'm sure you don't mind my asking this question here, since it's directly relevant to you. Thank you, Drmies (talk) 03:34, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

@Drmies: That's the standard topic ban wording from the Gamergate arbitration case. I don't believe I've seen it interpreted to mean editors. GorillaWarfare (talk) 08:50, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

That's an interesting question that literally never occurred to me: is @Gamaliel: now a walking gender-related controversy? Is Donald Trump? Am I? In fact, asking me this, or anything, might well be construed as inducing me to violate the topic ban if I were banned from talking about myself,, but of course no ArbCom member would do that! Since the only edit I have made that could possibly lead to such a question appears to be a procedural question regarding the scope of an ARBCOM case and whether length limits were to be taken seriously, perhaps ARBCOM itself is involved in a gender-related controversy! @Drmies: and @GorillaWarfare: Also pinging Kafka and Lewis Carroll. MarkBernstein (talk) 09:18, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

BRB, changing my Twitter handle to "Molly White: Gender-related controversy". More seriously, I don't think that people can really become "gender-related controversies" themselves unless that is a major component of what they're known for. The point of that clause is to prevent people from discussing, say, Donald Trump's controversial comments about women, but not Donald Trump himself. GorillaWarfare (talk) 09:24, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

@GorillaWarfare: Thing is, some people are both--both editor and (according to some) GG-related one way or another. Drmies (talk) 13:53, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

@Drmies:, I myself am fairly widely known for my work in Wikipedia and Gamergate: [2]. Who else might you be thinking of? Molly is known too, but I don’t believe I’ve mentioned her lately. Am I topic-banned from the subject of myself, broadly construed? Should I construe my topic ban to comprise any topic -- the length of ArbCom statements apparently being the case in point -- to which some Gamergate proponent or Mens Rights Activist could conceivably take umbrage? Moreover, your colleague has explicitly stated on the evidence talk page that Gamaliel and Friends does not concern Gamergate. Finally, I am confident that no arbitrator would intentionally seek to entrap an editor, yet it is extraordinarily difficult to reply in a manner that could not be misconstrued by hostile eyes. If this is the time and place for this discussion, may I please have permission to speak freely? MarkBernstein (talk) 15:11, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

I was on the scene when the phrase "gender-related controversy" was coined. It came about in this way: Originally, there was a proposal to topic-ban some people from matters concerning "gender." But it was realized that that was much too broad, and the intention was to narrow it from "all matters relating to gender" to "contentious matters relating to gender," as only the latter are likely to lead to disputes. I realize, of course, that it's still an open-ended wording, but as pointed out here, it is impossible for the wording of any remedy to eliminate all ambiguity or room for discretion and common sense in application. Newyorkbrad (talk) 15:36, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

I was thinking about Gamaliel, yes. His case isn't necessarily about GG, as far as I'm concerned. To which extent his GG-related decisions is part of the case is a matter of some discussion, but I daresay it is not going to be a full-fledged (or even half-fledged) investigation of Gamaliel's body of work in GG, so to speak. I think the admin who decided on your topic ban should tackle the thorny questions related to your ban. I also think that you are not directly involved in his case, and you're certainly not a party--and from that I think you can draw some conclusions about what I think, also given that you have a GG ban of some kind. Drmies (talk) 15:45, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

Hmmm, this is not a circumstance I had anticipated when copying Arbcom's wording for the ban. Reading it again and thinking it over, my interpretation would be this: Mark's ban prohibits him from discussing Gamaliel and his actions as they relate to Gamergate and related gender controversies, but I see no compelling reason why discussing Gamaliel's Signpost actions and related issues (i.e. the main focus of this case) would fall within the scope. If Mark wishes to provide evidence to the Committee regarding gender-related controversies and Gamaliel's actions in that area, his best move would be to email it to the Committee mailinglist rather than posting on-wiki. In addition, a topic ban is not usually intended to prevent an editor from defending themselves at Arbitration, so if for some odd reason Mark's conduct should be presented as evidence I see no reason to prohibit him from responding. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 15:58, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

I presume that The Wordsmith has not been reading the evidence page, where my name was used 49 times (not counting pronoun references) before I had the temerity to post a procedural question to the clerks regarding the scope of the case? That query, with which Arbcom apparently agreed, is the transgression under discussion here, at the prompting of "someone else." I have written (again) to ArbCom, but thank you for permission to defend myself and my reputation freely in this case, should (for some odd reason) these unfounded accusation recur. MarkBernstein (talk) 16:21, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

Vaxxed drama

Your input would be appreciated Here. Thanks. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 21:05, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

Aspersions

It has come to my attention that off-site you have described me as Gamergate and anti-vaccination. Although I do not share your extreme antipathy for the Gamergate movement, I do not accept being called Gamergate. That would simply be allowing others to put words in my mouth, some of which are admittedly reprehensible. On the other matter, I favor mandatory vaccination without religious exemption. You might have been unaware, but now you know.

In the intersection of the two topics, if your involvement at Vaxxed was for the purpose of opposing Gamergate, as nonsensical as that might be, it violated your topic ban. It would also be WP:HOUNDING me. Desist.

On the upside, if not for this incident, I would not have encountered some interesting writings on interactive fiction techniques. In particular, salience structures bring to mind subsumption architecture. Rhoark (talk) 03:35, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

WP:AE

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#MarkBernstein NE Ent 22:19, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

The Video game Barnstar

---

Thank you for your work on video game articles.172.6.238.220 (talk) 23:35, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

Topic Ban

I believe your topic ban "You are indefinitely prohibited from making any edit about, and from editing any page relating to, (a) Gamergate, (b) any gender-related dispute or controversy, (c) people associated with (a) or (b), all broadly construed," precludes edits such as this. —Torchiest ^talk_edits 22:38, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

if you think that an uncontroversial pointer on a talk page to Harvard Historian Jill Lepore's latest book is a gender-related controversy,AE is thataway. Otherwise, don't write on this page again. Have a good life. .MarkBernstein (talk) 03:05, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

Topic Ban Violation

The last line of the article you just edited (Alt-Right) is Some sources have connected the alt-right and Gamergate. You are topic-banned from Gamergate. This edit violates your topic ban. Please self revert. James J. Lambden (talk) 18:28, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

As Alt-Right is not a "gender-related dispute or controversy", nor a person, I fail to see how his topic ban applies to Alt-Right. It seems you've taken it upon yourself to issue a ruling incorrectly, and in fact, you have no authority to issue such a ruling in the first place. Please take your concerns to an admin in the future, rather than trying to attack another editor on his talk page with spurious accusations. Thank you. Rockypedia (talk) 20:27, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

The topic ban language begins with You are indefinitely prohibited from making any edit about, and from editing any page relating to, (a) Gamergate,. The article ends with Some sources have connected the alt-right and Gamergate It's a clear violation. Mark: I'll give you time to revert but between this and your last edit, also a topic ban vio (it appears your only article edits in the last few weeks have been topic ban vios) AE will be a necessary step. Rocky: your advice is misguided and unhelpful. James J. Lambden (talk) 20:34, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

As the admin who imposed the topic ban, I don't consider that edit a violation. Brushing up against the line (and participating in an edit war) perhaps, but not crossing it. If his edits make a connection between the Alt-right and Gamergate that would be a different story, but they don't. It is technically true that the page mentions Gamergate, but that's only a violation if construed far more broadly than any sensible topic ban. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 20:36, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

DS Alerts

This message contains important information about an administrative situation on Wikipedia. It does not imply any misconduct regarding your own contributions to date.

Please carefully read this information:

The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding all edits about, and all pages related to post-1932 politics of the United States and closely related people, a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is here.

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

--Kyohyi (talk) 17:11, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

Topic ban

Has this topic ban been rescinded? The scope is:

• All edits about, and all pages related to, (a) GamerGate, (b) any gender-related dispute or controversy, (c) people associated with (a) or (b), all broadly construed (link)

Your recent edits to Milo Yiannopoulos fall into (c):

• Special:Diff/776989443
• Special:Diff/778405300
• Special:Diff/778545348

Please let me know. James J. Lambden 🇺🇸 (talk) 04:23, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

Is this writer and controversialist a person associated with a gender related controversy? He's been outspoken in defense of homosexuality and in denouncing Islam, but neither seems pertinent to the above. He wrote a little about Gamergate a long time ago, but I'm not familiar with anything he has done or said on that topic for a some years. If I'm mistaken and have overlooked some recent writing, I'll be happy to comment on any future Wikipedia errors on the subject in the press rather than quietly urging them here. Let me know which would better improve the project.MarkBernstein (talk) 13:45, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

As the person who imposed the topic ban, I've seen those diffs. While Milo's writing about Gamergate would technically make him "associated with" Gamergate, under the broadest possible definition, the edits themselves aren't concerned with GG and he's notable for far more so that currently, GG is a minor part of the Milo story. Therefore, I don't consider these three diffs to be a violation of the topic ban. However if anybody disagrees, they are free to bring it up for review in the usual manner. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 14:01, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

Perhaps we should ask ARCA for a ruling. In the off-wiki forum where a banned editor has been agitating over this, he is also complaining that discussing Margaret Sanger’s racial beliefs is also a topic-ban violation; that could be a second ARCA query. MarkBernstein (talk) 15:47, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

If you want to obtain clarification of the boundaries of the topic area, that is of course your prerogative. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 16:08, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

Is the test you're applying for (c) whether the individual is primarily known for Gamergate? Yiannopoulos came to prominence with Gamergate [3] but I agree he is not now primarily known for it. Similarly if Wu runs for office she will not be primarily known for Gamergate. That's a reasonable test but it contradicts the current language:

• people associated with ... broadly construed

Should the language be amended? I have no opinion on Sanger but race is plainly outside the scope of the topic. James J. Lambden 🇺🇸 (talk) 17:27, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

Brianna Wu, as it happens, is running for Congress (MA-7): https://briannawu2018.com https://www.bostonglobe.com/news/politics/2017/01/18/brianna-intends-run-against-stephen-lynch/agD3TnKAkRlzlUSMN2KN9O/story.html MarkBernstein (talk) 17:41, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

Paul Gorka's membership

I put Gorka's Bio on: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard/Archive258#Sebastian_Gorka a week ago. I clearly indicated what my problems are. It was on the Talk Page as well. Please don't come up with this rubbish again. HE WAS NOT A MEMBER!What "reliable source" claims the opposite?--Ltbuni (talk) 17:43, 26 August 2017 (UTC)

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/world/sebastian-gorka-made-nazi-linked-vitezi-rend-proud-wearing-its-n742851 , for example. Many other sources agree. MarkBernstein (talk) 21:30, 26 August 2017 (UTC)