Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 22:47, 8 November 2015

A project which punishes editors for defending the good names and reputations of living people from vicious Internet trolls does not deserve to survive.

Please use your Misplaced Pages account when posting here. Posts from IP accounts may be deleted unread.

• /Archive1 /Archive2 /Archive3

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 Misplaced Pages. 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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages and beyond. In admiration, IZAK (talk) 21:51, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

Template:Z147

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 . 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)

Masem

I am opening a new Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement regarding you related to the recent activity on the GG talk page. --MASEM (t) 03:10, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

I have officially closed the request. You know I am aware of the full context of this long and contentious article, but I have to ask that you do a better job of treating other editors (not socks or random drive-by IPs, but established editors) with courtesy and respect and keep in mind that whatever your intentions sometimes statements can be misinterpreted, especially in a heated conflict. You can demand the same of others as well, and I know we have not done as good as a job as we should have when it comes to policing other editors on this particular topic. It is important that we "get it right" when living individuals the subjects of articles, but other editors are living individuals as well and deserve the same. In the words of an editor at AE, "don't be a jerk". I'll be logging this as an official admonishment, for what it's worth. Gamaliel (talk) 03:13, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

Topic ban

I know DHeyward took a swipe at you on one of the AE pages, and I removed it and chided him. Now I'm doing the same for you. You both got your licks in, now let's return to keeping away from each other. Gamaliel (talk) 18:13, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

@Gamaliel: Did I mention that fellow? Did I respond to his swipe? Did I point out that he was again testing the limits of this topic ban, which somehow did not preclude his violating it in the recent farcical trip to AE, and again at ARCA? I did note MONGO’s statement on DHeyward’s talk page, regarding Ahmed Mohamed, that his detention might have been justified because

...Moslems commit most of the terrorism today...

and expressed surprise that Misplaced Pages tolerates that. Given the direction of the current campaign, we can expect a good deal more of this; it would be better for Misplaced Pages to establish low tolerance for bigotry now, rather than later.

On the other hand, DHeyward did (again) violate the topic ban with impunity, while it has been made clear to me (and other progressive editors) by recent events that, if we hope to retain editing privileges, we'd better lower our profile right quick. MarkBernstein (talk) 18:47, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

If you want to note Mongo's statement elsewhere, fine, but please keep it off DHeyward's talk page. If I allow this, then he'll want to post on your page, and we'll be back to the situation we had before. Gamaliel (talk) 18:49, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

An explanation

Dr. Bernstein, I just wanted to explain my thinking for why "made up" is a BLP issue, while "debunked" is not. It's all about the implied intent, and rather like the difference between 'lying' and 'being wrong.' One implies (forgive the argot) scienter. Either way, I thought Artw's point stood just fine without that bit. Thanks. Dumuzid (talk) 17:00, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

In this case, though, is intent a question? I don’t believe I’ve read any account of the document in question that doesn’t consider it malicious. It's quite clear that Boston Magazine did, for example, in its long profile, as did the New York Times. At least one judge has been reported to have agreed. In any case, this is certainly not a blatant and obvious BLP violation, and so a topic-banned editor has no business redacting it, and I understand that editor has now been banned. MarkBernstein (talk) 17:58, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

I certainly had my qualms about Mr. Advocate's involvement, but ultimately I think he was right in this instance that it's better just (as I said) to err on the side of caution. And even if the document is malicious, that's not the same as saying the allegations were 'made up.' There is certainly malicious truth-telling in the world (not that I think that is the case here). It would seem though that things have resolved themselves. Dumuzid (talk) 19:51, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

I'm not blaming you, exactly, though it's a bit rich that, after a solid year of talk-page snickering about Zoe Quinn’s sex life, we regard "made-up" as a blatant and obvious BLP violation. We've got lots of great published sources that say this and much worse -- rambling, drink-fueled, malicious, twisted, and that's just Boston Magazine. Do you understand why Gamergate thinks this specific topic is so sensitive? MarkBernstein (talk) 20:37, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

Blame me all you like! I just try to call them as I metaphorically see them. And I am not quite sure what you mean about sensitivity. Beyond the issue of it being the origin of the entire donnybrook? Dumuzid (talk) 21:27, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

Origin of the donnybrook, cause of a huge signal flare earlier today (before this block) on the Gamergate boards. I mean, seriously: people say astonishing things about Quinn, Sarkeesian -- even me -- and Misplaced Pages shrugs. But people think it's worth getting blocked to edit-war the difference between "made-up" and "false", or something, about the Zoepost, which is universally admitted to be indefensible. Why -- especially in light of The New York Times, New Yorker, NY Magazine, Boston Magazine, etc etc -- not to mention a restraining order? I don't get it. MarkBernstein (talk) 21:54, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

I can only answer for myself, and I'm afraid it's a terribly pedantic answer. I just try to do what seems right within my very narrow purview. Beyond that, I can't tell you what motivates people! Dumuzid (talk) 22:08, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

Breitbart and Infowars

This edit is not sourced to them. It is sourced to a reliable source "Top Conspiracy Theories On Ahmed Mohamed Clock". Mornning News USA. Archived from the original on 27 September 2015. Retrieved 27 September 2015.. Please consider undoing that edit. Thanks! - Cwobeel (talk) 21:47, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

I believe that Dallas Morning News article has already been discussed above -- and dismisses the views repeated here as groundless? MarkBernstein (talk) 21:49, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

I think that these nuttty theories warrant a longer exposition. - Cwobeel (talk) 22:11, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

I'm listening. But perhaps this is a talk page discussion? In general, Misplaced Pages should probably avoid paying too much attention to nutty theories, especially nutty theories that don't get traction. MarkBernstein (talk) 22:13, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

May this edit work for you? Just a partial restore to highlight Dawkins' comments.- Cwobeel (talk) 22:26, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

Surely this is WP:UNDUE? The comments appear to be off-the-cuff and partly self-contradictory, and is there any reason to expect Dawkins to have much knowledge or expertise on this topic? MarkBernstein (talk) 22:47, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

WP:ANI

There is currently a discussion at Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. --Bob K31416 (talk) 22:22, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

Question about reverting policy

Hello MarkBernstein, I was wondering whether its Misplaced Pages policy to remove an editor's comments on talkpages when they are banned? Could you link me to the relevant rule-section that specifies this? Omegastar (talk) 20:53, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) @Omegastar: WP:BANREVERT is the policy. — Strongjam (talk) 20:59, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

Palestine-Israel articles 3 arbitration case proposed decision posted

Hi MarkBernstein. A decision has been proposed in the Palestine-Israel articles 3 arbitration case, for which you are on the notification list. Please review this decision and draw the arbitrators' attention to any relevant material or statements. Comments may be brought to the attention of the committee on the proposed decision talk page. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, L235 (t / c / ping in reply) 20:41, 14 October 2015 (UTC) (via MediaWiki message delivery (talk))

A second chance?

I've made some major mistakes in this whole gamergate thing. I was wrong and I admit it. I am trying to be more thoughtful about my edits and how I approach them (for example going to the talk page and asking if it is ok to use someones real name as opposed to just naming them). MY question is this: How do I go about getting a second chance? I am honestly trying to turn over a new leaf here and it can be seen by my recent edits. That doesnt' mean I don't disagree with some of the things Ive read - what it does mean is I am trying to approach these disagreements with some sensitivity and decorum. Does this earn me a seocnd chance? Thanks Dr. Bernstein.

Cavalierman (talk) 19:09, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Cavalierman, your edits have been almost entirely on the subject of GamerGate or A Rape on Campus. Try editing some less polarizing articles so that editors here can see that you are interested in contributing to the Misplaced Pages project, that is, building an encyclopedia, and that you are not here to right great wrongs. I can't speak for MarkBernstein but I think most people will forgive previous disruptive behavior when they see that you've actually changed. So, do some editing, contribute something positive to the encyclopedia and focus less on specific editors who hold difference of opinions than you. Misplaced Pages is not a battleground where one plays to win. Liz 19:51, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

I'm not precisely sure what you're asking, or why you're asking me. I'm not sure, either, what about your recent edits indicates a "new leaf"; they seem much of a piece with the old edits, but I've not studied them closely. One thing that that would certainly improve your reputation would be your working to remove attempts to use Misplaced Pages to harass Gamergate victims -- an going problem, as witnessed by an incident this morning at Zoë Quinn and other recent attempts. Work to identify the harassers -- even when they use IP, zombie or sock accounts -- and to end their harassment would also be welcome, and would demonstrate your sincerity in wanting to improve the encyclopedia. MarkBernstein (talk) 21:07, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

Thank you both. Duly noted. I will focus on less contentious articles, and if I do edit articles that are more controversial, I will focus on keeping a positive tone and not attacking. Misplaced Pages is turning into a place where there is too much attacking and this does not help the project. Cavalierman (talk) 21:48, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

My revert

Your comment may have been well intentioned but if you think that anything you say at that talk page is going to go down well then you are sorely mistaken. It is poking the bear, whether you intended it or not, simply because of your stridency on the related issues. - Sitush (talk) 17:40, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

A very belated apology

Back in January when you got blocked as a result of your comments on Jimbo's talk page, I made disparaging comments about you, that looking back on it were clearly ridiculous and absurd (mainly the comments on HJ Mitchell's talk page). I'd semi-forgotten about them until the parallels were brought up with the recent Arbcom request. While I don't agree with everything you say (mostly regarding a certain Misplaced Pages admin) a lot of the comments I made were completely unfair, as well as being a typically Wikipedian case of an anonymous editor trashing a named person while they're down. I am very sorry for making such comments and as such would like to apologise. Brustopher (talk) 12:14, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

Are you familiar with Tony Kushner's Angels In America: Millennium Approaches? I particularly call your attention to Rabbi Isidor Chemelwitz, p.25: "You want to confess? Better you should find a priest."

Just above, you'll see an “apology” from a Gamergate sock puppet, now banned, who was strategically currying favor because someone told him it was the path to becoming an admin.

The problem you have is not with me: it's the damage done to Gamergate's victims, against whom you (for a time) aligned yourself. To the best of my knowledge, no death or permanent injury resulted; in this, you may count yourself fortunate, and I will join you wholeheartedly.

All this said, I believe you did very good work indeed in the wake of Arbcom's infamous Gamergate debacle. I believe I have thanked you (among others) for your indispensable contributions in preserving the project from the depredations of the Gamergate conspiracy. I do hope that you will continue to defend Misplaced Pages from this determined onslaught of trolls, conspirators and ideologues. MarkBernstein (talk) 02:52, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. I noticed the suspicious apology above and considered not posting due to poor timing. I did question the value of an apology, but I was worried that I was being twofaced by not apologising for this sort of stuff. There's also no need to worry about my RfA. I made a single highly negative remark about a Valued Content Creator™ last month, so not even this apology can save my chances.

Regarding GGs victims, I'm very glad in restrospect that my support for GG outside of wikipedia was just lurking and reading, and the one really negative thing I added to a Misplaced Pages article was caught in pending changes and never made it to live article. Nonetheless, I probably should have sent an apology to Zoe Quinn when I messaged her about diacritics. Looking back on it I'm still not sure how I came to some of the mindnumbingly absurd conclusions I did. A particularly nonsensical view I had was that GG would bring about a pro-feminist moral reform of 4chan.

Thank you too for the work you've put into the article. Hopefully things will finally calm down for good soon, and KiA will stop making a 300 upvote post on every comment you make.Brustopher (talk) 13:18, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

YOur edit

re: 20:38 (cur | prev) . . (+172)‎ . . MarkBernstein (talk | contribs) (Undid revision 687686537 by Staszek Lem (talk) I see no obvious policy issue in the summary

You were right. My bad memory. It was several essays, e.g.,: Misplaced Pages:Arguments to avoid in edit wars. Staszek Lem (talk) 04:09, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

Vested contributors arbitration case opened

You may opt-out of future notifications related to this case at Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Vested contributors/Notification list. 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 Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Vested contributors. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Vested contributors/Evidence. Please add your evidence by November 5, 2015, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Vested contributors/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, L235 (t / c / ping in reply) 01:19, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

Vested contributors retitled Arbitration enforcement 2

You may opt-out of future notifications related to this case at Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Arbitration enforcement 2/Notification list. 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 Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Arbitration enforcement 2. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Arbitration enforcement 2/Evidence. Please add your evidence by November 5, 2015, which is when the evidence phase closes. For this case, there will be no Workshop phase. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, Liz 12:41, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

Jim Bunning and Fergie Jenkins!

Jim Bunning and Fergie Jenkins. This list boggles my mind. — Strongjam (talk) 17:45, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

@Strongjam: Of course, the lack of postseason appearances by Ernie Banks, Ron Santo, and Ferguson Jenkins are not uncorrelated. MarkBernstein (talk) 19:53, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

Poor Cubs. I was rooting for a Jays v.s Cubs WS this year. At least Toronto finally made it to the post-season! — Strongjam (talk) 20:06, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

Margaret Sanger

Please carefully read this information:

The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding Abortion, a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is here.

Template:Z33 Gamaliel (talk) 01:45, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

AE2

Evidence is being redacted from AE2? What is wrong with ArbComm? ForbiddenRocky (talk) 05:48, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

Who can know? I think they may simply be out of touch with the reality of editing today, and too incurious to learn. They seem entirely uninterested in harassment and extortion in Misplaced Pages. MarkBernstein (talk) 12:18, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

Your statement page

Hi Mark! Sorry you're having trouble with the formatting code :( I've just fixed your candidacy pages, statement, etc. to their proper place. Make sure to review it all to make sure it's all up to code, and then you can transclude it. Lemme know if there is anything else I can help with! ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 22:23, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

Sorry! I didn't mean to cause trouble -- just innocent merriment. Thanks for the fix -- things just mysteriously improved. MarkBernstein (talk) 22:24, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

No worries. I think you first tried to file a candidacy under the username "Statement" and then everything went south. :p Also, note that statements are supposed to be 400 words max (yours is 698), but as a fellow candidate it's probably improper for me to try and enforce rules? Just letting you know someone might come along and ask you to reduce it. Maybe. I'm still unclear on whether the Electoral Commission actually enforces these rules or not. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 22:26, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

@Salvidrim!: OK. I trimmed extensively; it's hard to be funny in 400 words and also to say what needs to be said. I couldn't have done it without you! MarkBernstein (talk) 22:40, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

Modification of restrictions

A few fellow administrators have objected to the way HJ Mitchell and I have dealt with the recent dispute between you and DHeyward. Also I see you have launched a campaign for Arbcom today. Given both of these facts, I no longer wish to be the intermediary between you two, nor do I wish to continue to be blamed by both of you and by third parties whenever one of you does something that someone does not like. I am lifting the restriction on opening enforcement requests against each other, so other administrators can bring a fresh perspective to this long-lasting dispute. The topic ban on discussing one another otherwise remains in place. Please bring any requests or disputes regarding each other to WP:AE and not to my talk page or my inbox. Thank you. Gamaliel (talk) 22:47, 8 November 2015 (UTC)