Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license.
Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat.
We can research this topic together.
(755 intermediate revisions by more than 100 users not shown)
Line 1:
Line 1:
A project which punishes editors for defending the good names and reputations of living people from vicious Internet trolls does not deserve to survive.
<h2>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.</h2>
<p><p><p>
<hr>
* ]
<hr>
== Concerning Jews and Communism ==
* ] ] ] ]]
For the record, I reverted the removal of the conspiracy section as it serves the closest to a criticism against the concept of Judaism being heavily linked to Communism, something that in itself I find absurd. In other words, I feel that, if the article exists, it should be as strongly tied to the Jewish Bolshevism conspiracy theory as possible, as the two are pretty much inseparable --] (]) 22:58, 6 May 2014 (UTC)
<hr>
:''I agree, and reorganized the first paragraph to make it clearer. I agree that the article should be deleted; while we wait for that to happen, removing the worst aspects makes sense. I'm eager to hear of more ways to make it less terrible and to hasten the inevitable end. ] (]) 23:05, 6 May 2014 (UTC)
.
::Yes, the article is hugely anti-Semitic, and actually fails repeatedly ]. The link between Marx's ancestry and Communism is particularly weak. As it stands, I have mixed feelings on editing. Part of me thinks that, if the anti-Semitic content is removed or altered, the much deeper anti-Semitic undertones will remain unchanged, and deletion will never happen. However, having seen that it failed at articles for deletion twice, makes me think that the administrators don't care too much that the content is offensive. If it has to exist, then it is necessary to edit against the anti-Semitic ]. I appreciate your work anyway, if I can help in any way I will do so --] (]) 23:12, 6 May 2014 (UTC)
== Spelling of username ==
::Now that I think of it, much of the article is original research. It probably warrants the inclusion of a template from here ] --] (]) 23:41, 6 May 2014 (UTC)
Please see 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, ] (]) 17:05, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
:::I saw your message on Jehochman's talk page Mark and how you said you felt like stopping editing WP. I understand that, Jehochman warned me not to edit war, what I was edit warring about was the "Jews killed the tsar" passage and if I could not try to take that out then I wanted no part of WP, put "retired" on my talk page and did not edit again until Galassi removed that passage. That is the area I know the most about, I instantly recognised that "Jews killed the tsar" stuff as classic anti-Semitism, it is no surprise to me that it has apparently been copied from a holocaust denial website. WP is following all the usual bureaucratic procedures here, we are being told that there is "no consensus" not to push anti-Semitism on this site. It is really shocking, the only thing I can see we can do about it is to keep making a fuss. Regards ] (]) 03:47, 8 May 2014 (UTC)
::::::thanks,].Butsee the talkpage;it looks like spikeisbackingtheanti-Semitestothehilt,soI'lllikelybeaformereditortomorrow. Good luck with it. ] (]) 02:40, 9May2014 (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. ] (]) 17:13, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
*Comment - Hey Mark(or anyone else watching), I am about to go to the AfD page in awhile, but want to ask if anyone has informed the Wikiprojects concerning Jewish people or Judaism. It would seem appropriate to notify the projects that are interested in Jewish history, Judaism and such to join the AfD and give opinions on whether the article should be deleted or not. After all, the article is called "Jews and Communism". Thanks! ] (]) 22:36, 9 May 2014 (UTC)
==Norwegian Nazi thugs==
I just notified the History project; please feel free to notify others you think should be notified. Thanks. I have to run. ] (]) 22:48, 9 May 2014 (UTC)
Hi, Mark. You removed Norway as a subsection from the article ], 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.) ] | ] 15:17, 23 October 2017 (UTC).
== ArbCom 2017 election voter message ==
:I have replied to the notice, but I am quite concerned that I may be perceived as being insensitive or overpersonal. As you know, I try to avoid looking at who it is that holds a position when I write a comment or talk page reply. ''']''' (]) 02:50, 10 May 2014 (UTC)
{{Ivmbox|Hello, MarkBernstein. Voting in the ''']''' 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.
::I can't say that I ''did'' know that, though I've now glanced at your User page I know a little more. I'm not quite sure what you're getting at here either, to be honest, though it's late and it's been a long day. I understand your AfD argument, though I think it's mistaken in the context of this project in much the same way that Larry Summers' speculation about women is not indefensible as a matter of academic speculation but was, literally, a silly thing for the president of Harvard to say. ❧ I'll always wonder if you walked into ''Das Judentum in der Musik'' with your eyes wide shut or if this was an elaborate bit of rhetorical wordplay; either way, it's made my day. ] (]) 03:13, 10 May 2014 (UTC)
The ] is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the ]. 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 ], ], editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The ] describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
:::Hi Mark, I am the ignorant new guy and apologize for that so other know it all editors lay off. Is it possible to put a template at the top of the article stating the factuality of the some of the article is questionable, controversial, and thus should not be considered reliable? Is there something like that? I agree the article has issues and seems to have been subject to editors who promote hatred and/or fringe theories. There is also some history there that is not favorable to people of Jewish heritage but has a factual basis. There lies the rub for me in how to balance the article as I do not believe in sweeping history under a rug and neither believe in presenting it a biased manner to promote a fringe or hateful viewpoint. Like many I have mixed feelings about the article but do not believe in deleting controversial subjects unless they are fabricated and have no basis in facts. Book burning is generally considered a suppressive act as would burning the article. Your opinion please. Thanks. ] (]) 11:18, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
If you wish to participate in the 2017 election, please review ] and submit your choices on the ''']'''. ] (]) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)
:::::see the templates already on the page, especially the current discussion at Articles For Deletion. What possible history could conceivably be not favorable to people of Jewish heritage? What could you mean by this? ] (]) 11:59, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
|Scale of justice 2.svg|imagesize=40px}}
<!-- Message sent by User:Xaosflux@enwiki using the list at https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Misplaced Pages:Arbitration_Committee_Elections_December_2017/Coordination/MMS/07&oldid=813406947 -->
== ] ==
* Many times history is seen as unfavorable to people of an ethnicity or nationality and it was not meant to single out Jewish people in a negative light. The article is about Jews and Communism and not Catholic Supporters of Coommunism which would be another very controversial article or Catholic Supporters of Facism (an article that would have legs in my opinion). I grew up Catholic and that has been a sensitive and controversial topic for older Catholics. I realize this a topic that involves much passion for many and apologize if I have offended any. ] (]) 12:28, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
Hi, Mark. Apologies if I'm misreading , 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 ]!'' - I assume most everyone else's is too. :-)
::::::172.56.11.104—you refer to yourself as a . Have you only made ? ] (]) 12:21, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
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 ]. 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. --] (]) 16:34, 8 December 2017 (UTC)
*How is your question relevant to the discussion here? It seems like you are fishing for something. ] (]) 12:48, 14 May 2014 (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. ] (]) 21:01, 8 December 2017 (UTC)
:::Of course, ] is asking whether ] is actually a brand-new editor, or perhaps an old acquaintance contributing anonymously? For example, you ask other know-it-all editors to lay off; it would be pretty unusual for a complete novice to Misplaced Pages to know about know-it-all editors :) And it would be a fairly amazing novice who already knew about templates. On the other hand, you're not Director or Producer; they don't need to ask me about templates, they know all about them! I'm not sure, either, why you're writing to me specifically. So color me confused, but if I'm happy to help. ] (]) 14:50, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
:::: I will clarify as this is your talk page and I commented here. I am a newer editor vs brand new and one who does not spend most of my life on wikipedia and/or other internet social media. I do read wikipedia articles but cautiously and have made some edits from time to time but very sporadically. It seems there is much paranoia in wikipedia which lends proof of agenda pushers, a very paranoid bunch that are afraid their viewpoint will not be the dominant viewpoint and thus misuse articles to promote their agenda. See my tongue and cheek talk page about being watched. I identified myself as new because I was sure my question and wiki technical skills could be seen as ignorant of the wiki rules and culture and they are. I have never heard of you until today and was reading an article proposed for deletion and went to the discussion and after reading it decided to ask the question. I did not post it there as it seemed to be a heated discussion and IP's are generally treated like shit on wikipedia. I have been around long enough to know that- of course one can learn that in one edit. ] (]) 15:14, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
:::::I don't think the IP editor is fishing for anything. It seems that they are just saying that, as a Catholic, they empathise with the discussion at hand, as such an article would be offensive to them if linked tenuously with their given religion. At least, that is what I take from it --] (]) 04:58, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
== Abarnstarfor you! ==
== Arbitration Enforcement block ==
<div class="user-block" style="min-height: 40px">]To enforce an ] and for violations of your topic ban at ] , you have been ''']''' from editing for a period of '''1 year'''. You are welcome to edit once the block expires; however, please note that the repetition of similar behavior may result in a longer block or other sanctions. <p>If you believe this block is unjustified, please read the ] (specifically ]) before appealing. Place the following on your talk page: <!-- Copy the text as it appears on your page, not as it appears in this edit area. --><span style="font-size:97%;">{{tlx|unblock|2=reason=Please copy my appeal to the [[WP:AE{{!}}arbitration enforcement noticeboard]] or [[WP:AN{{!}}administrators' noticeboard]]. ''Your reason here OR place the reason below this template.'' ~~~~}}</span>. If you intend to appeal on the arbitration enforcement noticeboard I suggest you use the ] on your talk page so it can be copied over easily. <div class="sysop-show"><hr/><p style="line-height: 90%;"><small>'''Reminder to administrators:''' In May 2014, ArbCom adopted the following ] 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."</small></p></div></div><!-- Template:uw-aeblock -->
|style="font-size: x-large; padding: 3px 3px 0 3px; height: 1.5em;" | '''The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar'''
|-
|style="vertical-align: middle; padding: 3px;" | Awarded for your work on ]. ] (]) 15:48, 9 May 2014 (UTC)
|}
<span style="font-family:Courier New;font-size:3">]</span><sup>]</sup> 00:44, 11 December 2017 (UTC)
== ] ==
: Ack! What was that? I don't see User:MarkBernstein topic banned anywhere in ]. 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. <small>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).</small> What happened? --] (]) 02:03, 11 December 2017 (UTC)
Hello Mark, a moment of your time please. You said we shouldn't run this on the front page. It is claimed that, since you added your opinion, the article is seriously improved. I would like to ask you to revisit the discussion and, at the bottom, (briefly) state if you are still opposed. It is a matter of some contention, to put it mildly. Thanks in advance, ] (]) 22:14, 9 May 2014 (UTC)
::He was topic banned from Gamergate and people related to Gamergate . His previous topic ban violations resulted in blocks of 1 week, 6 weeks and 6 months. <span style="font-family:Courier New;font-size:3">]</span><sup>]</sup> 02:07, 11 December 2017 (UTC)
::: ]Oh, fast response, thank you. OK, reading , I can see the point, certainly seems harsh at first, but reading, wow ...; I will go away now. --] (]) 02:22, 11 December 2017 (UTC)
== Aaron Swartz ==
*'''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.
Jewish means ethnicity, dude. Not religion. If you remove any reference to this ever again, I'm afraid I'm gonna have to take the judgement to a higher court. ] (]) 20:04, 16 May 2014 (UTC)
* 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.
: Please do! ] (]) 20:09, 16 May 2014 (UTC)
:: ] and ], you're getting close to violating 3R. Please discuss this content on the article talk page rather than edit warring. <font face="Rage Italic" size="4" color="#800080">]</font> <sup><font face="Times New Roman" color="#006400">] ]</font></sup> 20:23, 16 May 2014 (UTC)
@Liz: I left a message ''yesterday'' on the talk page, and left a message on the user's talk page as well. Weirdly, Pinocchio wants to ''add'' the tag to Aaron Swartz, whom I knew, and take it away from Frank Westheimer, whom I knew. The circle of people who intersected both must be fairly small. But I think Pinocchio is new here and just doesn't know how to find the talk page, or something like that. ] (]) 21:03, 16 May 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for the advice, Liz. We'll discuss it on the talk page. ] (]) 10:07, 17 May 2014 (UTC)
==Can Misplaced Pages resist concerted efforts to contaminate it with lies, hate, and deception?==
I was alluding to the scaremongering you were doing and lifted a direct quote from it. In fact once when a particular organisation DID plan to make concerted efforts to subvert Misplaced Pages, it was dealt with effectively by the community/arbcom.] (]) 04:24, 17 May 2014 (UTC)
:I'm not familiar with the details of that episode, but I very much doubt we could resist an attack along the lines I described. How would we? ] (]) 10:54, 17 May 2014 (UTC)
== Genealogical symbols at German Misplaced Pages ==
Hello, I saw that you started the nomination ], with which I have agreed.
I recently tried to start a discussion at ], concerning the German Misplaced Pages, and whether wmf:Non discrimination policy applies to the case of using genealogical symbols. Since I think the topic requires a broader audience from outside the German project, but the WikiProject talk apparently is not very active, I would like to notify you of this discussion, and ask for a comments at Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Judaism, ] (]) 22:01, 17 May 2014 (UTC)
:Thank you. I'm not very familiar with this issue, and in matters of notation (I was trained as a Chemist) I'm often inclined to favor convention. It's interesting that Misplaced Pages uses the addition sign + rather than the typographic dagger †, which I have seen used more often and which seems more objectionable. I'll look at the discussion and help if I can.
:Meanwhile, you may know the answer in policy, or at least have guidance, with regard to the practice of categorizing people as Jewish in their wikipedia page. Clearly, this is appropriate for people who are notable because of their religion or ethnicity, or whose Jewish identity is central to their biography -- Spinoza, Sholem Alecheim, Anne Frank, Saul Below. Guidance is less clear for people whose Jewishness seems incidental to their contribution -- sports stars or actors or scientists who happen to be Jewish -- and even more difficult for people who were not Jewish but had Jewish ancestors (Madeleine Albright, Felix Mendelssohn, Karl Marx). Do you know the relevant policy? ] (]) 22:29, 17 May 2014 (UTC)
Sorry, I had typed a '+' since I was not using Java script, and then forgotten about it. Of course in fact German Misplaced Pages uses the typographic dagger '†'.
"''the answer in policy, or at least have guidance, with regard to the practice of categorizing people as Jewish in their wikipedia page''" - is a difficult question.
I don't know if there have been major internal changes in the policy of the englisch Misplaced Pages in recent years. However, Misplaced Pages in all language versions is an encyclopedia which claims to represent the reliable secondary sources (according to ]) from a ].
Jewishness has aspects of a religion and an ethnicity. So Misplaced Pages must represent the Jewishness of a person in both aspects in the same way as it does with other religions or ethnicities.
Misplaced Pages biographies should try to keep the standards which are common in scientific biographies. In most scientific biographic encyclopaedias, it is common practice to mention only facts which reliable sources unanimously describe as important for the life history or career of the person; while the private life of a person is not considered as relevant, unless the reliable sources say so. In particular, the citizenships of a person are usually mentioned, while religion and ethnicity - and in particular Jewishness - are only mentioned if the reliable sources represent them as important for the public life of the person.
The common practices in scientific biographies in my opinion reflect the achieved degree of individualisation in the modern form of a political state. E.g. the ] or ] have turned religious, ethnic etc. affiliation of a person into private issues, while public rights and obligations are equal for every citizen, regardless of his affiliations.
However, in an open colaborative project like Misplaced Pages, it is practically difficult to maintain encyclopaedic standards in any article or category - since there are many editors with different backgrounds writing on many articles.
For example, ] is defined for "individuals who are of Jewish descent, but not Jewish". I think this definition does not agree with the category's name. Also, it is a subcategory of ], so Jewishness in this category is interpreted one-sided as ethnicity or nation, not as a religion; so there are no similar categories for other Religions (e.g. no ]).
Category:People of Jewish descent has been deleted serveral times, e.g. after ], however was restored again after ].
Generally, the German Misplaced Pages is more reluctant to label people with their religion or ethnicity. E.g. the definition ] demands that a Person has a religious office or profession, or that their biography was decisively influenced by their religion, or they were important for their religion, ] (]) 13:54, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
|style="vertical-align: middle; border-top: 1px solid gray;" | This barnstar is officially presented to ] for starting a ] that created ] and ended up moving a mountain. Thank you for your eloquence and your effort to stop ] on Misplaced Pages. ] (]) 05:34, 19 May 2014 (UTC)
|style="font-size: x-large; padding: 0; vertical-align: middle; height: 1.1em;" | '''The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar'''
|-
|style="vertical-align: middle; border-top: 1px solid gray;" | 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, ] (]) 21:51, 19 May 2014 (UTC)
|}{{z147}}
== Lipscomb page ==
Hello could we please move to "WP:SNOW" on the Suzannah Lipscomb page? I grow weary of all the infighting and reverts. You seem to see this is a farce. ] (]) 11:11, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
:: I believe a snow close requires an admin. Waiting a day or two won't do much harm, will it, if no early closer does appear? ] (]) 11:37, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
well said, cheers] (]) 22:27, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
== ] DRN Report ==
Hello Mark,
It seems as if you and I are pretty much on the same page in terms of what the resolution for the DRN report is. Do you think we should wait for Galaliel to give his comment, or should we just close the DRN report? I'm thinking of closing and leaving a message on both talk pages saying that the resolution has been finalized. Do you think we should wait for more users to reply and give their resolution? --] (]) 01:49, 26 May 2014 (UTC)
I'd wait a day-- it's a holiday weekend in the US -- and then go ahead and close. ] (]) 13:42, 26 May 2014 (UTC)
:Sounds great. Yes, it is Memorial Day weekend. --] (]) 13:43, 26 May 2014 (UTC)
==It would not work==
I don't think an ANI would work. Although there is a RfC in progress he added more than 30 edits. This is Misplaced Pages, the most aggressive and the ones with more time win. I have a family and a job, I cannot compete with such people. And they are very protected. The proof is that anyone else would have already been blocked. But he can do what he wants. --] (]) 19:34, 31 May 2014 (UTC)
: It might work, and even if it didn't work, it might help. This editor just finished a bitter, bitter edit war at ] that went through multiple trips to AN/I and two trips to AfD. I agree with what you've said above and you are not wrong, but shining a light on bad behavior is not always in vain. ] (]) 23:51, 31 May 2014 (UTC)
==Director and AN ==
] This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at ] regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.<!--Template:AN-notice--> Possibly of interest to ] ] ] ]
==RfC/U==
Dear MarkBernstein, as you know I experienced some difficulties dealing with ]. For this reason I have filed a RfC/U to discuss about Director's conduct, because I genuinely believe he dealt with me with improper language. I did not file an AN/I because I am not looking for a sanction but rather I would like to have a large discussion about the issues I have dealing with Director. I honestly believe I am not the only one experiencing this problem.
I need two or more users certifying the basis for the dispute (they can be "Users who tried and failed to resolve the dispute" or "Additional users endorsing this cause for concern"). It is very bureaucratic process but it's like that. Please note that if by the 4th of July 8:30am two users have not certyfied the basis for the dispute, the entire RfC/U is archived and I will have to edit an AN/I which I would like to avoid.
Please let me know if you can help certifying this RfC/U. Just to be clear, finding users willing to certify the basis for the dispute is not ].
You can access to the RfC/U form at ] and fill the section "Users certifying the basis for this dispute". ] (]) 19:11, 2 June 2014 (UTC)
:I think I'm going to give up on Misplaced Pages process, as it seems to be fundamentally corrupt. Good luck to you! ]
==Verifiability and Neutrality may save us in the end==
In case anyone is still watching Mark Bernstein’s page for bat signals, I’ve been thinking.
Perhaps the best way to prevent another ] is to actively foster a culture in which ] and ] matter as much as ].
This could mean perusing AN/I and cautioning admins to take blatant disregard for ] and ] very seriously. Not that incivility isn’t serious, but when a master ] editor succeeds in tying up discussion for weeks in endless, passive-aggressive word games and admins do nothing, good faith editors can only be expected to engage for so long. Admins need to act, or the honest editors ''will'' either quit or snap.
Instead of taking sides in an ANI dispute, question involved editors on what exactly they’re arguing about. Comment on sources, and whether requests for evidence are being honored.
Don’t excuse uncivil behavior, but point out when an overtly uncivil editor has in fact made good faith arguments and offered valid sources, only to be thanked for his trouble with constant evasive word games and obstruction. Suggest that if the intellectually honest uncivil editor is to be sanctioned, the civil POV pusher ought to be as well.
Also, point out when participants in AN/I discussions are making ] attacks instead of addressing the matter at hand, and ask that admins disregard ad hominem arguments. This seems to be a favorite tactic for defending one's POV buddies. “Oh this editor has no credibility because of that one time xyz.”
Take people to AN/I for chronic disregard for ] and ], not just personal attacks and edit warring. Be very explicit in saying that what you’re doing is preventative, because you ''don’t'' want a discussion to devolve into incivility.
You can’t game ] the way you can ] (just push someone until they snap) or ] (just start saying “I know you are but what am I”). Either a source is valid or it isn’t. Either it supports a claim or it doesn't. To make extra sure of this, I’d like to enumerate the tactics for misusing sources on the ] page. Under a subsection called “sources” I think it should read:
They argue for the inclusion of material of dubious reliability; for example, using commentary from partisan think tanks rather than from the scientific literature.
They argue that reliable sources are actually biased while their own preferred sources are neutral.
They insist attempts be made to find reliable sources for dubious claims before removing them from an article. This amounts to requiring other editors try to prove a negative.
When pressed for reliable sources they employ the following tactics in lieu of honoring the request:
* Using a reliable source to verify a claim outside its authors area of expertise. For example an intro to an electrician's handbook is used to verify a statement of historical fact.
* Responding to requests for evidence with Google search results instead of specific citations. "Here you go! Look at all this evidence!"
* Citing reliable sources which in fact contradict their claim, or cherry-picking reliable sources
* Citing non-English language sources
* Citing highly obscure books with no Google books preview
Hope all is well.--] (]) 02:04, 21 June 2014 (UTC)
::::::'''Unsolicited comment inserted after the discussion'''; I find the above to be a powerful and inspiring statement of desire to improve the Misplaced Pages editing community and process in the most sorely needed way. ] ] ] 16:20, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
::I think this makes sense. But I'm skeptical that it will work, or that it will matter. And again it only addresses extremists, fringe science fans and other crackpots; it would have no effect at all against a reasonably professional team with reasonable resources. My sense, further, is that many of the people who dominate Misplaced Pages governance actually like to focus on WP:CIVIL; it makes them feel good without the muss and mess of mastering a subject. WP:VERIFY is not nearly so much fun for the ego. ] (]) 13:22, 21 June 2014 (UTC)
:::This is me purely on ] and ]. I'm gonna keep trying this, until it maybe it catches on. {{u|USchick}}, you can come join the Holy and Sacred Order of WikiVerify as well if you like! I haven't seen you around lately.--] (]) 16:02, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
::::Thank you for the invitation Atlantictire. In my opinion, the JC article was an unusual case where two people from the same region bought into one version of propaganda of their countries, and they also happened to be very experienced editors. Once their version of "truth" hit the international arena of Misplaced Pages, it didn't stand a chance. The subject matter is somewhat obscure, so it took a while for other editors to get involved and up to speed, or to even care, about something that happened in 1917. ] did us all a favor by repeatedly taking individuals to ANI where this obscure subject matter attracted the attention of uninvolved editors. One person (it may have been you) is a music buff and could care less about Communism, but this article became a poster child for injustice everywhere, and at that point, even the supporters of the 2 experienced editors started to question the article. (I named Director here because I don't want him to think we're gossiping about him behind his back. He may have something to add. No doubt! :-)) It took a long time, but the process worked this time, and I think we all learned a lot, I know I did! I learned a lot of history that I would have never known otherwise. I learned about the last Russian King, and I learned how to keep my temper when arguing with difficult people (thank you Director!) and I also learned the importance of building consensus. I'm also thrilled to know that injustice will not be tolerated in the modern world. Mostly, I regained my faith in Mankind. :-) Thank you everyone! What I'm trying to say here, is that all the discussions that seem pointless at the time, are actually very useful when taken as a whole. After all the endless discussions, MarkBernstein came along and flipped the whole thing on its head, simply because the stage had been set and everyone was sick of it. Apparently that's how revolutions happen. Enough people have to be sick of it. Like the revolution in Ukraine for example. ] (]) 19:06, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
:::::I know, {{u|USchick}} but we lost Drowninginlimbo and we've more or less lost MarkBernstein. I'd prefer to just go on my merry way and edit, but this culture of intransigence and POV pushing is even starting to seep into my neck of the woods. The people with fringe viewpoints who can't work collaboratively are now lording over electronics and guitar-related articles, bumming everyone out and driving them away. It wasn't like this four years ago. I'm still going to see what I can do about this culture of non-consensus and admin passivity.--] (]) 19:07, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
::::::There's collateral damage on both sides. I'm sure some people are still mourning the loss of Producer, ha ha! I'm very inspired to see you getting involved in Wiki policy. It will have a lasting effect on this project and I'll be happy to help if there's something specific, call me anytime. When you're calm and rational, your arguments are very meaningful and thought provoking. There were several times I wanted to thank you for your comments, but I didn't want people to say that we were ganging up on them and take us to ANI. Again! lol ] (]) 19:26, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
:::::::Say rather we "mourn" him ever getting himself into this mess. The user was a more prolific contributor than all you ladies and gentlemen combined, one of the "Old Guard". His work was of high quality and much of it was in defense of the Communist Partisans of Yugoslav military history. In spite of everything, I am not convinced the man was an antisemite. <font face="Eras Bold ITC">-- ] <span style="color:#464646">(])</span></font> 10:59, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
I've been pinged here and read the initial post (not to speak of the ''fascinating'' threads above). Let me say I could not agree more with Atlantictire's motion. In the end, who gives a damn about civility - its proper sourcing that ought to be paramount. The problem ofc is that verifying sources is far more difficult than simply blocking someone who says "screw you" or whatever. Misplaced Pages, my young friend, functions #1 as a democracy, and #2 by volunteer work. How are you going to get admins to invest (really much ''much'') more effort in policing than they do now. Remember that only ''uninvolved'' admins can intervene: this is ofc only fair, but here the volunteer thing kicks in: an uninvolved admin probably doesn't much care - which is again a good thing, ensuring neutrality - but how do you get a ''volunteer'' to volunteer for work he doesn't care about?
But as regards Jews and Communism, I'd like to remind everyone that the reliability of the sources themselves was never really brought into question, and it can not be said they were generally misquoted. It is the evidence of their being cherry picked to place undue weight that was inappropriate, and given the subject - disgusting. Indeed, it was precisely over-adherence to WP:V and NPOV that supported the article. The sources, were, as I said, most certainly "verifiable". They were verified by many, including myself. Unearthing evidence of cherry picking and undue weight was not "verification" - it was detective work, and impressive at that... <font face="Eras Bold ITC">-- ] <span style="color:#464646">(])</span></font> 10:51, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
: '''Comment.''' Before anyone loses it and goes off the deep end, I would like to point out that people are entitled to their opinions, even if they happen to be extreme. On Misplaced Pages, people with extreme view points are regular editors with no special powers. In real life, people with extreme view points are often found in very powerful positions and make life and death decisions about other human beings. It's important to understand that this phenomenon exists, so that you're not blindsided by it. Cheers! (I'm stepping out of this discussion before I lose it and say something very uncivil.) ] (]) 17:00, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
:: What "extreme view"! The sources ''were'' "verifiable", and to say otherwise is absurd! There was that misquotation USchick found, but by and large they all checked out as mainstream, reliable, scholarly sources. I am merely trying to help by pointing out the apparent misunderstanding of the whole issue. The reason the thing was supported by so many Wikipedians, myself included, is precisely that the sources were so good. Atlantictire doesn't seem to get where the problem was. There was no violation (generally speaking) of WP:V. It was WP:NPOV. That may sound like its less serious, but in fact its a more grievous violation. But how will you get disinterested volunteers to check these things day after day. The evidence of wrongdoing here was such that its a miracle it was unearthed at all on Misplaced Pages. <font face="Eras Bold ITC">-- ] <span style="color:#464646">(])</span></font> 10:14, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
::::Atlantictire is not the only one who doesn't get where the problem was. Actually, he understands it just fine. ] (]) 17:33, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
As you see, even the perpetrator of ] can make WP:V jump through hoops. Want to find sources for any discredited canard ? You can find them! And they’re quoted accurately! They may be fifty years old, they may be absurd outliers, but hey! They’re quoted accurately! Look: I can assemble them together! Look: I can edit-war any changes to my assembly because they’re OR, or NPOV, or you're looking at me funny instead of being WP:CIVIL! There’s no hope at all. ] (]) 18:33, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
:Pathetic yes, hopeless no. You turned it around MarkBernstein! :) YOU.
:What a bunch of sissies. I have been dealing with Director for years. Y E A R S ! You guys had one interaction with him and you're whining. Oh please, stop whining. I hope no one takes me to ANI over this. lol (At least over a year, but it was agonizing sometimes, and sometimes it was a lot of fun. Remember when I suggested that Jesus was the first Jewish Communist and should be featured as the lede image? Then I backed it up with sources. Yes, there are sources for that! That's when Director lost it and took me to ANI. I was dying laughing. He couldn't figure out if I was serious or not. Good times!) ] (]) 19:41, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
::Jesus was the first Jewish Communist. That's why the first communist experiments of the early modern era were German Protestant. The Radical Reformers had a very literal reading of Acts 2:44.
::I think what Mark is saying is that we don't come to Misplaced Pages to spend 3 months explaining this to people who don't want to listen, or that "Jews and Communism" is SYNTH with repellant implications. This isn't fun for us. This went on for as long as it did because of who the admins who adjudicate ANI are. It's driving away the ethical editors, and by ethical I don't mean politically correct. I mean committed to fact checking and NPOV.--] (]) 02:49, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
:::I can appreciate that you think your time is valuable. I think my time is just as valuable, and just for fun, I would be willing to compare with you all of our individual hourly billable rates. Director is a medical professional, so you may want to think about his hourly rate before you answer. You seem to be discounting years of effort that it took for people to push this POV and then the effort it took to finally overturn it. I'm not even talking about this last version, apparently there were previous versions that were deleted and then the article reappeared again. And I anticipate that you will see it again in the future, so you may as well brace for it. Like you said, fringe POV ideas are everywhere, even in music articles, so you may as well figure out how you're going to deal with it, not just for three months, but for the rest of your life. Welcome to the real world. I think it's important for every individual to decide what's the best use of their time and then to pursue it. Otherwise, you're just spinning your wheels. ] (]) 06:47, 2 July 2014 (UTC)
|style="vertical-align: middle; padding: 3px;" | Thank you for your diligent efforts improving the quality of the article on ]. — ''']''' (]) 10:59, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
|}
== Notice ==
{{Ivmbox
|'''Please read this notification carefully:'''<br>A ] has authorised the use of ] for pages related to the ], such as ], which you have recently edited.<br>The details of these sanctions are described ].
] is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimise disruption in controversial topic areas. This means ] administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to these topics that do not adhere to the ], our ], or relevant ]. Administrators may impose sanctions such as ], ], or ]. An editor can only be sanctioned after he or she has been made aware that general sanctions are in effect. This notification is meant to inform you that sanctions are authorised in these topic areas, which you have been editing. It is only effective if it is logged ]. Before continuing to edit pages in these topic areas, please familiarise yourself with the general sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.
This message is informational only and does not imply misconduct regarding your contributions to date. ] (]) 23:46, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
| Commons-emblem-notice.svg
| icon size = 50px}}
== Huh? ==
] (]) 18:09, 15 November 2014 (UTC)
:Oh, man! I'm so sorry. It was a misclick: I thought I’d cancelled, and I '''checked''' at the time that I'd succeeded in canceling. But obviously I didn't. I'm terribly embarrassed. ] (]) 19:00, 15 November 2014 (UTC)
::No worries; I think someone else fixed it already. Thanks, ] (]) 00:52, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
== Regarding your Arbcom statement on Gamergate ==
{{quote|I have read the reddit thread cited there, and see no clear support for the allegation made in that paragraph that a specific editor is engaged in paid editing. In a regular talk page discussion, I would be inclined to delete such a comment as a probable WP:BLP issue...}}
... But there is actually at least an attempt to evidence the claim (and personally I can see the reasoning pretty clearly).
{{quote|...off-wiki efforts to inquire into Ryulong’s sexuality, address, and religious affiliation -- efforts which appear to be coordinated with a campaign to convince Arbcom to accept this case}}
Meanwhile, you assert this without evidence. I certainly have not even seen an allegation along these lines prior to this point, and in all the off-wiki discussion I've seen about Ryulong (and there is a lot) those topics have not come up.
Do you really not think this is hypocritical?
Besides which, I can't fathom your reasoning. You imagine that there are people out there who think that determining and stating Ryulong's "sexuality, address and religious affiliation" will somehow make Arbcom '''more''' inclined to take the case? And anyway, the case was already at "plus four twenty-four" by a good margin before NativeForeigner's vote, and is at +4 again.
] (]) 19:14, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
::I'm sorry, 74.12.93.242: I don't follow what you're asking. You requested that I relocate the URLs; I did so an expressed a willingness to supply them to any admin on request. Obviously, posting them on Misplaced Pages would be wrong; do you disagree? I think Arbcomm members will want to be aware of efforts to intimidate and harass a Misplaced Pages editor, don’t you? I think these efforts might be pertinent when assessing Ryulong at AN/I: do you disagree? ] (]) 19:24, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
::::... What? I didn't say anything about "relocating URLs". I argued that you ought to hold yourself to the same standard of evidence to which you hold others.
== Alright, prove it ==
Prove to me that Retartist is totally not in the right mind to be on Misplaced Pages, per WP:NOTHERE. I've heard so so so many people cite that policy or guideline and completely misconstrue what it means. Let's see if your opinion has its basis in fact or fantasy. ] (]) 04:07, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
:You’re so cute when you’re angry! But seriously: I'm not the droid you’re looking for, ]. I'm not one of the Five Horsemen of Misplaced Pages against which ] is leading his <strike>evil minions</strike> allies in the 8chan crusade, nor am I one of the ranks of hostile admins whom they hope to lure to their destruction.
:Why do "so, so many people" think that account is WP:NOTHERE? Let me count the ways. The 8chan board specifically seeks out Misplaced Pages accounts that have some old editing history: check. The account consistently pushes a single POV on a cluster of tightly-related pages: check. The account starts edit wars trying to wedge some exculpatory snippet into Misplaced Pages’s gamer gate coverage and seeking to file dubious claims against its opponents: check. The account is followed about by sea lions making demands (above) and asserting I'm being crazy ]: check. Oh -- but ethics! ] (]) 16:21, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
::Your very use of the phrases "sea lions" and the sarcastic "oh -- but ethics!" clearly indicate your own standpoint on the matter. No surprises there. But I feel compelled to point out how absurd the "sea lion" concept is in this context - Misplaced Pages not only is a ''public'' space, and the Talk pages in particular a ''public discussion'' space (even if "not a forum"), but it's also one where civility and politeness are ''expected by default''. It's ridiculous to complain about being overwhelmed by polite people who politely disagree with you, here, in a space where discussion happens and reaching consensus is an explicit goal. Having a minority viewpoint (even if it's backed up by a majority of "reliable" sources) doesn't make you a victim of harassment. ] (]) 16:16, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
:::Having admins ''politely'' discuss a software developer’s (blameless) sex life in public, and state that there are further details he knows but can't yet discuss -- that's just dandy, right? ] (]) 16:21, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
::::MB, I recommend not engaging with this guy. PS you are awesome for calling shit ]. I can't believe this stuff being OK is what these guys ]. ] <sup>'']''</sup> 21:20, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
==Talkback==
{{talkback|Ryulong|ts=20:52, 21 November 2014 (UTC)}}
—] (]) 20:52, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
== Hi ==
You seem to not know how ] works. I'll tell you what I know about it from the WP page and my contact. If you've heard of ], its not the same. Uncyc aims to parody the very nature of Misplaced Pages, or some of its articles. ED on the other hand, is a strange inverse of Misplaced Pages. Inverting BLP, and most notability policies, they aim to document "lulz". They'll write a hitpiece on anyone, really, so long as some drama has happened. They've even wrote a page on their own founder, including dox, iirc. Point is, ED is an example of the Third Party Trolls I keep telling everyone about. Hopefully this helps. Cheers. --] ] 05:09, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
|style="vertical-align: middle; padding: 3px;" | Re . don't let the trolls get to you! -- ] 20:25, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
|}
== Insinuations ==
Please, stop the insinuations. If only 8chan were so lucky to have at their disposal a meatpuppet which has written 4 Good Articles, eh? As well as also having an admin in their ranks? Do you understand what you are accusing people of? How would '''you''' like to be called an editor editing at the behest of 8chan? ]] ''']''' 08:47, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
: I suppose you and I disagree about the importance of wikipedia's inquiry into the sex lives of young women in computing. If you believe that my comments yesterday were an ''insinuation'', however, I must have failed to make myself clear. I regret that; perhaps I ought to re-read my Zola.] (]) 14:07, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
::So if your comments were not meant to be an insinuation, what were they? An open accusation? Please don't be disingenuous. ]] ''']''' 00:09, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
::::If you're unwilling to directly apologize, fine. Consider the matter closed. ]] ''']''' 10:30, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
Mark, I've removed your comment to ] as it was remarkably inappropriate. I understand that things can get headed when editing articles which document appalling real world behavior, but that should not be an excuse for making such accusations. Please don't make such statements again. ] <small>(])</small> 21:54, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
Sorry, ]. I'm puzzled, honestly, which you think that was worse than my previous comment. But I'm gone -- I only happened to stop by here to clean up some loose ends, and that reminds me to thank you for intermittent help over several years. I can no longer condone assisting Misplaced Pages, which seems unable to maintain standards of common sense and common decency; I hope you will find a way to fix things, and if you do and there's some way I can help, give me a call or email bernstein at eastgate.com . No need to reply here, as it's possible I won't be checking back. Best of luck to you. http://www.markbernstein.org/Nov14/CallToArms.html ] (]) 22:18, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
== Enforcement ==
You've just posted a huge block of text at the enforcement page. I wanted to remind you that the page places a strict 500 word limit on statements. Please shorten your statement. ] — ] 22:42, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
:Sorry. It's hard to keep track of all the rules and customs. I'll replace it with a pointer if I may; or if not, please delete. ] (]) 22:54, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
::A "pointer" is perfectly acceptable. ] — ] 23:01, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
:Sorry to give you trouble. But I've spent a lot of time working on wikis and open hypermedia, and I really do believe that, if we can't handle something like this, the enterprise is deservedly doomed. ] (]) 23:06, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
== Thank you ==
for your efforts here. I saw your messages on some other pages and although I don't actually remember seeing you (sorry about that) I can see from your history that you have been a valuable and productive contributor here, and I think you deserve our thanks for that. You do seem to have some concerns about the project that a lot of other people share, and I wish we were able to figure out how to deal with them. Maybe in time we will. If so, I hope that you consider maybe offering some of your time to this project again. Best of luck. ] (]) 00:04, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
*{{ping|MarkBernstein}} Wholeheartedly agree with User {{User|John Carter}}! Please stay in touch. There is a teaching in Judaism that "a little light dispels a lot of darkness" and you have been such a light on Misplaced Pages and elsewhere and I encourage you not to give up. Stay connected in some way. Thank you for all your efforts and wishing you much success. Sincerely, ] (]) 04:21, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
* 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.
** I've never made a secret of identity or email, and if Idont answer email within 24 hrs try phone CS spam bucket. My email address has been on the web since 1984, so my spam filter gas to be overactive, but this really is it; until wikipedia has an decent answer, I can't help, and nor should you.n] (]) 04:52, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
== What? ==
I just read the general sanction post, I don't even get you, what were you trying to imply? I don't even remember this DSA guy, I probably left him one message on his talk page like I did with The Devil's Advocate, that isn't called conspiring is asking for second opinions. What I have problems with though is, hopefully I'm reading this wrong, is that you're implying that something must be done or something bad will happen to you? I saw your edits on the GG talk page and that's the first and last time I heard your name and moved on. What the hell are you on about? Also that 8chan post, you do realize that it's an anonymous board right? Would you trust if I went there and said I was Jimbo Wales that it was him? That post doesn't even say anything bad, just informing/guessing what would happen with the ArbCom case, where did you get I was conspiring with this DSA guy? ] (]) 06:07, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
Read the t8chan board I linked. No way for me to know if the eds there are the same as here, obviously, or different people using the same names. Since these people have threatened violence before, I thought it prudent to inform ArbCom, some other admins, some journalists and friends, and some places that have eyes. Doubtless overkill, but safety first. Excuse brevity: I have other concerns now, obviously. ] (]) 06:22, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
== This accusation ==
Mark, is not appropriate. I can assure you I am not part of any off-site coordination, and no one is looking to "deploy" me. If you cannot back up this accusation with facts, be the better person and remove it. ] (]) 12:21, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
== Your actions could hurt people ==
Hi Mark, given that your aim here seems to be to minimize harassment and harm, you really ought to reconsider your current actions. For someone who understands the dangers of being publicly involved in GamerGate so well, you are showing a marked lack of empathy for some of your fellow editors. Multiple editors (including one you accused of being in an 8chan cabal) have been doxxed and harassed. By quote mining editors, and accusing them of being rape apologists and weapons of 8chan, often with minimal evidence, you are making them targets for harassment.
You should be cautious when it comes to construing editors contacting GGers as collusion. Even Ryulong has posted on /r/KotakuInAction. Other editors post on these forums to try and quell the mob, and some of the posts by the alleged DSA in that thread, read as such (like when he tells 8chan to cut Future Perf "a little slack"). I myself posted on 8chan once to point out their "Wikiproject Feminism controls the GamerGate article" theory was absolute nonsense. Does this mean I am evil and collude with 8chan? I hope not.
While GamerGate may have large angry mob elements, you need to recognize that another angry mob also exists, even if it is much smaller. By spreading rumours about wiki-editors online, while using minimal evidence, you raise the potential of exposing them to an angry mob that could try to exact vigilante justice. I hope you reconsider the extreme accusations you are making against wikipedia editors, and try to tone it down a bit. ] (]) 13:23, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
: kthxbye] (]) 15:36, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
::Take care, hope you will return and thanks for contributing on ]. ] <small>(] • ] • ])</small> 04:37, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
== ] 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 ]. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at ]. '''Please add your evidence by December 11, 2014, which is when the evidence phase closes.''' You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, ]. For a guide to the arbitration process, see ]. For the Arbitration Committee, ] <sup>(]•]•]•])</sup> 22:27, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
: @Ks0stm: I no longer contribute to Misplaced Pages, in protest of its shameful treatment of the victims of Gamergate. Nevertheless, feel free to contact me by email or call my office if you have any questions, or if I can assist Arbcom in any way. ] (]) 00:56, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
== Topic ban ==
{{Ivmbox
|2=Commons-emblem-hand.svg
|imagesize=50px
|1=The following sanction has been imposed on you:
{{Talkquote|1=Indefinite topic ban on edits and discussion related to GamerGate, broadly construed. This ban does not include participation on ArbCom pages regarding any relevant case.}}
You have been sanctioned for disruptive rhetoric and behavior incompatible with collaborative editing.
This sanction is imposed in my capacity as an ] as authorised by the community's decision at ], and the procedure described by the ]. This sanction has been recorded in the log of sanctions for that decision. If the sanction includes a ban, please read the ] to ensure you understand what this means. If you do not comply with this sanction, you may be ] 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 at the ]. 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.<!-- Template:Community sanction.--> ] <small>(])</small> 17:39, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
}}
==] nomination of ]==
]
A tag has been placed on ] requesting that it be speedily deleted from Misplaced Pages. This has been done under ], because the page appears to consist of writings, information, discussions, and/or activities not closely related to Misplaced Pages's goals. Please note that ]. Under the ], such pages may be deleted at any time.
If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may '''contest the nomination''' by ] and clicking the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with ]. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request ]. <!-- Template:Db-notwebhost-notice --> <!-- Template:Db-csd-notice-custom --> ] (]) 06:05, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
== Contested deletion ==
This page should not be speedily deleted because... (it does not meet the requirement of "where the owner has made few or no edits outside of userspace") --] (]) 06:24, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
*{{ping|Retartist}}, I'm declining this because like ] has stated, MarkBernstein has made other edits outside of his userspace. Because of this, the only ways to delete this would be to take it to ] or to have MarkBernstein mark it as a speedy deletion as ]. MarkBernstein, while this page does squeak by on that technicality, you do seem to be using your userpage as somewhat of a defacto blog post where you talk about various issues currently in Misplaced Pages that you are involved in, some of which are obviously quite contentious. (I have no opinion on any of that material one way or another or on your participation in said pages, so I figured that I'd be a good neutral party to weigh in on the userpage speedy.) I'd highly recommend that you host this material on your own website as you've stated you're willing to do on your userpage. While this doesn't fall under the speedy qualifications, it really isn't all that appropriate to host on Misplaced Pages because it does fall under ] for the most part. ]] 07:33, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
:{{replyto|Tokyogirl79}}I think I might nominate it per ]. Depends only on how I feel when I get up tomorrow, since, as you yourself note, it's obvious the material "isn't all that appropriate to host on Misplaced Pages." Cheers, '''<span style="text-shadow:7px 7px 8px #B8B8B8;">]]</span>''' 02:16, 8 December 2014 (UTC)
There is no possibility of anything not bad from continued discussions at ]. I would advise a big /ignore and walking away now. -- ] 00:22, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
:I'd welcome your explanation of what the hell is going on? 03:05, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
::they are trying to bait you into doing something . dont do it. there is ''nothing'' you could do that would lead to a good end, only bad or terrible or worse. -- ] 04:02, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
== Blocked ==
I have blocked you for one week under the general sanctions provision for violating your topic ban with these edits: . <span style="white-space:nowrap">— ] | ] | 00:08, 4 January 2015 (UTC)</span>
:I was not aware that any discussion of outing Ryulong was "Gamergate, broadly construed." But as I stated in my edit, I have no desire to contribute to Misplaced Pages further than what I believed was a necessary protest against patent injustice. ] (]) 00:18, 4 January 2015 (UTC)
== The "conspiracy theory" thing ==
In response to your piece , I did not accuse you or anyone else of being part of a conspiracy. What I did suggest is that a single admin seized an opportunity to sanction an editor he had long wanted to sanction, while using your sanction to make it more palatable as well as make himself look good in general despite his obvious opposition to it.--] <sub>] ]</sub> 05:25, 4 January 2015 (UTC)
== Notice ==
] There is currently a discussion at ] regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is ]. <!--Template:ANI-notice--> Thank you. ] (]) 23:13, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
== Gender gap task force ==
Hi Mark, I saw the article in the Guardian today about ].
I haven't followed the Gamergate case, so I can't judge the proposed decision, but you should know that the recent case about disruption at the ] (the case is ]) resulted in something similar.
In case you're not familiar with it, the GGTF was set up to discuss the gender gap on WP, but as soon as we got it started, several men turned up to disrupt it. The ArbCom handed out indefinite bans against two people (one or both of them women) who tried to stop the disruption, and only topic bans against some of the men who had caused it. Other men who had caused the disruption were not sanctioned at all. ] <small><sup>]</sup></small> 16:22, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
== Breach of Topic Ban ==
This is a notification to make you aware that I made a request for enforcement against you here . Have a nice day ] (]) 16:17, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
== Blocked ==
<div class="user-block" style="min-height: 40px"> To enforce a {{#if:|]| ]}}, ]you have been ''']''' from editing for '''a month'''. You are welcome to ] once the block expires; however, please note that the repetition of similar behavior may result in a longer block. If you believe this block is unjustified, please read the ] and then appeal your block using the instructions there. ] | ] 16:42, 24 January 2015 (UTC) <hr/><p><small>'''Reminder to administrators:'''<br>Community sanctions are enacted by community consensus. In order to overturn this block, you must either receive the approval of the blocking administrator or seek consensus at a community noticeboard.</small></div><!-- Template:uw-csblock -->
:This block is made in accordance with the ] and may not be reversed without my consent or consensus at AN or ANI. Should the arbitration case close before the block expires, it will become a discretionary sanction under arbitration enforcement provisions. The reason for the block is a violation of your topic ban by discussing the GamerGate controversy elsewhere than the arbitration case (namely ]), and because your edits show no intent to separate yourself from the topic area, which is the purpose of a topic ban—you have repeatedly skirted the edges of your topic ban by avoiding explicit mentions of GamerGate, and I have let these slide in the hope that you would move on. As you have continued, and now unambiguously violated your topic ban, I see no choice but to block you. The duration is relatively lenient given that the majority of your edits since your topic ban have been in some way related to GamerGate; unless you separate yourself from the topic area or successfully appeal your topic ban after this block expires, the next block will be considerably longer. You may appeal this block by making a statement and using {{tl|unblock}} or {{tl|adminhelp}} to request it be copied to AN or ANI. ] | ] 16:42, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
::In fact, on reflection, I believe you have no intent to stick to separate yourself from the topic area and you will continue to skirt the edges of it and even outright violate it. In addition, your previously stated that you had no interest in continuing to contribute to Misplaced Pages, and almost every edit you've made since has been in some way related to GamerGate. Thus, I have increased the duration to one month. If you carry on regardless after a month, the next block will be a year. ] | ] 17:00, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
==MfD nomination of ]==
], a page you substantially contributed to, has been nominated for ]. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at ] and please be sure to ] with four tildes (<nowiki>~~~~</nowiki>). You are free to edit the content of ] during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you.<!-- Template:MFDWarning --> ] (]) 14:02, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
:Petty gestures might be annoying, but of course I can‘t respond there. That page is a sentimental gesture, a token of nostalgic respect for an institution to which I rendered long and substantial service and which, even now, might better be occupied in improving itself -- in averting an infamous decision, correcting its thoughtless neglect of volunteers exposed to braying harassment, and correcting its careless failure to show care for Misplaced Pages’s victims.
:Misplaced Pages talk pages are frequently used for essays. ]'s talk page currently features a sea lion, perhaps to celebrate the recent Arbcom decision. The user page for , who tried this in December, features a picture of a young woman who, it seems, has misplaced both the top of her bathing suit and her contact lenses, and who is in consequences crawling about the pavement in search of one or the other.
:It is possible that responding at all to this is a violation of my current ban, or will be construed that way, unless this is part of an appeal. So: if necessary, I hereby appeal the ban, issued on 25 minutes notice, for an edit in Jimbo’s talk page in a thread concerning my work and under a title that bore my name, and to which numerous editors had already made contributions, not all of them strictly in accord with Misplaced Pages policy; that I had every right in WikiLaw and custom to post there as my topic ban excluded the arbitration proceedings of which that thread appeared to be the sanctioned and designated place for discussion. I further suggest a WP:BOOMERANG. I acknowledge this is not the correct form, but have no idea what the correct form might be; passing editors may adapt it as necessary to sit the required form. I do not intend to pursue this further at this time. ] (]) 14:46, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
::To clarify are you appealing your topic ban, siteban or both? ] (]) 15:10, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
::Withdrawn as too contentious. However I do offer to replace your userpage with as a diplomatic solution. ] (]) 16:32, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
== Your topic ban ==
There is a widespread view in the community that topic bans can be a restriction on not just disruption, but on dissent and free speech. Your topic ban was intended to prevent disruption, namely disparagement of individual editors. However, it has also served to silence your dissent about this issue and has prompted those who disagree with that dissent to play gotcha when you have made non-disruptive statements tangentially related to the matter covered by the topic ban. Arguably, a case could be made that the violations of the topic ban you have been blocked for were not covered by the scope of the ban or were very minor violations, and in neither case was it an example of the disruptive behavior that prompted me to impose the topic ban. As you know, I have pondered this matter for quite some time and I am convinced that the topic ban has become punitive and not preventive. Given your assurances that you will no longer engage in the disruptive behavior that prompted the ban, I am now lifting the sanction completely. This does not affect your current block imposed by a different administrator, which as per policy will remain in place until it is removed by the administrator who imposed it, it is removed by a consensus arrived at through a community discussion at ] or elsewhere, or it expires. ] <small>(])</small> 22:06, 7 February 2015 (UTC)
== Unblocked ==
Hi Mark. As we discussed by email, I've unblocked you with the sole condition that you avoid personally directed comments; this isn't a sanction but more of a gentlemen's agreement. There should be no need to comment on anybody's person anyway—it's perfectly possible, as I'm sure you know, to criticise contributions and opinions without attacking the person making them. If you have any problems with the autoblock (you shouldn't, but jist in case), let me know. ] | ] 17:52, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
:{{re|HJ Mitchell}} Please see the bottom of this page for your gentleman's agreement. --] (]) 21:02, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
::{{ping|DHeyward}} It appears that Dreadstar has dealt with this. I trust his judgement. AE is the best venue for any future concerns. Mark: I strongly suggest you heed Dreadstar's final warning. Admins aren't daft; if an editor is causing problems, they'll get their comeuppance sooner or later, but by commenting on their person you put yourself in that same category of "editors causing problems", especially by doing so on an article talk page. You're not prohibited from filing enforcement requests if you feel an editor's conduct is in need of scrutiny. ] | ] 21:11, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
:::{{ping|HJ Mitchell}}: Noted, apologized already, as you have seen and as {{ping|DHeyward}} should know. I've even done an hour of community service, cleaning up Uninstaller and trying to improve Dudley Herschbach. I even took a glance at Cleavage, now at AN/I, but promptly ran away -- have fun with that.
::: On the question of the daftness of admins, you know that I have reservations -- some expressed yesterday in verse, others mentioned in my recent memorandum to you. I welcome your views.
::: In point of fact, confidence that the exemplary care you have shown at Frank Wu could reliably be anticipated elsewhere would do a great deal to alleviate these excursions and alarums, whether pursued by bears or by ''fans''. Both Brianna Wu and Sarkeesian have been beleaguered -- and I see Brianna’s page is now at AN/I. As for filing enforcement requests, again my perspective may differ from yours based on my own experience; if you'd like to convince me that experience is uncharacteristic or misinterpreted, you have my address and I'm all ears. ] (]) 21:46, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
== Email ==
Thanks for letting me know. ] ] <small>Please {{]}}</small> 21:32, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
== ARCA ==
You are involved in a recently-filed request for clarification or amendment from the Arbitration Committee. Please review the request at ] and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. Additionally, the ] may be of use.
Thanks,<!-- Template:Arbitration CA notice -->
] (]) 04:55, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
== Friendly advice ==
Re . Don't. There is no need for you to make a statement. I'd suggest you stay silent, as I'm hard-pressed to see the advantages in making a statement. Something along the lines of "my editing speaks for itself," would be perfectly acceptable. ] (]) 15:20, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
:{{ping|Hipocrite}} First they went to HJMitchell. Then they went to Gamaliel. Now they go to ARCA, which is telling them to go to AE where it will be easier to find one sympathetic admin. After that, we can go to ARBCOM again -- and of course now there's a much larger audience ]. Of course, if a bunch of respected editors were there saying "Bernstein’s editing speaks for itself," that might demonstrate that there's no need for me to contribute. ] (]) 15:25, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
:: That's fair. However, given that you've just won at ARCA, showing up has no real upside that I can see. The next step is AE, where I'll def chime in with "editing speaks for self." ] (]) 15:35, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
::: Sigh. ] (]) 16:02, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
:::: Don't worry about it. At some point this is just going to get ]y. — ] (]) 16:16, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
::::: {{ping|Strongjam}} You mean it's not pointy now? I mean, they've forum shopped it to two admins, then ARCA. What’s next? ] (]) 16:23, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
:::::: Give enough rope and all that. You've got nothing to worry about, an ] against you would be thin on evidence and given what you just mentioned I imagine it would boomerang. — ] (]) 16:30, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
==Final warning==
One more comment about another editor as you did and I will sanction you. Period. I've removed the comment. ] <small>]</small> 06:02, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
:Quite right: my mistake. I'd meant to write of edits, not editor; a morning spent reading AE and ARCA, where this topic appears quite often, put it in my mind, and as I'd been famously finagling metrical feet on one keyboard while coping with a shipment of defective USB sticks on the other and doing this in stolen moments on the third, I thoughtlessly edited myself poorly. Please don't bite the oldies. ] (]) 14:03, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
::Thanks for that Mark; the GG articles are very contentious and subject to a lot of disruption (as if I have to tell you that... :); It's a slippery slope, if you can make comments about others, why can't others make comments, etc etc etc. So yes, I understand the temptation and frustration; and appreciate your recognition of the issues here. ] <small>]</small> 21:56, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
::: {{ping|Dreadstar}} OK: I can't let ''that'' pass, Dreadstar. In point of fact, other editors have consistently and repeatedly disparaged me and my writing, with hardly a peep from any watching administrator. For choice examples, see the top of my weblog, the WMF press release, and the ArbCom press statement. A huge thread at User Talk:Jimbo was devoted to disparaging the subject of its title, "Mark Bernstein’s weblog post." I acquiesce in this, but I can’t endorse this by not objecting. ] (]) 22:06, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
::::Unfortunately, I have not seen or been made aware of the other instances you mention - even on GG, the traffic is high and I may not see all that occurs. And there is a difference between comments about others on Jimbo's talk page, and those made on an article talk page. An article's talk page is '''not''' the right place to discuss the behavior of other editors, especially pages like GG that are subject to high amounts of disruption. If you want to talk about the behavior of other editors, then the user talk pages are the right place to start - and ] goes into more detail about the steps from there. If others are making comments about you on the GamerGate article talk pages, please bring them to my attention and I will deal with them. ] <small>]</small> 04:45, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
== Arbitration amendment request archived ==
Hi MarkBernstein, an arbitration amendment request that you were listed as a party to has been closed and archived to ]. For the Arbitration Committee, --''']''' (] / ] / ]) 02:24, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
|style="vertical-align: middle; padding: 3px;" | I just saw your response at ARCA, perhaps the most moving poem I have heard since "On the Pulse of Morning"! Bravo! -- ] 20:20, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
|}
== Conflict of Interest ==
Hi {{u|MarkBernstein}}, I am concerned that you have a conflict of interest, per ], which would affect your editing of the ] Article. (See diffs: )
The section edited contains a reference, "{{tq|quotes from a Misplaced Pages editor alleging unfair treatment}}", to you, and your writings; which you have also linked to on Misplaced Pages on a number of occasions. (See: et al)
I respectfully request that, per ], you refrain from directly editing this section of the ] article (and any other section which references you or your writings); that you propose any changes through the Article Talk page; and that you self revert the changes that you have made.
I make an additional personal request that you refrain from linking to your writings in comments; this is disruptive to the workings of the Misplaced Pages Project. - ] <sup>]</sup> 02:37, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
: That's not a conflict of interest. ] (]) 12:21, 22 February 2015 (UTC). Your request that people not link their writings is invalid. ] (]) 12:22, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
{{ping| talk:Ryk72}} As ] suggests, apparently you misunderstand conflict of interest and also, separately, misunderstand Misplaced Pages policy and practice on links.
It is not a conflict of interest to link to work that mentions work one has done, much less to link to work that mentions work that responds to work one has done. To do so would eliminate broad swaths of people from editing encyclopedias -- professors, writers, critics, and legislators. Knowing something about a topic does not unfit one for Misplaced Pages editing. Further, the section of ] about which you write fails to mention me or to link to my writing, and to do so bends itself in knots. For example, it claims that other news reports depend on ''The Guardian'' while in fact they depend on ''Infamous'' ; newspapers like ''Der Standard'' and journals like ''Social Text'' do not "parrot" (in Misplaced Pages’s former phrase) reports in other newspapers. But I have not taken the obvious step of correcting the omission, lest my numerous and attentive GamerGate fans should take offense; rather, I have tried to amend the passage so that it no longer so clearly compels newspapers, magazines, or writers’ unions to seek redress against Misplaced Pages. As my interests here do not necessarily align with Misplaced Pages's, these are rather edits ''against'' my personal interest, not conflicts of interest.
Misplaced Pages policy on off-wiki links is equally clear; they may be freely used to illustrate and explain points properly under discussion, provided they do not contain material prohibited by policy, such as libels. No doubt when I think I recall that you defended including links to frankly libelous material about GamerGate last week, I'm confusing you with another of your GamerGate pals; you agree, then, that NorthBySouthBaranof was correct in removing libelous links despite his topic ban and the GamerGate/KiA opponents who wished to sanction him were wrong? In any case, that nothing in "" is prohibited by policy could not be clearer, as it has been prominently linked here for some considerable time as uncounted administrators and arbitrators and Foundation board members know.
As you observe, “Infamous” and its successors have been widely discussed. Links to widely-discussed essays are frequently useful to Misplaced Pages discussions of related topics; I cannot imagine why anyone interested in the Encyclopedia would wish to discourage that. ] (]) 17:27, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
== Personalizing the dispute ==
{{hat}}
Mark, is now you've implied I'm somehow in league with some group or something. I've made great efforts to not personalize this dispute , and I would appreciate the same in response. Thank you. ] (]) 18:01, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
I think it's pretty clear the first comment linked to above is not meant to be taken seriously. I suspect the second is in the same vein (let's ] after all), but whatever the intent I think that you should refrain from making these kinds of comments in the future lest they be interpret as insults. ] <small>(])</small> 18:59, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
:<small>edit conflict</small>My Dear (though ''Furioso'') Orlando: In the first diff, ] has left you a message about "Masem’s talk." In my world, a "talk" is a public lecture, typically given at a conference, convention, or educational institution. As you may recall, I gave one of these at Southampton last month on a topic of mutual interest. In light of that, and of Masem’s ''Signpost'' article, I supposed that ] referred to something of a similar nature that Masem had delivered. Asking for the citation seemed that natural and polite thing to do. It turns out, Vordox meant "Masem’s talk page"; I've seldom seen that usage in Misplaced Pages or elsewhere. I see that someone who has also chosen the user name TheRealVordox is active on Twitter, where they have 129 tweets to their 3 followers and conversations <strike>with</strike> addressed to TotalBiscuit, Masem, CH Sommers,and SargonOfAkkad ; say hi for me!
:In the second diff, I am attempting to address concisely a long, long series of talk page contributions, many of them of late by a single editor, which argue for including additional marginal sources sympathetic to Gamergate. In this particular response, I am pointing out that relaxed standards might have surprising effects, and I use the name of the predominant editor as a metonym for the argument.
:I might also mention that I myself have not complained -- at least not publicly -- of the numerous efforts that have been made to personalize the dispute on Gamergate's behalf, both on-wiki and off, including previous sections on this talk page, elsewhere on Misplaced Pages, and at 8chan and reddit and in press releases and correspondence. I've simply reported them to appropriate parties. {{ping:Thargor_Orlando}} ] (]) 19:21, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
:: I removed material that may run afoul of ]. I'd advise you to seek oversight or at least revdel. Opposition research, true or not, is unhealthy for a collaborative editing environment. --] (]) 19:47, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
:::Thanks for your concern. I have edited my remarks to emphasize that while the Twitter account and the Misplaced Pages account both became active recently, and share the user name TheRealVordox, we need not speculate whether they are in fact coordinated or mutually interknowledgable. The appearance of TheRealVordox in my Twitter stream yesterday and on Misplaced Pages shortly before might be a pure coincidence. There certainly might be ''several'' people who consider themselves TheRealVordox and who write extensively about Anita Sarkeesian and Misplaced Pages. Thank you for reminding us. ] (]) 19:59, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
::::Could you also edit to clarify that he didnt have a 'conversation' with Masem, he sent a tweet to Masem which masem didnt respond to. Also assuming that some admin comes to this talk page for oversighting reasons could they please close the RfC on ], it ended ages ago, and would solve many of the issues being discussed here. ] (]) 20:11, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
:::::My, we ''are'' being precise! Done. ] (]) 20:18, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
One more comment about another editor on the article talk pages and I will ban you from all GamerGate related articles. ] <small>]</small> 22:56, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
:{{u|HJ Mitchell}}, {{u|Gamaliel}} So everyone is on the same frequency before the memory hole opens up again. MB, I'd still request you remove your offsite opposition research that you restored. --] (]) 00:42, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
{{hab}}
* 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.
:Support ]'s warning and I've hatted this section. While calling this "opposition research" is a bit hyperbolic, I do think that continuing down this road is unproductive and will only inhibit collaborative editing. If there is a case to be made against an editor, then the place to present it is at ], not on talk pages. Let's everyone, not just Mark Bernstein, confine your talk page discussion to edits and not editors. ] <small>(])</small> 01:02, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
* 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.
== Misplaced Pages, or Gamergate ==
* 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. ] (]) 17:12, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
Did you mean to say here? ] (]) 16:29, 23 February 2015 (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 ] 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. <span style="font-family:Courier New;font-size:3">]</span><sup>]</sup> 01:06, 13 December 2017 (UTC)
: Nope -- I mean’t Gamergate, not Misplaced Pages. Thanks. ] (]) 16:33, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
== Notification of AE thread ==
::I know we have problems, but I hope it hasn't gone that far! :) ] (]) 16:47, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
Please see ]. --] (]) 23:51, 20 December 2018 (UTC)
:::Well, it ''has'' gone that far, actually -- I made that slip because I'm writing urgent emails to a group of active admins this morning on misogyny, feminism, and Misplaced Pages.
:{{plainlink|1=https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement&oldid=874819988#MarkBernstein|2=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. <span style="text-shadow:grey 0.118em 0.118em 0.118em;" class="texhtml"> ''']'''</span> ] 19:17, 21 December 2018 (UTC)
::: I've also in passing tried to fend off adding more pictures to Elizabeth Warren’s page in order to make a racial argument. (Admin help will be needed there, and a smart admin would get on top of that situation before it winds up in AN/I, AE -- I guess anything to do with Warren is arguably about a person involved in a gender-related controversy or dispute -- and the press. ] (]) 16:58, 23 February 2015 (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. ] (]) 22:52, 21 December 2018 (UTC)
::I'm OK -- be my guest. ] (]) 23:09, 21 December 2018 (UTC)
==Blocked==
You've been warned multiple times not to comment on others, yet you persist.. I'veblockedyoufor24hours. ] <small>]</small> 03:36, 24February2015 (UTC)
:::Per {{u|Sandstein}}'s , I can't do an appeal unilaterally. Perfectly happy to copy paste whatever, though. ] (]) 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 ]. ] (]) 01:56, 22 December 2018 (UTC)
== Slow Running Edit War ==
== AE enforcement or discretionary sanctions requested Feb 2015 ==
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 {{ping|Gamaliel}} {{ping|Thryduulf}} {{ping|PeterTheFourth}} ] (])
I've asked for DS to be enforced and that you be issued the Standard Topic Ban(I) sanction.
== Six Years Later ==
You may find the discussion . --] (]) 06:51, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
{{unblock|1=Six years have passed.
: Misplaced Pages is here offered an unambiguous choice between an expert contributor who upholds the right of women to work in computer science and software development if they want to, and a barbarian horde of internet trolls, openly colluding for months to use Misplaced Pages as part of a public relations campaign to threaten, shame, and punish female software developers.
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.
::“Next time she shows up at a conference we … give her a crippling injury that’s never going to fully heal … a good solid injury to the knees. I’d say a brain damage, but we don’t want to make it so she ends up too retarded to fear us.” -- Simon Parkin, “Zoe Quinn’s Depression Quest”, The New Yorker, 9 September 2014. http://www.newyorker.com/tech/elements/zoe-quinns-depression-quest
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.
:A project which punishes editors for defending the good names and reputations of living people from vicious Internet trolls does not deserve to survive.
::Mark, ] and not the place to right great wrongs. ] <small>]</small> 18:17, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
::Misplaced Pages ''is'' the place to right the wrongs that Misplaced Pages inflicts when it is wielded to harm blameless people. ] (]) 18:33, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
:::when outside forces specifically target Misplaced Pages as a battlefield (with militaristic "Operations" non the less), it seems not only absurd but also infantile to ''ad naseum'' claim that "Misplaced Pages is not a battlefield". And defending BLP is "righting a wrong" that Wikipedian's are in fact charged to accomplish. -- ] 18:36, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
] (]) 22:33, 16 December 2024 (UTC)}}
: 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. ] (]) 03:38, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
::::<small>editconflict</small>Misplaced Pages''is''theplacetorightthewrongsthatMisplaced Pagesinflictswhenitiswielded to harmblamelesspeople.Furthermore,as I saidinmytalkfor the UniversityofSouthampton,"Whenyou’rediscussingamatter with the armies of Mordor,Misplaced Pages is abattlegroundwhentheytellyouit’sabattleground." ] (]) 18:33, 24February2015 (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.] (]) 04:25, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
:::It makes me very hesitant to unblock you based on your desire to participate in a ] such as psudoscience -- ] <sup>]</sup> 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. ] (]) 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 ] that he should not mention that subject here again. I also agree with ] that if unblocked, MarkBernstein should not rush headlong into contentious aspects of pseudoscience; but it is fair to recognize thta work on {{tq|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 {{ping|Salvio guiliano|Thryduulf|Lord Roem|Sandstein|EdJohnston}} as the admins who were active in the last AE discussion; and please feel free to add anyone I may have missed. ] (]) 19:17, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
* '''''Ten''''' blocks on the block log. Why are we even having this discussion? ] (]) 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. ] (]) 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. ] (]) 22:27, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
***:{{tpq|What exactly is this individual ''proposing'' to contribute to Misplaced Pages?}} the appeal answers this question, have you read it? {{tpq|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. ] (]) 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. ] (]) 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. ] (]) 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 ], ] 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. ] (]) 00:57, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
*:::That’s fine. ] (]) 01:17, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
*Mark, in case you weren't aware, discretionary sanctions were replaced by ] in 2022. If you haven't already, I recommend familiarising yourself with the new system (handy ]). ] (]) 20:38, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
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.
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)
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.
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
To enforce an arbitration decision and for violations of your topic ban at Talk:Zoë Quinn, you have been blocked from editing for a period of 1 year. You are welcome to edit once the block expires; however, please note that the repetition of similar behavior may result in a longer block or other sanctions.
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."
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 Wordsmith02:07, 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 Wordsmith01:06, 13 December 2017 (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. Salvio19:17, 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)
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)
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.
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)
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.
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)
