User who is submitting this request for enforcement

Starke Hathaway (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 22:52, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/GamerGate (discretionary sanctions):

Dreadstar: [1] "Due to your continued comments about other editors [2], I'm imposing upon you a 90-day ban on all edits about, and all pages related to, (a) GamerGate, (b) any gender-related dispute or controversy, (c) people associated with (a) or (b), all broadly construed per Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/GamerGate."

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

1. 15 March MarkBernstein links to an article on his personal blog. The article contains discussion of gamergate. His comment regarding "Sea Lions of Wikipedia" also refers to the gamergate controversy.

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

1. 3 Jan Block for prior violation

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

It seems clear by now that this editor has no intention of abiding by this topic ban. -Starke Hathaway (talk) 22:53, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It's not at all clear to me why MarkBernstein expects to be given latitude to violate his topic ban on a talk page when DungeonSiegeAddict510 (who is subject to the same topic ban as MarkBernstein) was blocked for a month for little more than writing the letters "kia" on a talk page. It's not as though MarkBernstein would be unaware of this as he commented in support of that very enforcement action. I would also respectfully suggest to MarkBernstein that the "hounding" will stop when he stops violating his topic ban.

I am very aware that I face the possibility of retaliatory sanctions for bringing this action, especially in light of the difference in the level of scrutiny applied to editors who bring actions here depending on whether they seem to fall on one side or the other of a particular controversy-- compare the treatment of EncyclopediaBob, who was indefinitely blocked for being a sock after bringing an enforcement action against NorthBySouthBaranof despite no one at any point adducing evidence of such, with the absolute lack of any scrutiny of PetertheFourth, a self-admitted SPA, when he brought the aforementioned enforcement action against DungeonSiegeAddict510. It is becoming increasingly evident that the rules are not being applied evenly to those who are perceived to be pro- or anti-gamergate, but I'll risk not being able to edit any longer on the possibility that this isn't in fact true. -Starke Hathaway (talk) 00:30, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@TheRedPenOfDoom:@Masem: Has it not occurred to you that the words "Masem's talk" in fact refer to Masem's talk page, rather than some shadowy lecture he's given to people you call Gamergaters? Indeed, if you look "below the reply" linked by TheRealVordox, you find... links to discussions on Masem's talk page about sourcing. I suggest you redact, and an apology would not go amiss. -Starke Hathaway (talk) 11:40, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

[3]

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.

An editor left a pointer on my talk page to a satirical piece he had written read, concerning this very page.I complimented him and pointed him to something I'd written on the same topic. It’s an essentially social interactionm and considerable latitude is allowed and necessary on talk pages.

The topic of my piece, incidentally, is not Gamergate, but Wikipedia's Arbitration Committee and it's recent ruling on my own Arbitration Committee Request for Clarification. I think it not unreasonable that PeterTheFourth, who has been editing Wikipedia since December, would assume that he might mention my own ARCA request on my talk page. Why not, if it's a topic of mutual interest, and where else shall he mention it? Of course, Starke Hathaway knows better from his vast experience of editing Wikipedia since...December. But Starke has one advantage: his first Wikipedia edit outside his own talk page was a statement for ArbCom.

Ought I to have replied to PeterTheFourth by email? Perhaps. But Wikipedia policy encourages discussion of Wikipedia editing on wiki, and generally discourages such discussion off-wiki. Besides, we don’t all have 4chan, 8chan, KotakuInAction, and WikiInAction to use for our discussions!

Wikipedians might also give some thought to how this unremittingly vindictive hounding looks out there, out in the real world. So, please take your time with the WP:BOOMerang here, because it'll reinforce my argument so effectively.

Have I been critical of ArbCom and of Wikipedia? Yes, I surely have. Have I laughed at Wikipedia's follies? Sure: someone has to! And once you see how funny this is, Starke is quite correct: it’s hard to stop. Still, WP:MOMHESLOOKINGATMEFUNNY is not a thing.@PeterTheFourth: MarkBernstein (talk) 23:25, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@EvergreenFir: I believe Wikipedia links are nofollow to deter spamming, so they're hard to see in my logs. And, if traffic statistics for my Wikipedia talk page itself is available to me, I have no idea how to find it. But, seriously, Wikipedia traffic is inconsequential at this point. This little satire has already been retweeted by 34 writers; they have among them 209,000 followers. We've had plenty of people dropping by from Facebook. I've got my little regular audience, which has its own sort of influence. And this is for a little light Sunday satire. I don't care about Wikipedia traffic. It's called making a point. There’s another name for what it’s called: “winning.” Give it a rest. I have explained why I link: unlike Gamergate, I don’t whisper about my opponents behind their back, I don’t pretend to believe they're gay or practitioners of strange sex rituals, I don't call them prostitutes or send them pictures of dead dogs or of their dead sisters. If I have something to say about you, I'll say it to your face and I'll show you the link, and I'll accept your rebukes. MarkBernstein (talk) 03:34, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@TheRedPenOfDoom: I’m sorry to disagree with you here, but you're mistaken in calling the calling the decision “insipid.” Give ArbCom credit: the clarification was not bland, and adding Lena Dunham was about as spicy as you can ask. You couldn't make this stuff up. MarkBernstein (talk) 03:34, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Rhoark: I agree with the general sentiment, but you're wrong in detail. I cannot be a valuable contributor, in light of an inexplicable and absurd topic ban which extends as far as the eye can see -- to every living woman (except maybe to right-wing extremists), to every gay, lesbian, and gender-queer person, and to every topic the tea party declares to be a controversy and which somehow impinges gender, which is to say the human condition, broadly construed. But, in point of fact, I'd wager that my writing of the past eight weeks will do more to shape the Encyclopedia than my work of the previous two decades, broadly construed -- and that work arguably includes those tabs at the top of this page and the breadcrumbs that guide you to its antecedents. MarkBernstein (talk) 03:34, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Gamaliel: Wise, prudent, and judicious. I do think, though, that encouraging off-site coordination is still disparaged by policy, that in theory (if not in the real world into which I am accused of having injected myself upstream on the page) we're encouraged to discuss Wikipedia here and openly, not elsewhere and in secret. Correct me if I'm mistaken -- and also correct the guidance we give to new editors, some of whom might (on rare occasions like this) actually be genuine new editors. Grizzled experts like NBSF and myself find these matters puzzling, while outsiders look on aghast and wonder what Wikipedia can possibly be thinking. In fact, I'm pretty sure the banned veteran editors who don’t find the margins of discretionary sanctions puzzling fall into two categories: (a) those who are now editing through new accounts, borrowed accounts, or sock puppets, and (b) those who have retired completely. MarkBernstein (talk) 03:34, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Bosstopher: I’m not willing today to ask for the favor of having what should be mine by right, or to beg this audience to do what they ought to do despite unreasonable and unreasoning malice. But do feel free to ask on my behalf if you like. MarkBernstein (talk) 15:48, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Coldacid: et al: The satire to which PeterTheFourth directed my attention is, of course, an allegorical parable of sea lions with a beachball. My mother told me that when someone gives you something to read, it's polite to thank them and to remark on its content, showing that you read it and appreciated it. Your mother may have disagreed, but Wikipedia welcomes people from different cultures and backgrounds. Or it used to. MarkBernstein (talk) 15:48, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Gamaliel: Ah yes, topic bans. That would be

• The indefensible topic ban for Gamergate imposed by that witty fellow who, in doing so, so far forgot himself as to call me a motherfucker?
• Or would that be its new extension to Campus Rape, Lena Dunham, and points East?
• Or perhaps the bankshot extension newly proposed here, which topic-bans reference to off-wiki satires of Wikipedia decisions on gender that were inspired by Wikipedia's foolish handling of Gamergate?
• Or perhaps the topic ban should apply to my referring to anyone who writes about my writing that ridicules Wikipedia decisions on gender which were inspired (and I use the term loosely) by Wikipedia’s craven appeasement of Gamergate?

Perhaps I should not use links? Does the topic ban also include semi-colons? One of my better-known soundbites holds that “The link is the most significant new form of punctuation since the invention of the comma,” after all. I know it's unfair, my having a place to write and an audience and a modest facility with words other than motherfucker and brony; perhaps I should be required to write especially badly to even the playing field? Or to pretend never to have heard of Donna Haraway or Michel Foucault or Judith Butler.

Now if you want to take some pictures of the fascinating witches who put the scintilating stiches in the britches of the boys who put the powder on the noses on the faces of the ladies of the harem of the court of King Caractacus (or Wikipedia’s credibility)...

... You're too late! Because they've just... Passed... By!

The complaint seeks simply to wield the topic ban in an unending quest to reclaim a failed plan to use Wikipedia as part of another failed PR offensive. No harm or disruption could have been caused by briefly alluding to this satire on my talk page, and in any case no one can possibly know where the ban ends. This complaint lacks the semblance of good faith.

Or perhaps we're talking about a different topic ban entirely? I seem to recall a very recent topic ban on this very subject. I myself have not brought a complaint since then against either Xxxxx Batman or Xxxx Xxxx Robin. But here we are already, back again in our old familiar haunts, brought not by Batman nor by Robin (because that would be wrong!), but – what a coincidence! – by one of The Merry Men, with the usual crew alongside to tell us everything we need to know about sea lions. MarkBernstein (talk) 15:48, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Squiggleslash: You are welcome to file one on my behalf. MarkBernstein (talk) 16:46, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@HJMitchell: I did not refer to any editor; I was topic-banned, apparently, for alluding indirectly to the well-known fact of collusive editing, which was the topic of the article under discussion. Here, I only violated my topic ban if the broad construction of GamerGate extends to mentioning my own satirical jeremiads against Wikipedia's recent turn to embrace anti-intellectualism and sexism. Unlike some of your correspondents, I am indeed engaged with the real world, and my interest here is to (a) save the project from mistakes which are -- correctly in my opinion -- bringing it into widespread contempt, or (b) if that is impossible, to warn scholars and writers of systemic biases and distortions in order to minimize the harm it does, especially when used as a weapon by wrong-doers. Yes, I could be (and have been) of great service to Wikipedia: when you look back on this, you will find that my contribution to Gamergate may in fact have been crucial to preventing irremediable harm to the project. I think there is no question that the real world, having examined the question, shares my opinion. MarkBernstein (talk) 18:28, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Masem: I’m responsible for what I write on my weblog, and for what I publish in journals and magazines. I’m not responsible for satire that someone else writes on their weblog, even if PeterTheFourth tells me about it. I'm not disparaging you at the moment; it appears that some other people are, but like the flowers that bloom in the spring (tra-la!) that has nothing to do with the case. MarkBernstein (talk) 20:17, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Ched: is simply mistaken in thinking that links from pages like this page have any meaningful impact at all on Google search results or on web traffic. This page, for example, has opted out entirely from the Google index, and also instructs search engines and other automata not to follow outbound links. You can verify this yourself by inspecting the HTML -- something anyone competent in the area would have checked first. In any case, even if every reader of this page followed every link to my weblog, it would not benefit me particularly -- save that people who are interested in knowing more of my work in this area might do so. That’s the point of links. My weblog has no advertising and I’m perfectly happy with my organic audience, the fruit of a decade of writing. In any case, if I were seeking traffic from Wikipedians, I have signally failed: at no time in recent months have wikipedia servers figured meaningfully in my server logs. The Guardian? Yes. Think Progress? Sure. Der Standard? Check. Social Text? Surprisingly so! Facebook and Twitter* have been prominent in referrer logs, which is unusual and interesting. But Wikipedia? Meh. MarkBernstein (talk)

@Callanecc: Wikipedia's policy forbids insertion of irrelevant links. To witness that my links are pertinent we might adduce the witness of the editors of newspapers, magazines, and journals throughout the world. But this is hardly necessary, as both the Wikimedia Foundation and Arbcom itself responded to them in their separate press statements. MarkBernstein (talk) 14:02, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Starke Hathaway: @TheRedPenOfDoom: : In my (real) world, a "talk," as in "Bernstein’s talk on Patterns of Hypertext," is a lecture, typically at a conference or seminar. Moreover, I don’t believe I have ever heard anyone refer to their Wikipedia talk page as their “talk.” The natural meaning of the statement was that Masem had delivered a lesson or lecture to a group of Gamergaters, providing tips for editing like those frequently discussed at 8chan and KiA. I understand that some of the parties come to English as a second language and my own German is feeble and technical, but this doesn’t strike me as a likely mistake in German, either. In any case, no apology is required for this interpretation of the clear meaning of a written statement. MarkBernstein (talk) 18:47, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@NE Ent: isn't happy with my using links in a manner consistent with policy, required by good manners, and considerate of busy administrators, arbitrators, and other readers. I have written replies to this complaint, but out of respect for my colleague’s delicate sensibilities, will provide no links here.

As for email policy, WP:EMAILABUSE says that it is chiefly concerned with copyright. It is doubtful that these emotional outburst can be copyrighted at all, but as they were sent by a Wikipedia official in the course of his responsibilities, the copyright (if any there be) rests with Wikipedia, and that is unchanged by my posting them here, giving the copyright to Wikipedia. None of these emails were sent through the Wikipedia email system, so WP:EMAILABUSE doesn’t apply to them anyway. I reproduced short, critical excerpts, so they're textbook fair use. They play a useful, probative, and necessary role in these proceedings.

And -- let’s get this straight: I ought to be sitebanned as punishment for having the temerity to petition the appropriate forum in the most temperate terms for redress of a grievance -- to wit, being called a “motherfucker” after asking a reasonable and necessary question? You guys think I’m inclined to WP:BATTLEGROUND behavior? Good grief! (Fermat, Kafka, and Orwell walk into a bar...) MarkBernstein (talk) 16:00, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

My suggestion would be that Starke Hathaway (150 edits; half on Gamergate) focus on improving the encyclopedia rather than examining every comment at MarkBernstein's talk. Such activity is not healthy for the project. Johnuniq (talk) 00:23, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I do not at all understand how the reply to my (unsolicited, entirely spontaneous) comment is a violation of anything, especially given that he hasn't even mentioned Gamergate in his reply. This is honestly just more evidence of the ongoing harassment of MarkBernstein. I feel atrocious in my unintentional involvement in the ongoing campaign to drive away a well-spoken, prolific editor whose contributions have greatly enriched Wikipedia. PeterTheFourth (talk) 00:47, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

As a completely unrelated aside: I did not author the piece I linked, although I do endorse it. PeterTheFourth (talk) 01:30, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@HJ Mitchell: Hello! I appreciate that there's much consternation over MarkBernstein's actions, but he's fairly blameless in this particular correspondence- he replies to my (trout-worthy?) link with another, a brief, silly interlude in his regular editing to link to his own feelings on ArbCom's decisions. You might accuse me of baiting him into something, or similar, and I'd accept anything coming my way re:my flouting of policy- please don't punish him for being polite enough to reply to my comment with anything other than 'I CAN'T TALK ABOUT THAT GO AWAY'. PeterTheFourth (talk) 22:34, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with Gamaliel that minor borderline banvios like this one, YellowSandal's and DSA's, are not worth banning anyone over. All this request will do is cause more drama. Is there some way we can set a 1RResque limit to things of one AE request against Mark a week? There are approximately 10 billion admins watching his talk page, so if he does anything too horrific after the week's AE request is done, one of them can just sort it out without an enforcement request. Currently a huge proportion of this enforcement page is Mark-related, and all it's done is create layer upon layer of pointless drama. Bosstopher (talk) 01:19, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Upon thinking about things in a much less sleep deprived state, I have come up with an ingenious solution that will satisfy everyone (although it probably wont). Per User:EvergreenFir's comments, Mark should be topic banned from linking to his blog/external links. @MarkBernstein: While Dreadstar's not going to remove your topic ban, have you considered asking him to change it so that it's just a straight up Gamergate topic ban like the ones they used in the good old days? That would solve a lot of the issues you're facing with being confused over what you're actually allowed to edit. Bosstopher (talk) 14:13, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think it would be great if MB would go back to being the valuable contributor of a few years ago instead of a SPA in the area of grousing about ARBCOM, but this filing is a waste of everyone's time. Rhoark (talk) 01:39, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@TheRedPenOfDoom: @Masem: It's easy to jump to conclusions when operating from a baseline assumption that other people are operating with nefarious intent. I think everyone should just call a truce, assume good faith, and edit by policy instead of politics - if people could just do that there'd be no need for anything on this page, and I'd be the first to say so. Does anyone want anything else out of the situation? Rhoark (talk) 21:22, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I am getting a bit weary of seeing Mark's name here. This isn't a huge violation, but Mark knows full well the terms of his tban and continues to link to his blog anyway. If this doesn't result in a block, this should be a final warning. Mark needs to stop linking his blog (generating traffic and views) and needs to stop all references to GG. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 01:41, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

MarkBerstein says, "I don't care about Wikipedia traffic. It's called making a point. There’s another name for what it’s called: “winning.” Give it a rest. I have explained why I link..." This is exactly what I'm talking about. Mark knows exactly what he's doing, that it violates his topic ban, that he's making a WP:POINT, and doesn't care. There is no good faith to assume here. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 11:19, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sure that handling this case is about as appealing as picking up dog poop with a napkin, but it's been left to linger. Would someone kindly address it before it turns that awful white color? EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 06:04, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• @Callanecc and DHeyward: I guess discretionary sanctions could be placed on the talk page itself (just like 1RR was placed on Gamergate controversy), but that seems odd for user space pages. Is the concern that talk page stalkers will bring up the article or that people will bait him into discussing GG? Personally I'd learn more toward a less formal version of that where a few admins watch his talk page and remove anyone trying to bait him or anyone being WP:MEAT and posting his website on his behalf. Just my 2 cents. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 05:22, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Simply more evidence of the ArbCom's disastrous miscalculation that their insipid decision was something that would in any way limit disruption of Wikipedia rather than provide a blueprint for sustained organized disruption.

Gamergate Ahoy! Keep them socks coming! -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 01:57, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Do we need to open another ARCA to see if by "broadly construed" ArbCom merely meant all Pinnipeds, or if they are inclined to include all ocean bound mammals? -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 04:13, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Masem: ", I do not side with GG " is complete and utter bullocks. You cannot go a week without making another 10000 word push on why we cannot follow the absolutely highest quality reliable sources because they "are not fair to gamergate." -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 03:47, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Masem, you have given talks to the gamergaters on how to edit wikipedia. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 04:30, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Can we speedily close this and just get on with working on the encyclopedia? The linked to diff isn't worth this much drama. Starke Hathaway is simply mistaken in their believe that DSA510 was held to a higher standard. He obliquely violated his topic ban here, more directly here, and I think by accident here. None of that was deemed disruptive enough and nobody bothered to file an AE request. If Starke Hathaway thinks MarkBernstein is being held to a lower standard they are simply mistaken. Strongjam (talk) 02:33, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Gamaliel: With regards to DHeyward this is what you're looking for. — Strongjam (talk) 17:42, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Masem: To be clear, are you talking about the link that MarkBernstein posted, or the link that was posted on his talk page? — Strongjam (talk) 20:10, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Masem: Thanks for the clarification. In that case I think PeterTheFourth should be trouted. Links that contain personal attacks on editors are not appropriate for linking to on WP. — Strongjam (talk) 20:27, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@HJ Mitchell: To jog your memory

• You blocked DHeyward for BLP violations and FORUMing previously.

And recently:

• Cutting up a quote to put words in an authors mouth.

I considered filing an AE request about the last two, but decided to leave it considering how much drama we've had here.

— Strongjam (talk) 22:26, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@DHeyward: turning

• "Far from women and people of color serving as a shield for white men, it’s white male journalists who — slowly, imperfectly, all too infrequently — often act as a sadly necessary shield for women and people of color who take the risk of speaking out and get blasted for it."

Into

• white male journalists ... who take the risk of speaking out....

Is not OK. It changes the meaning of the quote.

— Strongjam (talk) 15:58, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Is anyone reading what @EvergreenFir: has written?

There are two scenarios here. Either posting a link to his personal blog about GamerGate violates the topic ban, or it does not. Could we make it explicitly clear? If it violates the topic ban, at the very minimum MarkBernstein should be given a final warning, if not harsher punishment. There is another AE request up above, now closed, regarding MarkBernstein posting a link to his blog. He should clearly know better. If it does not violate the topic ban, let's just inform MarkBernstein so he can continue posting such links as and when or wherever he likes.

And has MarkBernstein's Sea Lions of Wikipedia comment escaped scrutiny as well, even if linking his blog post is permissible? Sea Lions are clearly a reference to GamerGate. MarkBernstein has already said he's winning. That's because we are letting him get away with it. starship.paint ~ ¡Olé! 13:07, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Liz: And a remark about sea lions is off-wikipedia? Umm, it was posted on his talk page ... and he chose to reference pretty much the most prominent (19 March EDIT: one single?) animal associated with GamerGate. starship.paint ~ ¡Olé! 01:23, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Liz: - as for other animals associated with GamerGate, honestly I don't know of any. I only know GamerGate sponsored a sea lion, nothing about other animals. Their other mascot is a girl, I believe - but I'm not a GamerGate expert, yeah. My language (the most prominent) was slightly imprecise as well, sorry. starship.paint ~ ¡Olé! 00:35, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• @HJ Mitchell: - seeing as three other admins have agreed with you, is this going to be wrapped up? starship.paint ~ ¡Olé! 04:47, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Starship.paint: I think without further clarification, Mark Bernstein should be free to link his own blog on his user or user talk pages, but without reference to areas for which he is under an active topic ban. Simply linking his posts, fine. Commentary like "sea lions of Wikipedia" (a clear reference to GamerGate), not fine.

In addition, as EvergreenFir points out, this behaviour from Bernstein is getting needlessly WP:POINTy by now. Yes, there are other editors gunning for him, but the disruption wouldn't be nearly as bad if he didn't keep tiptoeing the line in front of them, and pouring fuel on the flames of this drama. // coldacid (talk|contrib) 14:58, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Noting that the link put on Mark's page by Peter includes things that call me out as an editor directly (and incorrectly as well, I do not side with GG so calling me a sea lion is flat out wrong), I would have just considered Mark's reply simply needed a trout, a slip of the mind that would have gone through the cracks if people were not hounding him.

But the replies to this complaint show something more. I highlight this part of Gamaleil's statement below: If your aim is to edit an encyclopedia, you are welcome here. If your aim to be the Gamergate police cracking down on the SJWs, you are not. This needs to also work in the other direction - If one's aim here is to criticize and condemn GG, and fight to protect victims of GG (beyond what BLP requires us to do), that's the same problem that should not be welcomed on WP. And Mark's attitude here falls right into line with this. We're back at the neutrality issue that started the ArbCom case, that editors are too involved ideologically or emotionally that they are not editing in the expected behavior for a neutral, impartial encyclopedia, creating the battleground mentality that started the case. This idea works both ways (pro and anti-GG) - it's just easier to deal with the side that comes from pro-GG because they are the new/SPA accounts that have easier behavior to call out.

Again, I don't think this specific instance needs anything more than a warning to Mark (as well as others). But we need ArbCom to be clear that Wikipedia should not be considered a part of the larger GG battleground for either side, and that editors using WP to engage in that should be considered disruptive. --MASEM (t) 16:19, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Gamaliel: One post at the site is titled "Sea Lion Emeritus Masem is Not Animatronic. We Swear!" and goes to mock my discussion contributions. Now, being fully aware that Poe's law could be in play and we could be talking about a parody site, I'm also fully aware of the language that proponents on both sides of the issue write, and this is far from just being parody. --MASEM (t) 20:06, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Strongjam: That's from the link Peter posted to Mark's page. Not sure if that's the link Gamaliel was specifically talking about in that request. --MASEM (t) 20:16, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@MarkBernstein: I don't doubt that that you have no hand involved in the link Peter gave, I read it that Gamaliel was looking for disparaging comments from that site (and if not, then we should be aware what type of commentary is at that cite). It was not my intention to claim that you wrote on that specific site, if that's how it came out which I apologize if that did. --MASEM (t) 20:31, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Gamaliel: As I noted, I thought you might have been talking about what that link is, which is not the case that I can see now. While the site directly does not involve Mark's actions, it's important to note his reply on Wikipedia that uses the language of site , which itself it mocking in tone, is part of his continued behavior problems. And we do sometimes redact links that are known to be sites that only engage in BLP violations as we would gross copyright violating sites. I would argue this one falls into that. --MASEM (t) 00:01, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Liz: The language of the standard sanction for GG (which I don't think Mark is under but I think should be considered the scope of that topic ban) includes not making any edit about Gamergate (doesn't make distinction about where on WP save for ArbCom). The language "Sea lions" in the context of Mark's reply to Peter is definitely about Gamergate. As I note, I see this as a troutable slip for the instance, but part of a larger behavior issue to consider. --MASEM (t) 00:19, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The above addition by tRPoD about my participation ([4]) demonstrates the battleground attitude that still persists in the GG situation on WP today. I do not support any of the claimed GG goals or their approach, but I also don't support taking the tone that the press has taken in reporting GG when we are supposed to be neutral and impartial as an encyclopedia. That in no way makes me proGG, but this is unfortunately what (outside WP) the situation has become - if you don't side to speak up against GG, you must be supporting them. (and vice versa when talking about supporting GG). There are many many more sides to this (including a number of editors on WP that simply want a neutral article that recognizes the bias that the press has here and acknowledged in the previous RFC) There are editors like Mark that, based on their conversations, appear to only be here to condemn GG which will never get us to a neutral article. The attitude of a "us vs them" is a poisonious battleground mentality that needs to be stopped. --MASEM (t) 04:18, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@TheRedPenOfDoom: Please show the diff of my contributions that are directing gamergaters how to edit WP. All my contributions on WP are in the open, and I've mentioned before the only interaction directly I've had with anyone proGG was a reddit message to briefly explain the issue with reliable sources. This is otherwise a personal attack, asserting that I'm leading GG to edit here, and a continuation of the battleground mentality to assume that I'm not "with" the side against GG. --MASEM (t) 04:36, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

With permission from uninvolved adminstrator, I only note that MarkBernstein uses a term of disparagement that was used with respect to Orlando Thargor and me. MarkBernstein has falsely accused me of offsite collusion and refuses to disclose his link (because it's false, I presume) but freely links and makes on-wiki comments on external sites that disparage other editors in violation of both his 90 day GamerGate topic ban and his indefinite interaction ban. My only request has been that he stop. Nothing tried so far seems to work. --DHeyward (talk) 16:33, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Gamaliel Starship.paint addressed it above. I don't know exactly what a "sea lions of wikipedia" is but I've read the link, read how I was mentioned and I've read MarkBernstein's comment and that term is disparaging. Why he thinks it would be appropriate to use that term on Wikipedia to refer to editors is beyond me[5]. And yes, it's a silly talk page comment. I'm sure everyone has made worse. But not by someone with same reputation, block, tban, iban, warnings and board discussions as MarkBernstein. And I'd prefer that if you are going to sanction or not, that you leave it as a recommendation. --DHeyward (talk) 20:10, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Strongjam You are incorrect about Chu. You seem to have misunderstood Arthur Chu's whole point. You didn't even read the source before reverting and it was quite disheartening when you actually posted that you didn't read the article before you reverted and argued about it. The exact quote after telling us what you thought he said: "Self-reply.. I hate the slate website. Turns out you have to scroll down before it loads the rest of the article." -Strongjam Imagining what he said and reading what he said is not the same. --DHeyward (talk) 15:39, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Strongjam As for Chu, his whole article is about how #NotYourShield was established to silence white, male defenders (journalists) from speaking out against GamerGate. He made the case that they are necessary voices. He also said they take great risk in speaking out against women and minorities (aka the #NotYourShield people) and too often stay silent. Your quote highlights it quite nicely. Yes, women and minorities take risks but that's not Chu's point in that article. It's all about his assessment that #NotYourShield was trying to silence white, male journalists that fear speaking out against #NotYourShield because of the potential backlash against them for speaking out against women and minorities. Your vision of what you want him to say is not what he said. In any case, there is nothing that I said that is a BLP or any other infraction though you may wish to rethink the prism you are viewing this through. --DHeyward (talk) 21:46, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Callanecc Making a "no link" rule that only applies to user MarkBernstein making links is simply ignoring the topic ban he is under.

Gamaliel a better solution is to also put his talk page under discretionary sanctions regarding gamerGate related material so it's not a focal point for disruption. It can expire when his topic ban expires. There is no reason for any editor to bring offsite/onsite/anysite, gamergate links to his talkpage while he is topic banned and editors, not limited to just MarkBernstein should be sanctioned for encouraging him to violate his topic ban by doing so. --DHeyward (talk) 01:29, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Callanecc, EvergreenFir, and Gamaliel: If PtF's post to MB's talk page is not a violation, MB's talkpage will become an aggregator site for such links - only without comment by MB (or deletion if he chooses). That will become a problem just like it's a problem now. It's not hard to put a notice. It's better to discourage it, then allow it. Articles aren't policed more when they have warnings, they are policed less. That's the point of the sanction. --DHeyward (talk) 05:36, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Gamaliel: as was noted, "under normal circumstances..." but that isn't where we are. This isn't a blanket ban on links anywhere, just his talk page. That is what started this, not links by MB. Why would you want to allow editors to drop GamerGate links on his talk page? There is no project benefit, only downside (like being here the next time). --DHeyward (talk) 05:49, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Gamaliel: The problem was PtF posted a link and a comment. MB replied with a comment. MB's link was less of a problem than his comment. Do we really need baiting links on his talk page attracting the bus of GG editors? If he replies without a link, is that okay? The answer, of course, is no. Therefore nip it in the bud. "Don't post GamerGate stuff to MBs talk page." It only causes disruption and has no value to building the encyclopedia. Editors can ping him to their page if they want him to see stuff but his talk page shouldn't be the aggregate site. It will only bring us back here eventually. --DHeyward (talk) 06:00, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You're going to keep getting these reports about every minor infraction MB may have committed as long as you make it clear there's a chance you'll act against him, and little chance those promoting the conflict will get sanctioned. And I say "You're going to keep getting" because you already are. The current gender controversies topic ban is itself an example.

• Repeal topic ban. It was never justified. (MB, maybe it'd help if you filed a formal appeal against it, or did you and I missed it?)
• Add Starke Hathaway to the TIBAN (is that a term?) that already applies between MB, Thargor Orlando, and DHeywood.

You can continue to do what you're doing, but it isn't working. You can do what the hoards of offsite trolls are trying to get you to do, but that's happened once already, Arbcom did what they wanted them to do, and, well, here we are. Not that anyone that's part of the Wikipedia establishment will ever admit it might, possibly, have been just a slight possible misjudgment, to sanction people trying to protect Wikipedia from trolls for edit warring. --Squiggleslash (talk) 16:40, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Just so we are absolutely clear, this is about a link on MB's talk page to his website he offered in response to a comment by another editor. That's all, there was no discussion of GamerGate on a GG-related article or talk page? I'll admit that MB can be provocative but this "it can't go a week without an editor filing a complaint about Bernstein" routine is getting ridiculous. It borders on stalking behavior by the filing parties. The worst part is that it seems like this behavior will continue and they'll keep throwing metaphorical spaghetti at the wall until something sticks. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:01, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It's a link to a website. And a remark about sea lions is off-wikipedia and ARBCOM didn't seem to care about off-wiki content when they came to their case FOFs and decisions. If they had included consideration of off-site harassment, the results of the case would have been quite different. And considering that DHeyward can't stop talking about Bernstein on multiple user talk pages, that seems like a much clearer violation of a tban/iban than posting a link to ones website on ones own user talk page.. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:54, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ched, I can't see exactly what you are objecting to. That Bernstein shared a link to his website to another editor on his own talk page? Do you seriously think this is about website traffic or publicity? Bernstein has been quoted in some national publications, I don't think sharing a link on a Wikipedia talk page has anything to do with notoriety. Does this mean anyone sharing a link to an off-site website or blog they are involved in in the context of a discussion is self-promoting? If so, I see a lot of user pages, including some admins, who share a link to their off-site websites.

I get that admins are tired of seeing GamerGate related incidents come to AN/I and AE. I think we all are. But can't you also see at this point that this is a war of attrition? If Bernstein receives a longer block, it won't be an end to these proceedings, those on one side of the dispute will just go on to the next active, outspoken editor who involves themselves in editing these articles. After all of the numerous topic bans and blocks, can't you see that it isn't a matter of a few bad apples? There will always be new editors coming to these article pages who see it as a battleground. Discretionary sanctions help but you can expect these problems to continue given the way the GamerGate case ended. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:25, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

starship.paint, first, the most prominent animal associated with GamerGate? Before I saw a link of the blog referred to which was posted by another editor on Bernstein's user talk page, I didn't know that there were any animals associated with this consumer revolt. What are the others? Secondly, I've seen the original cartoon about sea lions and it is about individuals who incessantly interrupt conversations with faux concerns, a behavior that doesn't seem specific to GamerGate but is about fruitless debates on the internet with people who are not listening to what you are saying and who continually raise objections. It applies as much to Wikipedia as an editing environment as it does to GamerGate. Finally, I see that I was incorrect, Bernstein did mention the term "sea lions" on his user talk page but the comment was primarily a link pointing to an off-Wikipedia blog post and, again, he was responding to another editor's use of the term. But my language was imprecise for which I apologize. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 15:19, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please impose the maximum duration siteban allowed by discretionary sanctions.

Apparently MarkBernstein is some kind of journalist / blogger / activist out there. Don't know, don't care. Here he's not here to build the encyclopedia; he here's for WP:SELFPROMOTION, WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS and make a WP:POINT, as evidenced by his talk page statement A project which punishes editors for defending the good names and reputations of living people from vicious Internet trolls does not deserve to survive.

Now, I generally don't worry about user / user talk pages unless it's disrupting the project.

See Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive877#Dreadstar, in which he reports Dreadstar called him a motherfucker; it's fair to say that fall short of the standards of WP:ADMINACCT, and as another editor once remarked NE Ent may be a lot of things, but an apologist for admin is not one of them. I'm also a veteran with 1K WQA and 2K ANI contributions and I've learned to look at what proceeded an event, and found Berstein suckered Dreadstar with I've no idea what Dreadstar means to say immediately above (other than he imagines himself to be right), but that doesn't matter. blah blah doubtless campus rape has supporters, too, and Dreadstar unfortunately fell for it, interpreting the comment as saying he supported rape. Of course, there's enough blah blah so Bernstein can act all innocent 'I never said you supported rape.' Note also how the portion of his comment his posted on ANI omits the "I've no idea what Dreadstar means to say immediately above (other than he imagines himself to be right), but that doesn't matter." beginning of the comment.

Notice also the statement "The topic ban itself is, in my view, neither just nor expedient. I do not raise that question here; I may raise it elsewhere." which begs the question why is it in the ANI thread if he's not raising it? The Mark Antony "Friends, Romans, countrymen, lend me your ears; I come to bury Caesar, not to praise him." shtick was clever when Shakespeare wrote Julius Caesar (play) but its transparently lame in 2015. After I close the turkey of a thread with Bernstein's suggested wording he then absurdly asks "If the intent was not to lift the ban, why adopt my proposed phrasing of rolling back to Sunday morning -- before the ban?". Therefore his proposed wording was to lift the ban which was not the subject of the ANI.

Next came the "clarification request" which asked an obvious question, and served as a topic ban breaching WP:COATRACK 10 March Statement WP:SPAMLINKing Bernstein's own blog "benefit our pals," and more fodder for his off-wiki activities [6].

Policy on email is WP:EMAILABUSE. NE Ent 02:18, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

• Topic bans are supposed to prevent disruption, not create drama through hyperscrutiny and a resulting flood of complaints. Let me give you an example: Two days ago, YellowSandals violated his topic ban here. None of you editors constantly complaining about MarkBernstein made a peep about it, and obviously some of you saw it. I ignored it just like you did, and that's what you should also do here. (For the record, I felt the same about DungeonSiegeAddict510 and advised only a trouting in that case.) If your aim is to edit an encyclopedia, you are welcome here. If your aim to be the Gamergate police cracking down on the SJWs, you are not. Mark Bernstein is officially trouted - if there is such a thing - and advised to keep such chats off wiki whenever possible. Gamaliel (talk) 00:33, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@MarkBernstein: "Policy says, discuss Wikipedia on Wikipedia unless there's a pressing, exceptional situation that makes discussion impossible." That exceptional situation would be your topic ban. Gamaliel (talk) 04:38, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@MarkBernstein: If you object to the topic ban, you are welcome to appeal it in the appropriate forum. This is not the appropriate forum, but you are welcome to open another request challenging the topic ban on this page. Regardless of whatever grievance you may have, you are not free to violate the topic ban. I hope that is clear. Gamaliel (talk) 16:39, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

For the record, since the comment left by YellowSandals appeared to be a direct personal attack aimed at me - I chose to ignore it. Yes I saw it, but if I had blocked for that it would have given the perception of being retaliatory in nature. I'm not able to review the other things properly to add any more beyond that. — Ched :  ?  15:20, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Huh. I thought he was talking about me and didn't block for the same reason. That's almost hilarious. Gamaliel (talk) 16:30, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@DHeyward: Could you identify the admin? Thanks. Gamaliel (talk) 17:30, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@DHeyward: Strongjam addressed the above question. I've read the link. Can you identify the disparaging comments? I feel like I'm missing something here. Gamaliel (talk) 18:04, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• At some point, this all has to end. How many enforcement requests are we up to against Mark? How many warnings has he had? How many times has he been asked nicely to stop commenting on his opponents and comment on content instead? Probably more than any other editor in this topic area. This is the second time he's been topic-banned, and not the first time he's violated a topic ban. Yes, he is probably under more scrutiny than most editors in the topic area (though, while I don't condone one group of editors training their sights on another editor, it is MB's own actions that have led to that scrutiny), but at some point the question has to be: does the problem lie with a small army of editors filing enforcement requests (and even with admins issuing warnings and sanctions), or with a single editor who doesn't seem to want to heed advice, warnings, sanctions, or anything else? At this point, I think Mark has been extended all the rope that is reasonable and more, but has carried on regardless. I can't see how this is any different to the situation with the last topic ban (which was later lifted, although Mark was twice blocked and repeatedly warned for violating it), or to DSA510 (who similarly showed no inclination to separate himself from the topic area). What irks me most is that these editors aren't making good edits in the mainspace that are being met with frivolous enforcement requests, but politicking on talk pages and in the projectspace. I think Mark has the potential to be an incredibly valuable contributor (I think the same of DSA and several other 'problem editors' in the topic area), but his continued participation with regards to gamergate is not conducive to progress, and he has shown no inclination to change the way he participates. Given all of that, I recommend a one-month block, as with DSA510. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 17:52, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• If there actually are disparaging comments at this link I support this action. As for the rest, there is plenty of blame to go around here, which is what makes this conflict so intractable. Both sides are holding themselves blameless while incessantly complaining about the other side. Gamaliel (talk) 18:04, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• DHeyward obviously takes offence at the "Sea Lions of Wikipedia unite!" comment, which he seems to believe is directed at him; regardless of its intended recipient, it's not a constructive comment. It does nothing to make the project a better place and it does nothing to improve the encyclopaedia.

  Mark: You've been repeatedly asked to stop commenting on editors, or to put it another way to focus your energies on the encyclopaedia and not your opponents. Contrary to what you seem to believe, it is possible to believe in good faith that gamergate is not the root of all evil. It's also possible to criticise your conduct in good faith. I've never seen, for example, DHeyward or Thargor Orlando intentionally libel anyone, and I haven't seen you file an enforcement request against either of them for doing so. You didn't stop, and Dreadstar imposed a topic ban—you can disagree with it, but you're bound by it unless and until you successfully appeal it. And even that hasn't prompted you to refocus on the encyclopaedia. I don't want to block you, but everything else has been tried and still you persist; I'm wondering if you're trying to get blocked, quite frankly. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 22:07, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• I concur with a lot of what you've said here. MarkBernstein obviously feels the topic ban is unjust and it appears to me that such feelings are prompting him to respond in a less than productive manner. I see that he has formally appealed the topic ban below, which I hope is a sign that he is channeling his energies in an appropriate direction that is more compatible with encyclopedia editing. Gamaliel (talk) 23:01, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• IMO, this isn't about Gamergate, abuse directed at Zoe, TBAN, IBAN, or anything other than using Wikipedia as an SEO bump for markbernstein.org (linked many times in previous threads, often seen as [#] rather than spelled out.) which gets that website a higher slot in google searches. Mark doesn't "attack" individual editors in the WP:NPA sense on wiki. He's cautious of his language, and intelligent in his presentations. He's able to do quality article work here. But riding the coattails of the Gamergate fiasco to promote a website isn't what we should be doing here. Yes, entire websites (ED, Wikipediocracy, and others) have plenty of martyrs (see Harry's link to WP:SBA above) who revel in any divisiveness on wiki. I also see that below. Mark (again) posts excerpts from an email, and I don't recall seeing permission from Dreadstar to do that. (although I did read an apology that Dreadstar offered ON-wiki for something he (Dreadstar) had said OFF-wiki, due to a possible mis-understanding of intent.) I always understood that posting email contents was not allowed, but once again so very close to the "lines" - it is done so without the headers, so I guess he gets a pass on that as well. Perhaps we could lift all restrictions everywhere. Perhaps we could block for WP:NOTHERE. It seems to me that this particular drama-monster has an insatiable appetite, - and me, personally - well I'm done "feeding" it. — Ched :  ?  23:51, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Masem: Someone please correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe this is the current practice here: We delete and forbid links directly to personal attacks, but we don't ban entire websites for such things. For example, if someone posted a link to an attack on me on Wikipediocracy (which happens there daily, it seems like), then I could demand its removal, but I can't demand removal of all links to Wikipediocracy anywhere on Wikipedia. So MB should not link to that particular blog post but is free to link to other entires. Gamaliel (talk) 23:13, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Masem: It's been pointed out to me that the blog post "Sea Lion Emeritus Masem is Not Animatronic. We Swear!" is not on Mark Bernstein's blog, but on a different blog not linked to or written by him. So what does this have to do with Mark Bernstein? Gamaliel (talk) 23:29, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Masem: Let's focus only on actions taken by Mark Bernstein here. There's enough drama to keep track of. Thanks. Gamaliel (talk) 23:34, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Bosstopher: That is an excellent solution, so of course no one will be satisfied. If we imposed such a ban, we should make it clear that it only applies to MB himself, so no one comes here demanding sanctions on MB if someone else drops a link on his user talk page. Gamaliel (talk) 23:19, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. Do we think just a ban from linking to the website or a topic ban from it (hence including, linking to, mentioning and discussing) would work best? Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 07:19, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

At this time, I oppose placing any ban other than one restricting him from posting a link to his own blog. Anything broader than that I fear would prompt attempts to goad him into violating the ban or a flurry of complaints about "violations" that were nothing more than him making remarks here that were vaguely similar to ones on his blog. Gamaliel (talk) 18:09, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm happy with that, HJ Mitchell do you have a preference regarding this ban or the block you recommended? Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 04:01, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• While we're here DHeyward suggested on my talk page that I prohibit anyone discussing GamerGate on MB's talk page. I'm not sure whether we're able to do that (how far that option in the page-level sanctions section of the DS page extended) and whether it would be effective (given the difficulty in advertising and being reasonable while also enforcing it). What are other's thoughts on this? Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 04:37, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• I have no idea what problem this solution is supposed to address. He's already topic banned. How would we enforce this? We'd have to constantly monitor the page and warn lots of users. And why? Gamaliel (talk) 05:23, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• @DHeyward: So? It's one thing to say that an editor with a history of disruption cannot act disruptively in a particular way, it is quite another to blanket ban everyone from doing so regardless of whether or not they are acting appropriately, which is essentially what this would do. Unless the links contain personal attacks or information that constitutes outing, then posting them should not be banned. Gamaliel (talk) 05:42, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• @DHeyward: I am willing to try unorthodox sanctions, but a sanction requires the identification of a problem and an explanation of how the sanction would address that problem. I see neither. Gamaliel (talk) 05:52, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• I broadly agree with that. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 03:53, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@ Callanecc: I think it's beyond the scope of this request to say what others can and cannot say on MB's talk page; (beyond the normal WP policies) - and - MB should be allowed to respond ON .. HIS .. TALK - IFF he is allowed to remain editing after the various violations he's gone through. Just IMO. — Ched :  ?  20:13, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with the first bit, but this was the best place to bring it up. Regarding your second point, if you're topic banned you're topic banned period from everywhere per the policy. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 03:53, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Dr Bernstein has not only shown no intent to cease his disruptive comments, but has referred to his opponents as "the armies of Mordor" in a post below. If he's not even going to tone it down at AE, where his conduct is under scrutiny, he's certainly not going to do so on talk pages in the topic area. For me, this is the rather large straw that broke the already overloaded camel's back. We wouldn't tolerate this of any other editor who had been repeatedly warned and sanctioned, especially not at AE itself, so I fail to see why Dr Bernstein should be any different. Imagine, for a moment, if this was Israel-Palestine and we had an editor making inflammatory comments like this and referring to the other side as the "armies of Mordor"—I can't imagine they'd last very long. At the end of the day, this is a project to create an encyclopaedia, not a battleground. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 21:23, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• I agree, I'd we close this with the TBAN and the one month block and make it clear that linking to pages offwiki which relate to an area you are topic banned from is a violation of that topic ban. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 03:53, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Agree. — Ched :  ?  05:27, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Indeed. He does not know when to stop digging, unfortunately. The ability to know when to step back is often one of the greatest assets to a productive editor. Gamaliel (talk) 05:32, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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.

User who is submitting this request for enforcement

Iselilja (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 22:41, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested

Sceptre (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

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Sexology#Discretionary_sanctions :

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

1. 16 March 2015 Personal attack: Says she opposes James Cantor's presence and his friends crackpot theories.
2. 16 March 2015 Personal attack (implicit BLP violation): "you and your child abusing friends can fuck the hell away from it"
3. 20 March 2015 Upholds PA/implicit BLP violations at ANI "didn't say that your colleague was a child molester, I said he was a child abuser
4. 20 March 2015 Upholds accusations at own user talk page after block: "I personally don't think we should extend civility to child abusers and their sycophants"

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

• Has a long block log for incivility, personal attack, breaches of topic ban etc.

If discretionary sanctions are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see WP:AC/DS#Awareness and alerts)

Sceptre was a party of the original Sexology case, and has also been notified on a clarifying motion 25 September 2014 . She has been sanctioned in the transgender area previously for breaking a topic ban relating to Manning. See block log above.

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

User has in connection with the latest blow-up committed direct libel against Kenneth Zucker, a merited academic. This libel has been oversighted. Sceptre edited Kenneht Zucker's BLP right after she committed libel against him, which she may go back to again unless a topic ban is placed. Editors should not edit articles on BLPs they repeatedly make deragatory and libelous comments about. (In addition to the oversighted direct libels; there are "indirect" libels where Zucker is not mentioned by name; but referred to as " your friend" or similar. I think a topic ban for the full transgender topic is in order.

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

• Notification (though user is currently blocked for a month)

Replies:

• My request is as I mentioned in the last sentence "a topic ban for the full transgender topic". Sorry if I should have put this another place; I am not used to filling out AE requests. At a very minimum, a ban on the Kenneth Zucker is needed; since Sceptre has on several occasions committed direct or indirect libel against that person. It would simply be irresponsible and disrespectul to the BLP object to let Sceptre continue to edit that article. My impression is that Sceptre's recent PAs/BLP violations is very much tied to the topic area where they have a strong emotional involvement, so as such I don't request a total ban (allthough I notice that Sceptre had some problem respecting the Manning topic ban). Iselilja (talk) 23:33, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• ANI discussion. In my view, there was a clear majority of commenters who either wanted a full ban or a topic ban, something the closer did not comment on. Iselilja (talk) 23:33, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• @Ched What are you implying here "Certainly the topic of child abuse is bound to raise the emotion levels of most (if not all) people, and I would hate to think that any of the folks here would ever be supportive of such a thing ? Calling for Kenneth Zucker to be treated with the same respect we expect other BLP subjects to treated with at Wikipedia should in no way be interpreted as a defence for child abuse. Zucker is a merited academic whose two most cited papers deals exactly with child abuse. To refer to a BLP as a child abuser can simply not be defended; unless they are actually convicted for it; or regularly referred to in RS as a child abuser. That's totally not the case for Zucker. Iselilja (talk) 23:47, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• My first comment on the need for a topic ban for Sceptre was made at ANI when Sceptre still had a shorter block (72 hours). I don't think the fact that the block has later been prolonged (one month) makes the need for a topic ban any lesser; the topic ban is meant to last much more than a month. The argument that I am deliberately trying to push this while Sceptre is away is just nonsense. My push for this is caused by the nature of Sceptre's behaviour in the topic area. Also, I said in that first comment of mine, that I believed the right place to deal with the question of a topic ban would be AE. (Unfortunately, I can't link to that comment, because the diff has been oversighted, as a result of the oversight that was needed for Sceptre's libelous comments, but the comment can be found in the general ANI thread linked above) Iselilja (talk) 00:36, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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.

@Iselilja: What is it you're looking for in this enforcement request? The recent AN/I discussion put the block on Sceptre based on the behaviour around the first three diffs you provided, and added a talk page block over the fourth. I saw your comment that followed the closing of that discussion at AN/I, but you don't say anything in your request here about what you actually want done. I'd suggest that you update your request to specify the desired outcome here.

That said, after going through the AN/I discussion, Sceptre's edit history, and their block log, I'd say that Sceptre's behaviour around this issue certainly seems like grounds for a topic ban. I'd suggest that an admin put Sceptre under an indefinite topic ban for all pages related to the sexology case. I offer no thoughts or opinions on the idea of an indefinite block of the user, but suggest that anyone taking up the idea at least review the AN/I discussion. // coldacid (talk|contrib) 23:11, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Iselilja: If the issue here is BLP vios, Sceptre can already be topic banned from editing BLP pages via discretionary sanctions authorized by WP:NEWBLPBAN by any admin, it just needs to be brought to AN/I for attention. I have to agree with both NE Ent and Ched; this is just trying to push something through while Sceptre is away. If there are BLP issues on Kenneth Zucker then revert or remove them, ask for oversight help if there's anything that needs scrubbed even from the article history. Other than that, let the block run its course. If something needs to be done about Sceptre's behaviour after their return, then file an AE request. // coldacid (talk|contrib) 00:14, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sceptre is blocked without talk page access for the attack and multiple administrators have already commented in the AN/I. This is just your basic WP:FORUMSHOP. NE Ent 23:20, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm mostly uninvolved, though I commented at the end of the ANI thread. I wanted to fist address the block log (though not in detail) - the most recent block (not relating to this particular issue) was last year and was quickly reverted by the blocking admin per WP:INVOLVED. The one prior to that the year before. We're not talking about an editor with constant blocks and the blocks aren't for the the same thing.

I suppose my biggest concern is that while the comments in question are a personal attack (when directed at another editor) they aren't automatically a BLP violation just because that editor happens to be the subject of an article here. It's a ridiculous double-jeopardy to say someone who personally attacks another editor is doubly guilty if that editor happens to be notable enough IRL to warrant an article. The other "BLP violation" relates to Dr Zucker who reliable sources have accused of "child abuse" in unequivocal terms. Sceptre repeated those accusations. Andrea James is just one such reliable source (with an article here) who has accused Zucker of child abuse. That doesn't make it correct, nor does it make Sceptre's comment appropriate in the context of his discussions (such as they were) with Cantor. But topic-banning editors for repeating what has been published by reliable sources is a slippery slope. It doesn't give Sceptre a "free pass" to tar fellow editors with the same brush for supporting Zucker, though. Even the most supportive articles in local press still call Zucker a "controversial doctor" and that controversy is for a reason. St★lwart¹¹¹ 06:00, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry Pudeo but when you choose to edit here without the protection of anonymity (which is freely offered and militantly upheld) you open yourself to scrutiny for your edits here and your commentary and well-published views elsewhere. Again, that shouldn't be considered an aggravating factor in determining the extent of the punishment dished out here (especially given sanctions are designed to be preventative, not punitive, anyway). St★lwart¹¹¹ 03:10, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The personal attack is probably as low as you can go without direct threats. Very sorry that someone who edits with their real life name and photo should be abused like that in Wikipedia. Either the case is that the editor completely lost control for this incident and is excepted to remedy it in a month. The other option is that they wanted to be blocked (a Wikipedia version of suicide by cop I suppose), given that they continued the same behavior in a blunt way before being revoked talk page access. It seems to be rather serious poisoning of the well. Frankly, it would be unfair if James Cantor would be expected to just collaborate with this editor on sexology topics like nothing happened. No, he shouldn't have to.--Pudeo' 15:06, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

• I won't speak to the merits of this; but, I will say that I'm not a fan of In absentia findings. I prefer to wait until User:Sceptre is able to speak on her own behalf. I'll also note that I consider it likely that there were some very major misunderstandings in the cross-talk of text throughout this entire unfortunate affair. Certainly the topic of child abuse is bound to raise the emotion levels of most (if not all) people, and I would hate to think that any of the folks here would ever be supportive of such a thing. I think it's best we put this on the back-burner for now and wait for some calm rational thought to be restored to the subject. If, at the time when Sceptre's block expires, there is a need to pursue a topic ban, then we can revisit this request at that time. — Ched :  ?  23:36, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Iselilja, my frame of reference is this AN/I thread, and I'm not prepared to discuss Zucker or the issues therein because I haven't researched that particular topic at any great length. My comments should in no way be construed as any reflection on either Zucker or those editing that page. My comments above should be taken as a very "general" view of the situation at hand, and not as any particular reflection aimed at any individual. — Ched :  ?  00:11, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• I understand why Iselilja brought this here, it is likely that the longer term aspects weren't considered and/or that the existence of DS to TBAN wasn't considered. But I don't see a reason to also impose a TBAN at this stage, especially while they are already blocked. If the behaviour continues when they come back from their block it's likely to be dealt with by a much longer block and/or a TBAN. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 04:14, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• User:Callanecc and User:Ched have opposed issuing a topic ban at this time. They both prefer to wait and see what happens when Sceptre's one month block expires. After Sceptre returns to editing, if a ban turns out to be needed it can be issued by any admin under the discretionary sanctions without needing a trip back to AE. If it were up to me, I could see the case for a six month ban but won't issue one without other admins being in support. EdJohnston (talk) 18:32, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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.

User who is submitting this request for enforcement

Woodroar (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 16:50, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested

Galestar (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

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/GamerGate :

Continued ignoring and editing against consensus, removing unsourced material from lede, adding undue material to lede, pushing a POV.

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

1. 13 March 2015 removed "misogynistic" from lede, was reverted and told to take to Talk as this was against consensus. Editor started a discussion on Talk which is still ongoing, but consensus remains that the attacks (at least) are widely described in reliable sources as misogynistic.
2. 22:45, 17 March 2015 removed "misogynistic" from lede
3. 22:52, 17 March 2015 removed "misogynistic" from lede
4. 23:53, 17 March 2015 removed "misogynistic" from lede, added ref to lede, was blocked for 48 hours for 1RR violation
5. 18:05, 23 March 2015 removed "misogynistic" from lede
6. 18:10, 23 March 2015 reverted archive template from discussion, but didn't actually contribute any more to the discussion
7. 04:44, 24 March 2015 added unnecessary sources to the lede
8. 15:42, 24 March 2015 added undue "and ethics in videogame journalism" to the lede
9. 16:29, 24 March 2015 added undue "impossible to separate honest criticism from trolling" sentence to lede

Galestar also appears to be pushing a POV on other articles:

1. 18 March 2015 removing "equality" from Feminism
2. 18 March 2015 adding unsourced opinion that "feminism often promotes misandry"

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

1. 18 March 2015 first sanctions block

If discretionary sanctions are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see WP:AC/DS#Awareness and alerts)

Editor was informed about sanctions.

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

[7]

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.

• #1, #2, #3, #4 I've already been blocked for violating 1RR.

• #5 I performed as perceived consensus on the talk page by the discussion being closed.
• #6 After my edit was reverted I proceeded back to the talk page to clarify. Turns out section was closed by an involved editor, without following any kind of procedure other than "I declare that I win". Contrary to this report, I did continue to contribute to the discussion (and so did many others). It is obvious that there is no consensus.
• #7, #8, #9 Attempting to accurately summarize the article as per WP:LEDE

Which policy am I being accused of violating that would warrant arbitration? Galestar (talk) 17:26, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Woodroar: Since there definitely wasn't any consensus to keep the wording as is, I interpreted the closure of the discussion as deference to my arguments. Otherwise this would be an involved editor closing a discussion without reaching consensus. WP:HORSEMEAT is an essay, however WP:CLOSE is "communal consensus" which is stronger. There is a process for closing discussions, and it was not followed. I'm not sure how you can point the finger at me for reopening an improperly closed discussion that did not have consensus. If that was a violation then anyone could go around claiming WP:HORSEMEAT on discussions they disagreed with and no-one could discuss anything.

Anyways, that's all I'll say in my defense. No more feeding the trolls. Galestar (talk) 18:40, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry: As I have noted elsewhere, I do not believe that edit was in violation of my ban. Can you please check the timestamps again? Galestar (talk) 23:32, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@EvergreenFir: Being an SPA Temporarily focusing on a single topic, or taking breaks from Wiki are not bannable offences. Please stop flinging these accusations. Galestar (talk) 23:34, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Strongjam: Thank you for confirming that I did not violate my ban - everyone else has simply laid on accusations and not cared to hear my defense. Galestar (talk) 00:33, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@GoldenRing: Yes. I know now that I was in violation of WP:ILLEGIT, if not the ban. It will not happen again. Galestar (talk) 01:02, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have also reverted the single edit by that other account. I have no other accounts. Galestar (talk) 01:46, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Woodroar was quite clear, Galestar, the guidelines are DS for Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/GamerGate and the violations are continued ignoring and editing against consensus, removing unsourced material from lede, adding undue material to lede, pushing a POV. These assertions go beyond a 1RR violation. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 18:07, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Galestar: the Talk page section was closed at 04:29, 22 March 2015 with closing remarks of WP:HORSEMEAT and lots of glue have been the product of this discussion. That said, the Colbert quote was changed and Masem did raise some potentially viable alternative wording. Would recommend we start a fresh discussion about the wording if that's still an issue and allow this very messy section to be closed as the original topic as ceased being discussed. Immediately prior to your revert, we had numerous requests to close the section. Given these facts, I'm not sure how your edit at 18:05, 23 March 2015 reflects any amount of "perceived consensus on the talk page by the discussion being closed", or your claims that the section was closed "without following any kind of procedure". Similarly, your addition of sources and undue sections to the lede shows that you're simply ignoring or dismissing consensus and seek only to push a POV. Furthermore, remarks like this—Can "attacks" even be misogynistic? Do the attacks themselves hate women? The sentence doesn't even make any sense. Why does everyone want to keep it so badly when its an obvious grammatical failure and sensationalist headline?—appear to show that you don't care much at all about gaining consensus or reliable sourcing in general. Woodroar (talk) 18:26, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Just commenting to second what Liz said. Clear case of disruptive editing and violations. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 20:50, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Given the sockpuppetry and the fact this user is an SPA zombie account, recommend tban. The sock was used to comment on feminism, which is covered by the GG ruling. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 23:21, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Galestar: - No, but that in addition to your other behaviors make them even more egregious. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 23:35, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with Liz and EvergreenFir. This user is continuing in the grand pattern of previous editors who engage in behaviors designed to frustrate and waste the time of productive editors in order to promote an agenda. --Jorm (talk) 21:01, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No comment on the merits, but a few minutes ago I discovered that Galestar evaded his last block - see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Galestar where I have left notes. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (Message me) 23:17, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Given the sock puppetry a tban is in order. The timing is a bit off for block evasion, block started at 04:41, 18 March 2015 (UTC) only edit by the sock was 01:36, 18 March 2015 (UTC). Given that they both were editing about feminism seems like an WP:ILLEGIT use of multiple accounts . — Strongjam (talk) 00:16, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Given the users statements about the sock puppetry:

• 23:18, 24 March 2015
• 23:20, 24 March 2015
• 23:32, 24 March 2015

I'd suggest an admin have a word with them about multiple accounts. — Strongjam (talk) 00:27, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think we need to hear a clear, convincing explanation from Galestar about how the use of multiple accounts falls within the boundaries of WP:VALIDALT, or a believable acknowledgement that it was against policy and an assurance that it won't happen again. And we need to hear it sharpish. "It wasn't block evasion" doesn't cut it. GoldenRing (talk) 00:49, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

ie wot Strongjam said. GoldenRing (talk) 00:52, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

On the basis of the first removal that mimicked the previous removals that lead to the short ban, there's very little to excuse this behavior. However I will point out that the last several diffs provided at the GG page should not be seen as POV pushing or undue - at least in a manner that requires a ban. Tied with previous behavior, yes, it is a problem, but these actions in isolation should not be called "POV pushing" or "undue" as that's maintaining the battleground attitude that the page has suffered since prior to the ArbCom case and makes it difficult to discuss consensus. Any other editor that previously had not done any of those actions and made one of the same changes (and no post 1RR action) would not be violating any part of the GG restrictions. --MASEM (t) 05:32, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

• There are a long list of problematic behaviors here, any one of which would be deserving of a sanction. I am applying the standard GG topic ban: "Any editor subject to a topic-ban in this decision is 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." The topic ban will be lifted after twelve (12) months or when this editor demonstrates a pattern of current, non-problematic editing in other topic areas. Gamaliel (talk) 16:32, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Given the number and variety of issues, that seems a reasonable course of action to me. I might have said that the 1RR violation had been dealt with and the socking wasn't in violation of the block, but the persistence of their removal of the adjective "misogynistic" and the pointy edits at feminism clinched it for me. A topic ban seems a proportionate response. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 18:25, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]