Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by MarkBernstein (talk | contribs) at 16:52, 21 December 2018 (→Statement by MarkBernstein). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Click here to add a new enforcement request
For appeals: create a new section and use the template {{Arbitration enforcement appeal}}
See also: Logged AE sanctions

Important informationShortcuts WP:AE WP:ARE Please use this page only to: request administrative action against editors violating a remedy (not merely a principle) or an injunction in an Arbitration Committee decision, or a contentious topic restriction imposed by an administrator, request contentious topic restrictions against previously alerted editors who engage in misconduct in a topic area designated as a contentious topic, request page restrictions (e.g. revert restrictions) on pages that are being disrupted in topic areas designated as contentious topics, or appeal arbitration enforcement actions (including contentious topic restrictions) to uninvolved administrators. For all other problems, including content disagreements or the enforcement of community-imposed sanctions, please use the other fora described in the dispute resolution process. To appeal Arbitration Committee decisions, please use the clarification and amendment noticeboard. Only autoconfirmed users may file enforcement requests here; requests filed by IPs or accounts less than four days old or with less than 10 edits will be removed. All users are welcome to comment on requests except where doing so would violate an active restriction (such as an extended-confirmed restriction). If you make an enforcement request or comment on a request, your own conduct may be examined as well, and you may be sanctioned for it. Enforcement requests and statements in response to them may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. (Word Count Tool) Statements must be made in separate sections. Non-compliant contributions may be removed or shortened by administrators. Disruptive contributions such as personal attacks, or groundless or vexatious complaints, may result in blocks or other sanctions. To make an enforcement request, click on the link above this box and supply all required information. Incomplete requests may be ignored. Requests reporting diffs older than one week may be declined as stale. To appeal a contentious topic restriction or other enforcement decision, please create a new section and use the template {{Arbitration enforcement appeal}}. Appeals and administrator modifications of contentious topics restrictions The Arbitration Committee procedures relating to modifications of contentious topic restrictions state the following: All contentious topic restrictions (and logged warnings) may be appealed. Only the restricted editor may appeal an editor restriction. Any editor may appeal a page restriction. The appeal process has three possible stages. An editor appealing a restriction may: ask the administrator who first made the contentious topic restrictions (the "enforcing administrator") to reconsider their original decision; request review at the arbitration enforcement noticeboard ("AE") or at the administrators' noticeboard ("AN"); and submit a request for amendment ("ARCA"). If the editor is blocked, the appeal may be made by email. Appeals submitted at AE or AN must be submitted using the applicable template. A rough consensus of administrators at AE or editors at AN may specify a period of up to one year during which no appeals (other than an appeal to ARCA) may be submitted. Changing or revoking a contentious topic restriction An administrator may only modify or revoke a contentious topic restriction if a formal appeal is successful or if one of the following exceptions applies: The administrator who originally imposed the contentious topic restriction (the "enforcing administrator") affirmatively consents to the change, or is no longer an administrator; or The contentious topic restriction was imposed (or last renewed) more than a year ago and: the restriction was imposed by a single administrator, or the restriction was an indefinite block. A formal appeal is successful only if one of the following agrees with revoking or changing the contentious topic restriction: a clear consensus of uninvolved administrators at AE, a clear consensus of uninvolved editors at AN, a majority of the Arbitration Committee, acting through a motion at ARCA. Any administrator who revokes or changes a contentious topic restriction out of process (i.e. without the above conditions being met) may, at the discretion of the Arbitration Committee, be desysopped. Standard of review On community review Uninvolved administrators at the arbitration enforcement noticeboard ("AE") and uninvolved editors at the administrators' noticeboard ("AN") should revoke or modify a contentious topic restriction on appeal if: the action was inconsistent with the contentious topics procedure or applicable policy (i.e. the action was out of process), the action was not reasonably necessary to prevent damage or disruption when first imposed, or the action is no longer reasonably necessary to prevent damage or disruption. On Arbitration Committee review Arbitrators hearing an appeal at a request for amendment ("ARCA") will generally overturn a contentious topic restriction only if: the action was inconsistent with the contentious topics procedure or applicable policy (i.e. the action was out of process), the action represents an unreasonable exercise of administrative enforcement discretion, or compelling circumstances warrant the full Committee's action. The administrator may indicate consent at any time before, during, or after imposition of the restriction. This criterion does not apply if the original action was imposed as a result of rough consensus at the arbitration enforcement noticeboard, as there would be no single enforcing administrator. Appeals and administrator modifications of non-contentious topics sanctions The Arbitration Committee procedures relating to modifications and appeals state: Appeals by sanctioned editors Appeals may be made only by the editor under sanction and only for a currently active sanction. Requests for modification of page restrictions may be made by any editor. The process has three possible stages (see "Important notes" below). The editor may: ask the enforcing administrator to reconsider their original decision; request review at the arbitration enforcement noticeboard ("AE") or at the administrators’ noticeboard ("AN"); and submit a request for amendment at the amendment requests page ("ARCA"). If the editor is blocked, the appeal may be made by email through Special:EmailUser/Arbitration Committee (or, if email access is revoked, to arbcom-enwikimedia.org). Modifications by administrators No administrator may modify or remove a sanction placed by another administrator without: the explicit prior affirmative consent of the enforcing administrator; or prior affirmative agreement for the modification at (a) AE or (b) AN or (c) ARCA (see "Important notes" below). Administrators modifying sanctions out of process may at the discretion of the committee be desysopped. Nothing in this section prevents an administrator from replacing an existing sanction issued by another administrator with a new sanction if fresh misconduct has taken place after the existing sanction was applied. Administrators are free to modify sanctions placed by former administrators – that is, editors who do not have the administrator permission enabled (due to a temporary or permanent relinquishment or desysop) – without regard to the requirements of this section. If an administrator modifies a sanction placed by a former administrator, the administrator who made the modification becomes the "enforcing administrator". If a former administrator regains the tools, the provisions of this section again apply to their unmodified enforcement actions. Important notes: For a request to succeed, either (i) the clear and substantial consensus of (a) uninvolved administrators at AE or (b) uninvolved editors at AN or (ii) a passing motion of arbitrators at ARCA is required. If consensus at AE or AN is unclear, the status quo prevails. While asking the enforcing administrator and seeking reviews at AN or AE are not mandatory prior to seeking a decision from the committee, once the committee has reviewed a request, further substantive review at any forum is barred. The sole exception is editors under an active sanction who may still request an easing or removal of the sanction on the grounds that said sanction is no longer needed, but such requests may only be made once every six months, or whatever longer period the committee may specify. These provisions apply only to contentious topic restrictions placed by administrators and to blocks placed by administrators to enforce arbitration case decisions. They do not apply to sanctions directly authorized by the committee, and enacted either by arbitrators or by arbitration clerks, or to special functionary blocks of whatever nature. All actions designated as arbitration enforcement actions, including those alleged to be out of process or against existing policy, must first be appealed following arbitration enforcement procedures to establish if such enforcement is inappropriate before the action may be reversed or formally discussed at another venue. Information for administrators processing requests Thank you for participating in this area. AE works best if there are a variety of admins bringing their expertise to each case. There is no expectation to comment on every case, and the Arbitration Committee (ArbCom) thanks all admins for whatever time they can give. A couple of reminders: Before commenting, please familiarise yourself with the referenced ArbCom case. Please also read all the evidence (including diffs) presented in the AE request. When a request widens to include editors beyond the initial request, these editors must be notified and the notifications recorded in the same way as for the initial editor against whom sanctions were requested. Where some part of the outcome is clear, a partial close may be implemented and noted as "Result concerning X". Enforcement measures in arbitration cases should be construed liberally to protect Misplaced Pages and keep it running efficiently. Some of the behaviour described in an enforcement request might not be restricted by ArbCom. However, it may violate other Misplaced Pages policies and guidelines; you may use administrative discretion to resolve it. More than one side in a dispute may have ArbCom conduct rulings applicable to them. Please ensure these are investigated. Closing a thread: Once an issue is resolved, enclose it between {{hat}} and {{hab}} tags. A bot should archive it in 7 days. Please consider referring the case to ARCA if the outcome is a recommendation to do so or the issue regards administrator conduct. You can use the templates {{uw-aeblock}} (for blocks) or {{AE sanction}} (for other contentious topic restrictions) to give notice of sanctions on user talk pages. Please log sanctions in the Arbitration enforcement log. Thanks again for helping. If you have any questions, please post on the talk page.

MarkBernstein

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

Request concerning MarkBernstein

User who is submitting this request for enforcement

Pudeo (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 23:52, 20 December 2018 (UTC)

User against whom enforcement is requested

MarkBernstein (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Search CT alerts: in user talk history • in system log

Sanction or remedy to be enforced

• Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Case/GamerGate#Discretionary_Sanctions
• 14 April 2016 topic ban from Gamergate

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

1. 23:50, 14 December 2018 violation of topic ban
2. 00:34, 15 December 2018 violation of topic ban

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

1. 14 April 2016 topic ban from Gamergate
2. 15 May 2016 1 week block for topic ban violation
3. 22 May 2016 6 weeks block for topic ban violation
4. 9 September 2016 6 months block for topic ban violation
5. 11 December 2017 1 year block for topic ban violation

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

MarkBernstein just came off from a 1 year block from violating his topic ban and apparently his two first edits were topic ban violations.

He is "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.".

Milo Yiannopoulos#Gamergate has a whole chapter on Gamergate. Pinging admin who placed the topic ban and did the last block @The Wordsmith:. --Pudeo (talk) 23:52, 20 December 2018 (UTC)

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

Discussion concerning MarkBernstein

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

Statement by MarkBernstein

I am very sorry to see this — and only learned of it when a Wikipedian emailed me this morning.

I had made, in passing, what I thought to be a completely uncontroversial contribution to a discussion about a public figure. Editors were disputing whether or not Buzzfeed was a reliable source and were proposing an RfC; a few moments’ with Google uncovered a number of alternative sources for the detail in question.

I had simply forgotten that, at one time, the gentleman whose biography was being discussed had been known in connection with Gamergate. In the intervening years, he has become known for much else. I honestly don’t recall — I certainly did not recall at the time — what he had once said about Gamergate, or where he had said it. Nothing in the topic under discussion served to remind me.

I did not think it would be disruptive, when editors heatedly were discussing the viability of a citation, to offer an alternate source. I thought that this was an opportunity to improve to encyclopedia by locating better sources for a reference some considered doubtful, and by doing so to avoid unnecessary and unhelpful contention in the community.

I do not wish to say too much of myself, as I myself appear to fall under the topic ban! Nevertheless, if I may go so far: I see that I was quite wrong in my thinking, and I heartily apologize. In the event you permit it, I will not make the same mistake again. MarkBernstein (talk) 16:51, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

Statement by power~enwiki

This is an extraordinarily blatant violation, but as it's coming off of a block that is so long, I can imagine that he might have in-good-faith thought the topic ban was no longer in effect, or forgotten that topic bans also apply to talk pages. If he promises to abide by his existing Gamergate topic ban and additionally a post-1932 American Politics one (as there is quite a bit of overlap, the additional TBAN will decrease the chance of an inadvertent violation), I think there is a chance he can still contribute constructively. If he ignores this thread and makes even a single additional edit in the topic area, I see no other options beyond an indef block. power~enwiki (π, ν) 04:29, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

Statement by Liz

I know that many topic bans are considered to be broadly applied but the edits that Bernstein did concerned white nationalism, not Gamergate. Just because a topic has associations with a subject, if an editor doesn't edit about the stated topic, is it considered a violation? As a participant in the Gamergate controversy in 2014-2015, I would argue that the political subject of white nationalism and Nazism has little to no direct association with Gamergate and gender controversies. Liz 05:43, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

Statement by Vanamonde

@Liz:: the violation stems from the wording of the GamerGate sanction: "...prohibited from ... editing any page relating to ... people associated with ". Given that this is an unusual formulation, I would like MarkBernstein to be heard before a sanction is applied, but it is a violation. Vanamonde (talk) 06:32, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

@Sandstein: The t-ban was imposed here, and logged here. Vanamonde (talk) 11:16, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

Statement by Fish and karate

The "recent" blocks (ie, those enforced a year ago, and about 18 months ago) are for editing articles, is the wording sufficiently clear that this ban encompasses article talk pages also? If so, then it's a breach of the topic ban. Fish+Karate 10:10, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

Statement by Bellezzasolo

@Sandstein: The diff you're looking for is this one. ∰Bellezzasolo✡ Discuss 11:23, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

Statement by JzG

Sanction as enacted:

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

Article that was the focus of these comments and edits was Milo Yiannopoulos. So the only actual question is whether Yiannopoulos is a figure associated with GamerGate or any gender-related dispute or controversy. That seems unarguable to me: not only was Yiannopoulos involved in GamerGate (e.g. publishing leaked discussions between gaming journalists), he is also a walking gender-related dispute or controversy.

We might be inclined to AGF, but after all these blocks and bans there is no real room for it. Guy (Help!) 11:43, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

Statement by Mr Ernie

In the discussion here the admin who placed the sanction did not consider edits to the Milo page as a violation. Presumably MarkBernstein does not consider Milo to fall under the topic ban either, so perhaps in lieu of another block I would propose the topic ban to be expanded to explicitly cover that page. Dr. Bernstein has done vital work in the past protecting Misplaced Pages from BLP violations. Mr Ernie (talk) 11:58, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

Statement by (username)

Result concerning MarkBernstein

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

• That's a very clear breach of the topic ban. My only question is whether to block for another year or whether to extend that to indefinite with the first year under AE provisions? Thryduulf (talk) 01:34, 21 December 2018 (UTC)
  • @Power~enwiki: Given the history of violations, not all of them resulting in blocks, and the editing which led to the restriction in the first place, I do not believe Mark Bernstein is able to contribute constructively while avoiding the area of his topic ban. If he were so able he would have done so after returning form the 1-week, 6-week, or 6-month blocks before even getting to the 1-year one. Thryduulf (talk) 10:02, 21 December 2018 (UTC)
• Considering they just came back from a year block and engaged in the same behavior for which they've been blocked multiple times, I think extending it to indefinite makes the most sense. Lord Roem ~ (talk) 02:48, 21 December 2018 (UTC)
• I can't make a determination here until the requesting editor links to the decision that imposed the actual topic ban that is to be enforced. Sandstein 10:36, 21 December 2018 (UTC)
  • It was prominently linked as the first in the list of previous sanctions, but for your benefit I've copied it to the section you didn't look beyond as well. Thryduulf (talk) 11:01, 21 December 2018 (UTC)
    • No, that is not the topic ban that is to be enforced, but an AE thread from which it resulted. What we need to be able to assess the situation is a diff of the sanction as it was posted to MarkBernstein's user talk page by the enforcing admin. Only that diff contains and verifies the exact wording to which MarkBernstein is bound and which we are now called on to enforce. Sandstein 11:11, 21 December 2018 (UTC)
      • Thanks to those who posted the diff. The sanction reads in relevant part: "prohibited from ... editing any page relating to, (a) Gamergate, ... (c) people associated with (a)". Milo Yiannopoulos is a person associated with Gamergate because there is a section about Gamergate in the article about Milo Yiannopoulos. The page Talk:Milo Yiannopoulos, which MarkBernstein edited in the reported diffs, is a page relating to Milo Yiannopoulos, and therefore a page relating to a person associated with Gamergate. This means that MarkBernstein violated the topic ban. As usual, I would double the duration of the most recent block, and therefore impose a two-year block (of which one year, the maximum allowed, under AE authority). Sandstein 11:43, 21 December 2018 (UTC)