Misplaced Pages

Latest revision as of 22:35, 18 December 2024

A project which punishes editors for defending the good names and reputations of living people from vicious Internet trolls does not deserve to survive. A project which promotes and fosters racism and anti-Semitism is a menace to society.

• /Archive1 /Archive2 /Archive3 /Archive4/Archive5

.

Spelling of username

Please see my fix for the header. The spelling 'WikiGirl97' occurs in your comment which I didn't try to change, but you might consider doing so. the 'G' should be lower case. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 17:05, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

Thanks. Astonishing to find that the comment " sounds like some jewish gotcha bs" is now welcome on Misplaced Pages. But it appears that’s just fine. MarkBernstein (talk) 17:13, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

Norwegian Nazi thugs

Hi, Mark. You removed Norway as a subsection from the article Nazi thugs in the Nordic countries, but left it in the lead. Maybe you want to remove it there as well? (I think NRM probably does exist in Norway, but my thinking isn't a source.) Bishonen | talk 15:17, 23 October 2017 (UTC).

ArbCom 2017 election voter message

Hello, MarkBernstein. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Misplaced Pages arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

Talk:Zoë Quinn#RfC - infobox image

Hi, Mark. Apologies if I'm misreading your last comment, but it seems like you think that anyone who prefers one image over another is doing it because they want to help or hurt Ms. Quinn, or some issue that she represents. That's really not the case. Most of us, on each side, are just trying to make the encyclopedia better, which in this case means picking the best images for it. Our editing is not centered around or driven to help or hurt any particular person or issue. Or at least mine is, and - in the proud tradition of the Dunning–Kruger effect! - I assume most everyone else's is too. :-)

Of course I can't prove that, but I can try to demonstrate it. So I went to your edit history and found the last article you edited which could use an image. This seemed to be Kris Paronto. I found/made a free licensed image for it. I have no opinion on Mr. Paronto, for or against. Until a few minutes ago I had no knowledge that he existed. But I found from your edit history that he has an article, which would be better with an image. Here. Hopefully you like it. If not that, hopefully you'll accept it as at least some evidence of good faith. And if not even that, in any case, one more Misplaced Pages article is just a little bit better. That's why I'm here, that's why most people are here. Really. --GRuban (talk) 16:34, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

In the past, many editors have attempted to insert unflattering or defamatory pictures into Misplaced Pages articles. In the past, Ms. Quinn has been the subject of a great deal of harassment through Misplaced Pages, including murder threats. One common harassment tactic directed against women is to invite endless discussion of their appearance and sexual history. I make these general observations without reference to any particular page, editor, or controversy. I do not wish to discuss the topic with you. MarkBernstein (talk) 21:01, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

Arbitration Enforcement block

If you believe this block is unjustified, please read the guide to appealing blocks (specifically this section) before appealing. Place the following on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Please copy my appeal to the ] or ]. Your reason here OR place the reason below this template. ~~~~}}. If you intend to appeal on the arbitration enforcement noticeboard I suggest you use the arbitration enforcement appeals template on your talk page so it can be copied over easily.

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

The Wordsmith 00:44, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

Ack! What was that? I don't see User:MarkBernstein topic banned anywhere in Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Case/GamerGate. I mean it looks like the article was put under discretionary sanctions, but he didn't edit war, he just commented in a Request for Comments. Even if he didn't agree with me, that hasn't yet been made a blockable offense (that's part of my devious master plan I haven't put into operation yet). What happened? --GRuban (talk) 02:03, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

He was topic banned from Gamergate and people related to Gamergate here. His previous topic ban violations resulted in blocks of 1 week, 6 weeks and 6 months. The Wordsmith 02:07, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

Oh, fast response, thank you. OK, reading the case at the end of that rabbit hole, I can see the point, certainly seems harsh at first, but reading, wow ...; I will go away now. --GRuban (talk) 02:22, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

• Comment: We are assured by the proposers that this discussion — the third? fourth? on the topic of Ms. Quinn’s picture -- is not related to Gamergate and not intended to harass the subject. If that is true (or if we affect to think it true), the discussion of her portrait is not related to Gamergate, nor is it a gender-related controversy.

• Unlike the majority Misplaced Pages editors, I have professional knowledge of the area: I work for a publishing house and have often been involved in choosing headshots for our authors. I also possess some expertise in literary hypertext, the subject’s vocation.

• It is conceivable that some editors actually did intend to embarrass Ms. Quinn. A current member of the Arbitration Committee did speculate in this regard. I have not previously done so on-wiki.

• It is interesting to observe that, on the subreddit where the original topic ban was planned, this matter was raised a few hours before this notice, in a thread not devoid of the customary anti-Semitic slurs. This is perhaps in accord with Misplaced Pages policy, but it does not reflect well on the project.

• This discussion occurs in the midst of a national conversation on sexual harassment, in the wake of accusations against senate candidate Roy Moore, the resignation of Sen. Al Franken and Rep. John Conyers, the dismissal of Harvey Weinstein, Bill O’Reilly, Garrison Keillor, and accusations against Donald J. Trump. This is a time when Misplaced Pages might prudently take special care and exercise especially thoughtful judgment. It is, I suggest, not the ideal time to enter into interminable discussions about a the image and appearance of a noted writer, one whose appearance has nothing to do with her accomplishments.

• I have within the week been once more in correspondence with WP:OVERSIGHT regarding libels and calumnies directed against this subject and other colleagues. This is perhaps the tenth or fifteenth such episode. To the extent that the effort here makes this thankless chore more thankless, it disrupts and damages the encyclopedia — unless, of course, the purpose of the project is, in fact, to harass one’s supposed enemies. MarkBernstein (talk) 17:12, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

You're prohibited 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. Quinn's biography certainly counts even if it were construed as narrow as possible. In addition, you linked to Quinn's book that has Gamergate in the title. On a Talkpage of somebody who's name appears on Gamergate controversy exactly 40 times not counting references, who was one of the primary targets of Gamergate according to most RS, and who wrote a book about Gamergate. The topic ban violation is pretty obvious. There have been a number of edits you've made to pages in a gray area, where I extended the benefit of the doubt. This is not one of them. The Wordsmith 01:06, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

Notification of AE thread

Please see Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#MarkBernstein. --Pudeo (talk) 23:51, 20 December 2018 (UTC)

I have closed the AE thread. For violating your topic ban, in the light of your block log and of the fact that these were the very first edits after your previous block expired, I have decided to block you indefinitely. For the first year, this is an AE action. Salvio 19:17, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

Hi MarkBernstein. I don't typically visit AE as the person arguing somebody shouldn't be banned, but given the boneheaded stupidity of the above by somebody who seems to only sit around on Misplaced Pages to indulge in the fantasy of being an authority figure (I looked for edits unrelated to them being an admin and couldn't find em as long as 10 months back) I'd be perfectly happy to start an AE appeal if you were okay with that. Let me know. PeterTheFourth (talk) 22:52, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

I'm OK -- be my guest. MarkBernstein (talk) 23:09, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

Per Sandstein's decision, I can't do an appeal unilaterally. Perfectly happy to copy paste whatever, though. PeterTheFourth (talk) 00:10, 22 December 2018 (UTC)

The appeal has been procedurally declined as sanctions may only be appealed by the sanctioned user themselves. This is not prejudicial to any appeal you may wish to make on your own behalf. Instructions and advice on how to do this are at WP:GTAB. Thryduulf (talk) 01:56, 22 December 2018 (UTC)

Slow Running Edit War

At https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Chicago_Red_Stars&diff=1163771112&oldid=1163741589, see a slow-motion edit war between a SPA account engaged in Jew tagging and an IP. This might be of interest @Gamaliel: @Thryduulf: @PeterTheFourth: MarkBernstein (talk)

Six Years Later

MarkBernstein (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I do not wish to relitigate Gamergate. I cannot apologize for my failed effort on that topic: I believe I was right. I was not correct in every detail, of course, and I was sometimes curt and angry. That I regret. I think the overwhelming opinion in both the general press and in scholarship now agrees with the position I tried to espouse.

I recently began research for a new book on a reconceptualization of computing. Misplaced Pages biographies of some 18th and 19th-century scientists and philosophers have proven valuable reminders for birth dates and such. In the course of that work, I’ve noticed typographic errors and infelicities; it might be nice to fix those. I might also be useful on some questions of pseudoscience and such.

Notes:

• In some cases, you may not in fact be blocked, or your block has already expired. Please check the list of active blocks. If no block is listed, then you have been autoblocked by the automated anti-vandalism systems. Please remove this request and follow these instructions instead for quick attention by an administrator.
• Please read our guide to appealing blocks to make sure that your unblock request will help your case. You may change your request at any time.

If you ask the blocking administrator to comment on this request, replace this template with the following, replacing "blocking administrator" with the name of the blocking admin:

{{Unblock on hold |1=blocking administrator |2=Six years have passed. I do not wish to relitigate Gamergate. I cannot apologize for my failed effort on that topic: I believe I was right. I was not correct in every detail, of course, and I was sometimes curt and angry. That I regret. I think the overwhelming opinion in both the general press and in scholarship now agrees with the position I tried to espouse. I recently began research for a new book on a reconceptualization of computing. Misplaced Pages biographies of some 18th and 19th-century scientists and philosophers have proven valuable reminders for birth dates and such. In the course of that work, I’ve noticed typographic errors and infelicities; it might be nice to fix those. I might also be useful on some questions of pseudoscience and such. ] (]) 22:33, 16 December 2024 (UTC) |3 = ~~~~}}

If you decline the unblock request, replace this template with the following code, substituting {{subst:Decline reason here}} with a specific rationale. Leaving the decline reason unchanged will result in display of a default reason, explaining why the request was declined.

{{unblock reviewed |1=Six years have passed. I do not wish to relitigate Gamergate. I cannot apologize for my failed effort on that topic: I believe I was right. I was not correct in every detail, of course, and I was sometimes curt and angry. That I regret. I think the overwhelming opinion in both the general press and in scholarship now agrees with the position I tried to espouse. I recently began research for a new book on a reconceptualization of computing. Misplaced Pages biographies of some 18th and 19th-century scientists and philosophers have proven valuable reminders for birth dates and such. In the course of that work, I’ve noticed typographic errors and infelicities; it might be nice to fix those. I might also be useful on some questions of pseudoscience and such. ] (]) 22:33, 16 December 2024 (UTC) |decline = {{subst:Decline reason here}} ~~~~}}

If you accept the unblock request, replace this template with the following, substituting Accept reason here with your rationale:

{{unblock reviewed |1=Six years have passed. I do not wish to relitigate Gamergate. I cannot apologize for my failed effort on that topic: I believe I was right. I was not correct in every detail, of course, and I was sometimes curt and angry. That I regret. I think the overwhelming opinion in both the general press and in scholarship now agrees with the position I tried to espouse. I recently began research for a new book on a reconceptualization of computing. Misplaced Pages biographies of some 18th and 19th-century scientists and philosophers have proven valuable reminders for birth dates and such. In the course of that work, I’ve noticed typographic errors and infelicities; it might be nice to fix those. I might also be useful on some questions of pseudoscience and such. ] (]) 22:33, 16 December 2024 (UTC) |accept = accept reason here ~~~~}}

A few points:

• technically, you shouldn't even be mentioning gamergate. You're still topic banned.
• you say that you don't want to relitigate gamergate, but half your unblock request seems to be going on about it.
• your block log is full of gamergate-related blocks. I don't really think mentioning gamergate is a wise decision.
• copy editing old biographies sounds pretty harmless.

If you can stop talking about gamergate, I think you'd have a reasonable chance of being unblocked. I suggest you just erase all mention of gamergate. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 03:38, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

I’m happy to do so. It is, I understand, customary for returning editors in this circumstance to confess their sins and beg forgiveness. I cannot do that. If I do not allude to the situation that caused this mess, I do not comply with the requirements of an unblock request. This is reminiscent of Catch-22: I must not mention that which I am required to address.MarkBernstein (talk) 04:25, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

It makes me very hesitant to unblock you based on your desire to participate in a Contentious Topic such as psudoscience -- Guerillero 18:44, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

I’m happy to avoid pseudoscience. I do have a doctorate in chemistry, so I might be able to make myself useful. But it's not a big deal. In fact, I have no intention of working in any contentious area. To be absolutely explicit, I understand the reason for the block, and I have no desire, now or ever again, to engage in on-wiki arguments on any topic. MarkBernstein (talk) 19:09, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

My inclination is to allow another chance at editing given the time that has elapsed since the last block, with the GamerGate and related topic-bans surviving.

I do not fault MarkBernstein for having mentioned GamerGate in his unblock request, for the reasons he offers, though I agree that with NinjaRobotPirate that he should not mention that subject here again. I also agree with Guerillero that if unblocked, MarkBernstein should not rush headlong into contentious aspects of pseudoscience; but it is fair to recognize thta work on 18th and 19th-century scientists and philosophers is likely to involve some aspects of what we would now consider pseudoscience today—much of which should not be controversial today.

Given the history here, I will leave this open for others to comment, and also wonder if this request might best be mentioned on a noticeboard. Also @Salvio guiliano, Thryduulf, Lord Roem, Sandstein, and EdJohnston: as the admins who were active in the last AE discussion; and please feel free to add anyone I may have missed. Newyorkbrad (talk) 19:17, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

• Ten blocks on the block log. Why are we even having this discussion? Carrite (talk) 19:49, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
  • Because it has been, as the title notes, 6 years. Indefinite does not mean infinite because people can change and so it is reasonable that, after a significant length of time, that appeals are considered on their merits and not dismissed out of hand. Thryduulf (talk) 20:38, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
    • 4,219 edits...... 10 blocks. What exactly has this individual contributed to Misplaced Pages that makes you so all-fired sure that an 11th chance is necessary? Persistence? What exactly is this individual proposing to contribute to Misplaced Pages??? Textbook NOTHERE is all that I see. Carrite (talk) 22:27, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

      What exactly is this individual proposing to contribute to Misplaced Pages? the appeal answers this question, have you read it? What exactly has this individual contributed to Misplaced Pages that makes you so all-fired sure that an 11th chance is necessary? Everybody deserves a chance to be a productive editor. It's been many years since they were last given a chance, and if they can become a productive editor now then the project gains. If they can't we've not lost much, especially with a one-strike-and-you're-out topic ban. If we don't give editors a chance in this sort of situation then we are encouraging them to simply not ask and try their hand at socking - something which costs the project a hell of a lot more. Thryduulf (talk) 22:35, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

• My initial thinking is that any return will have to come with strict restrictions, that if contravened will result in the reinstatement of the indefinite ban. What conditions? Well, the existing topic ban ("prohibited 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.") remaining in force in some form is non-negotiable at minimum. I'm also wondering whether something like restricting editing to only (a) articles directly about scientists active in the 18th or 19th centuries, (b) articles directly about the research conducted by scientists active in the 18th or 19th centuries and (c) discussions directly about such articles. The restriction should allow contributing to the AfD of an article about such a scientist and an RfD of a redirect to such an article, but not allow contributing to discussions about such scientists or their work on other articles (e.g. the influence of a 19th century scientist in the article on a 20th century one). Such a restriction would be in addition to the existing topic ban so you could not edit the article about, for example, a 19th century scientist who is the subject of or associated with a gender-related dispute. I would allow appeal of the new topic ban in 3 months, but the existing restriction not for a year. Thryduulf (talk) 20:38, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

  Fair enough, though there's a bunch of border cases. I think people like Kurt Gödel and John von Neumann, though edging into the 20th century, are not very contentious; both are discussed in the chapter on which I’m working. They met in a sort of seminar that was run by Moritz Schlick; Schlick was a Professor of Philosophy at Vienna but his chair was closely associated with Physics. Was he a scientist? Might a 1RR reassure you? I really have no intention to dispute anything at all. MarkBernstein (talk) 21:23, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

  I had thought about the century border problem, I didn't articulate it as my criteria was very complicated (and thus lengthy) and wanted to get feedback on the general principal first. However I hadn't considered the definition of who is a scientist, which seems silly in retrospect, but I never expected that wording to be adopted verbatim. Having thought about it a bit more, I think the simplest way of putting boundaries on the area is to say it includes anyone categorised in Category:18th-century scientists, category:19th-century scientists or their subcategories. If you wish to create new articles then they must be uncontroversial to categorise them in one or more (subcategories) of those two categories. There likely will still be edge cases, I recommend staying away from them, but a simple request for clarification along the lines of "is Person A a 19th century scientist for the purpose of my restriction?" would not be a violation of the restriction. The issue is trusting that you will stay away from the topics that got you into trouble in the first place, given your history of failing to. If you can stick to a rigidly defined set like this for three months without issues that will build enough trust for me to support loosening the reins (obviously I cannot promise everyone will agree). I'm not going to object to a 1RR, but I don't consider one to be necessary. Thryduulf (talk) 00:57, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

  That’s fine. MarkBernstein (talk) 01:17, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

• Mark, in case you weren't aware, discretionary sanctions were replaced by Misplaced Pages:Contentious topics in 2022. If you haven't already, I recommend familiarising yourself with the new system (handy comparison of DS and CTOP). Thryduulf (talk) 20:38, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

• Requests for unblock