User talk:MarkBernstein/Archive4

Masem

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

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

Topic ban

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

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

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

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

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

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

An explanation

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

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

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

I'm not blaming you, exactly, though it's a bit rich that, after a solid year of talk-page snickering about Zoe Quinn’s sex life, we regard "made-up" as a blatant and obvious BLP violation. We've got lots of great published sources [1] that say this and much worse -- rambling, drink-fueled, malicious, twisted, and that's just Boston Magazine. Do you understand why Gamergate thinks this specific topic is so sensitive? MarkBernstein (talk) 20:37, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

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

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

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

Breitbart and Infowars

This edit [2] is not sourced to them. It is sourced to a reliable source "Top Conspiracy Theories On Ahmed Mohamed Clock". Mornning News USA. Archived from the original on 27 September 2015. Retrieved 27 September 2015.. Please consider undoing that edit. Thanks! - Cwobeel (talk) 21:47, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

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

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

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

May this edit work for you? [3] Just a partial restore to highlight Dawkins' comments.- Cwobeel (talk) 22:26, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

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

WP:ANI

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

Question about reverting policy

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

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

Palestine-Israel articles 3 arbitration case proposed decision posted

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

A second chance?

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

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

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

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

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

My revert

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

A very belated apology

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

YOur edit

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

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

Vested contributors arbitration case opened

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

Vested contributors retitled Arbitration enforcement 2

You may opt-out of future notifications related to this case at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Arbitration enforcement 2/Notification list. You recently offered a statement in a request for arbitration. The Arbitration Committee has accepted that request for arbitration and an arbitration case has been opened at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Arbitration enforcement 2. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Arbitration enforcement 2/Evidence. Please add your evidence by November 5, 2015, which is when the evidence phase closes. For this case, there will be no Workshop phase. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 12:41, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

Jim Bunning and Fergie Jenkins!

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

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

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

Margaret Sanger

This message contains important information about an administrative situation on Wikipedia. It does not imply any misconduct regarding your own contributions to date.

Please carefully read this information:

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

Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. This message is to notify you sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.

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

AE2

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

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

Your statement page

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

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

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

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

Modification of restrictions

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

2015 Arbitration Committee Candidate Statement

Hello,

After reviewing your election statement it appears that you have exceeded the maximum limit of 400 words. Could you please reduce the statement length at the earliest opportunity? You are welcome to provide links to an extended statement if you so desire. On behalf of the Election Commission, Mike V • Talk 02:27, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

I hope you have had a good laugh, and a good cry. I have complied with your absurd requirement; please let me know if I can oblige you further. MarkBernstein (talk) 03:30, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

A cup of coffee for you!

Because you're going to need all your wits for ArbCom! Cheers! MurderByDeadcopy"bang!" 00:57, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

When pigs fly! MarkBernstein (talk) 01:27, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

Or flying toasters?! --MurderByDeadcopy^"bang!" 01:28, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

Signpost email

I sent one via Commons since my daily limit for emailing at en.WP has been reached. Tony (talk) 04:43, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

'Disruptively'

I don't appreciate obliquely being called disruptive.[4] Given that you also hold a strong viewpoint on this issue, I don't think it's appropriate for you to close that discussion, and especially, for you to slap the word 'disruptive' on the title. I would appreciate it if you would replace the title on that hatnote section with something more neutral. LK (talk) 05:24, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for changing the hatnote title. LK (talk) 10:49, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

Interestingly...

.. I wouldn't entirely count yourself out. I think this race will be significantly harder to predict than previous arbcom races. There are a few "duh. they'll win" candidates, but I think there's quite a bit more variability beyond the top two or three candidates. Kevin Gorman (talk) 02:47, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:07, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Questions for candidates

I found it curious that David Bradley who was drilling you with questions about your arb candidacy doesn't appear to be a user on WP. Atsme^📞📧 03:35, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Somehow, I don't find that surprising at all. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 03:46, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Funny how no one objects to that. MarkBernstein (talk) 03:56, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Your candidacy statement

I will pretty much repeat here what I said in another candidate's talk page. Here goes.

I read your statement in the current Arbitration Committee election. I can relate to dealing with a few users who wish to twist content to promote views that are not correct. I once wrote an article about a right-wing video documentary that for a time was widely viewed and I tried to show its content in an objective way. I originally went to graduate school to be a journalist, but ended up with a Ph.D. in history. I have written a number of things, including books. Anyway, I requested admins to consider providing partial protection for my article, as persons incensed that I did not sing praises to the video made totally unwarranted changes. I finally gave up when nothing was done and the edits made deleted objective reviews of the video. This resulted in the article being tagged for deletion. I told what had happened in the deletion discussion and the article, which had become trashed, was deleted. To add insult to injury those who made unwarranted changes to the article were sometimes personally insulting to me in Wikipedia and through other online sources. No one trying to write an objective article should be subjected to this. Anyway, I still write and edit in various Wikimedia areas. Bill Pollard (talk) 07:51, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

No one trying to write an encyclopedia should be exposed to harassment or extortion. That's why I'm a candidate. MarkBernstein (talk) 13:24, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Such behavior runs rampant on WP, Bill Pollard. Voters tend to be a lot like sports' fans with regards to their loyalties to the home team. I've experienced the same behavior while editing the BLP of an author who leans right. It's not fun, especially if you are negatively labeled as a result of your efforts to follow PAGs. The WP:IAR policy almost always prevails. The problems arise because of different interpretations and perspectives as to what is actually considered an improvement. Hopefully, if Mark is elected he will provide the much needed balance. Atsme^📞📧 13:41, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

Your expertise on hypermedia

Hello! The author of this piece about "hypermedia editing" is at AfD. see Kresten Bjerg , Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kresten Bjerg and Draft:Kresten Bjerg. I am wondering if that crosses into your area of expertise and if you would be interested in providing your opinion. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 15:50, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

Bjerg may not, in fact, meet any of the requirements in WP:NACADEMICS, which I have long thought to be very faulty. On the other hand, Bjerg is clearly more notable than many other topics we cover. Why are Wikipedia's notability guidelines far stricter for scholars than for athletes, children’s cartoon episodes, pornographic actors, or novelists? For that matter, it appears to me that, as the standards are written, many academics would likely fail WP:NACADEMICS while passing WP:GNG. MarkBernstein (talk) 16:54, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

About a notice

Your edit is on the wrong page. That's their user page. Jorm has already notified the user on their talk page. — Strongjam (talk) 19:50, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

That guy is so clearly a sockpuppet it makes my eyes bleed. No edits since 2013 and BANG right into Gamergate and (quelle suprise) unable to use the word "Bias" correctly.--Jorm (talk) 19:51, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

Ah, thanks. Trying to check in while the compiler is grinding away -- sorry. Notice that, before leaving in 2013, the user self-claimed to be a sock. MarkBernstein (talk) 19:55, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

Sock-puppeteer actually. Goes way back to 2007. I guess things were more lenient back then, I'd be surprised to see an SPI end with a one-week block today. — Strongjam (talk) 19:59, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

As always XKCD is relevant #303. — Strongjam (talk) 20:02, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

On the Signpost

Hey Bernstein. While this comment of yours is a little old, I just came across this and am curious about what you mean in terms of the Signpost. GamerPro64 01:54, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

candidates were asked to contribute a 75 word statement to the signpost, in addition to the banal Lickert-scale responses. These were not used, and the candidate statements that were used were not attributed; the latter was a strange editorial lapse.MarkBernstein (talk) 03:23, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

Oh right. I do remember that. That makes sense now. GamerPro64 03:39, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for running. The overall results bear out your stands. Thanks again. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 21:13, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

Yes, it does appear that the community may at last be losing patience with harassment. Thanks. MarkBernstein (talk) 22:01, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

Possibly. Equally possible is that there was a lot of backroom canvassing etc going on, including at the recent DC meet. Odd that people of a certain ilk cannot see all sides on a project where NPOV is supposedly a core feature. I've found it very interesting watching which of the candidates Smallbones chose to make comment on since the results were announced. - Sitush (talk) 00:52, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

Hi, Sitush! If I may be so bold, I think I see both sides of a lot of things. So, I expect, does Smallbones, but I presume you, seeing both sides, will accord him the privilege of supporting whomever he pleases? Or are you planning to threaten him, too? But really, I’d very much like to bury this hatchet. I don't like to be threatened, and you have seen that it doesn’t work very well in my case. Other than that, you seem like a reasonable fellow. I myself am a pretty reasonable fellow, and my bourbon pecan pie is not bad. Have a slice. Can we patch this up? MarkBernstein (talk) 01:08, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

Yes, we might as well. For the record, I don't think I've ever met Mark, in DC or otherwise. This is probably the first time I've been on his talkpage, and I've never emailed him. I did notice that there are a lot of people at these Wiki meetings who actually talk to each other, and if you wish to file a complaint somewhere about this, I will support that with actual evidence of the same. I didn't do any backroom talking about the election in DC, but I did talk for about 5 minutes in the main auditorium to individuals about it, and for about 1 minute (on video!) to the group as a whole. I've forgotten to keep my dues up-to-date on all my ilks, so it's hard to say if I still have any ilk memberships left. In short - relax, have some fun, it's a good day to be alive. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 01:31, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

I want to thank you as well for running, and for being the Gadfly for this issue. (That's supposed to be a Socrates reference, but it's kinda flat :P ) If nothing else, you have certainly opened my eyes to the kind of influence small coordinated groups can (and do) have on WP, and it's definitely a serious vulnerability. Your style is certainly eccentric, and I would have liked to have read some of your dissenting comments if you had won :) Dcs002 (talk) 23:26, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

It's that time of year....

Christmas tree worm, (Spirobranchus gigantic)
	Time To Spread Some Happy Holiday Cheer!!
	I decorated a special kind of Christmas tree in the spirit of the season. What's especially nice about the digitized version is that it doesn't need water, and it won't catch fire.
	Wishing you a joyous holiday season... ...and a prosperous New Year!! 🍸🎁 🎉
	Atsme📞📧 15:28, 23 December 2015 (UTC)	Pure pun-ishment. [5]

ANI

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. - Sitush (talk) 00:43, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

Arbitration enforcement 2 case closed

You are receiving this message because you are a party or offered a preliminary statement and/or evidence in the Arbitration enforcement 2 case. This is a one-time message.

The Arbitration enforcement 2 arbitration case (t) (ev / t) (w / t) (pd / t) has been closed, and the following remedies have been enacted:

1.1) The Arbitration Committee confirms the sanctions imposed on Eric Corbett as a result of the Interactions at GGTF case, but mandates that all enforcement requests relating to them be filed at arbitration enforcement and be kept open for at least 24 hours.

3) For his breaches of the standards of conduct expected of editors and administrators, Black Kite is admonished.

6) The community is reminded that discretionary sanctions have been authorised for any page relating to or any edit about: (i) the Gender Gap Task Force; (ii) the gender disparity among Wikipedians; and (iii) any process or discussion relating to these topics, all broadly construed.

For the Arbitration Committee, Kharkiv07 (T) 02:41, 25 December 2015 (UTC)

Discuss this at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard#Arbitration enforcement 2 case closed

Happy New Year, MarkBernstein!

Happy New Year!

MarkBernstein,
Have a prosperous, productive and enjoyable New Year, and thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:01, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year fireworks}} to user talk pages.

January 2016

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Talk:Margaret Sanger. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Please be particularly aware that Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states:

1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made.
2. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. Elizium23 (talk) 23:38, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

I disagree. If you believe that a removing an unsubstantiated claim against Margaret Sanger is edit warring, take me to AN3 or AE. 03:23, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

Quick enquiry please

Hi there. I was the female and feminist editor that you commented on and accused of being part of the MRA? Your comment was very offensive. I would like to give you the benefit of the doubt. It appears after looking at the Men's rights movement, sexism, domestic violence, gender equality and other related topics, this attack on editors has been a very common and effective tactic it seems, used by other editors to quickly demonize (some) good faith editors to perhaps push their own POV? For me I believe in women's rights, men's right's, children's rights and animal rights> I'd be interested in your explanation and what your motive to call me, as a female and a feminist, that offensive comment in an attempt to discredit me. It would help me understand you and many others who seem extremely passionate and hold very strong personal views, about this and know a great deal about these types of men's and women's rights groups. Thank you.Charlotte135 (talk) 23:38, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

@Charlotte135: I am sorry to say that you are mistaken. Let’s take a moment to read what I wrote:

I don't think User:Only in death is making a joke. “MRA” is an abbreviation for "Mens’ Rights Activist," a movement with which you would appear to hold some sympathy. The overwhelming majority of Mens’ Rights Activists are men, but of course women might support that movement just as many men support feminism. There's no bias in that observation, no attack, and no incivility that I can see.

As you see, I did not comment upon you; I tried to explain another editor’s statement, one which you said you had found puzzling. I tried to explain what that editor had written. I did not accuse you of being a part of the Mens’ Rights Movement; I wrote that you appeared to have some sympathy for that movement. Your remarks about rights above would be consistent with that supposition. I do not know whether you are female, a feminist, a Republican, or a fan of the New York Yankees. If you believe that I have attempted to discredit you, you are mistaken -- and it hardly appears that you require much assistance in that endeavor. MarkBernstein (talk) 00:13, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

Charlotte135, I recommend you stop this pursuit of editors who you believe have wronged and offended you and focus on improving content in the encyclopedia. Please move on past this or you are likely to find yourself pulled back into noticeboard discussions which might end quite differently than the last one. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:53, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

Oh. I was simply wondering why Mark made this baseless assumption. No personal attack Liz. I'm also new editor Liz. Please show me some respect here and give me and other new editors, the benefit of your doubt. Can you explain then exactly what you believe I have done wrong here so I don't do it again? Thank you.Charlotte135 (talk) 00:59, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

I made no assumption, baseless or otherwise. I showed you no disrespect in the past, though your currently regrettable behavior cannot be respected. If you wish is persist in your disingenuous trolling, kindly do so elsewhere; if you have, as you claim below, a "real world research department," be so good as to identify it or forbear from posting on this page. MarkBernstein (talk) 02:57, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

Liz in my real world research department I would always approach a colleague (fellow editor in this case) and politely ask a question, get a response and move on, to understand another's perspective. It's good practice and helps reduce any potential conflict in future, clear the air and understand the other colleagues perspective. Hope that makes sense. Please don't try to frame me for something innocent and in good faith though Liz. I don't like to be disrespected. Thank you.Charlotte135 (talk) 01:10, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

@Liz: Hi Liz. Look, can you please direct me to a Wikipedia policy paper, if one exists, I could look over, guiding all of us in precisely what you are saying I have done here. That way I'm informed, as to how all of us should conduct ourselves here. That would be helpful. Thank you.Charlotte135 (talk) 01:25, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

Why don't you just give it a rest and take your Dog and pony show somewhere else? Sheesh. Dave Dial (talk) 02:17, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

And thank you Mark. Your explanation is accepted. What I have worked out is that editing Wikipedia is not a popularity contest nor about subjectivity. Its about policy and what the reliable sources say. For me it's all about the actual objective edits made to an actual article (not talk) page and me having the same rights to edit articles free from personal attacks and attempts at outing other editors. I'm sure you'd agree. Another thing I have learnt is to use proper dispute resolution avenues in future, sooner rather than later, before getting embroiled in highly emotive articles. Thank you again for explaining your comment. My mistake.Charlotte135 (talk) 01:03, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

You are again mistaken in many respects, including (it seems) the denotation of "emotive." MarkBernstein (talk) 02:57, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

Charlotte135, there are a lot of behavioral essays which offer informal insight into Wikipedia interpersonal practices but Wikipedia:Etiquette and Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines would be a good place to start.

As a general principle, you will often be told, "Focus on the content, not the contributor." It's best to keep debate to subjects like which sources are reliable than discuss individual's character. And I'm advising you to do this even though other editors might not treat you very well. Good conduct is behavior we all should aspire to but in the internet world, with anonymous usernames, oftentimes people are less than polite and you might feel "disrespected". I certainly have been called insulting things (probably no worse than what most editors hear) and you have to let it go, like water off a duck's back.

Ignore insults, develop a thick skin, focus on the work and if the editor is truly disruptive (and that doesn't mean being rude), try to discuss the issue with them and THEN if it is unsuccessful, contact an administrator or take it to a noticeboard. People will have more respect for you as an editor if you try to work out your differences with other editors instead of immediately taking offense and taking the dispute to ANI. This might not be behavior that comes naturally but it's something to strive for. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:43, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

Thank you Liz. I will give these articles a good read over the next few days. I do believe I tried, and then tried some more, to "work out .. differences with other editors at the domestic violence article for instance, where there is still, IMO quite a biased slant and lack of representation of what much of the empirical research has provided us. This does not do the project any favors nor respect from the general public, I'm sure. I guess what concerns me most is good faith editors like me, can't actually edit from a NPOV, as they are quickly mobbed and labeled "POV pushers and/or men's rights" This personal opinion is strongly based on my perusal of the entire history on the talk pages of this and other gender based articles and articles covering topics like abortion or even climate change. Let's fact it, we all have opinions on these issues. Anyone who says different are not being honest. However I truly believe that my actual, objective edits made to all articles I have edited are not expressing my POV. No editor provided any evidence to the contrary, either. And I certainly wish to help improve the project and am not here to be disruptive, nor for a single purpose, I can assure you and any other editor, although I do admit I have had a shaky start. I would like to stick around actually and show my worth through my edits over a longer period of time. Anyway this is Mark's talk page, and I have also taken note of DD2K's comment, so I shall leave it there, and again thank you for getting back to me Liz. It is really appreciated. Thank you also MarkBernstein for allowing this discussion to take place here in your private space.Charlotte135 (talk) 00:08, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

• For what it's worth MarkBernsteins explanation of my remark was entirely correct. Except I would say after an extended look at Charlotte135 edit history, 'some sympathy' may not be strong enough. Only in death does duty end (talk) 05:27, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

No problem. As I said if I hear the "men's rights" BS again... The tactic has really worn thin with me. But as i said Only in death does duty end you and others seem very passionate and hold very, very strong personal opinions and personal knowledge about these types of men's and/or women's rights groups. That's great! I just don't share the passion or knowledge, that's all. Enough said on someone else's talk page. Sorry MarkBernstein.Charlotte135 (talk) 05:41, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

Apologies Mark, I meant to say *biased* and POV filled. My error again it seems.Charlotte135 (talk) 05:30, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

Teahouse talkback: you've got messages!

Hello, MarkBernstein/Archive4. Your question has been answered at the Teahouse Q&A board. Feel free to reply there!
Please note that all old questions are archived after 2-3 days of inactivity. Message added by Murph9000 (talk) 00:51, 20 January 2016 (UTC). (You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{teahouse talkback}} template).

Friendly signature assistance

If you accidentally type your signature as 5 tildes, you can always go back and type 3 tildes to make it show your name. Discuss-Dubious (t/c) 20:52, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

ANI courtesy notice

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Specifically, you were mentioned at WP:ANI#Alleged_BLP_vios_on_Talk:Christina_Hoff_Sommers. This is just a courtesy notice. Thank you. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 00:54, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

I request you to help out on the recent deletion on Mark Levin wiki page.

See the talk section for that page Localemediamonitor (talk) 02:48, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

FYI that vandal undid your fix & is still running amok deleted entire sections. pls helpLocalemediamonitor (talk) 22:51, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

3RR report about DHeyward

Hello MarkB. Regarding this 3RR report. You seem to be participating there in violation of your ban from the topic of DHeyward, as recorded here on your talk page in March 2015. Unless this ban has been lifted, I recommend you strike out all your comments in the 3RR report. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 05:27, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

Hi EdJohnston. I think this interaction ban was struck down! Not on a PC right now so it'd be hard for me to find a link to it, though. PeterTheFourth (talk) 05:48, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

I can only find where it was modified. My bad! PeterTheFourth (talk) 06:47, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

I believe it was cancelled after one of DHeyward's numerous breaches. I don't have time just now to research the records; I've a release to finish. You should know the context of the question at hand-- yet anther woman in the software industry has been targeted, and Wikipedia is once more part of he strategy for punishing her. This had not been made clear, and both the matter itself and the revulsion it has aroused in the press are important facts that might not be known to all. Given WMF's recent troubles and the project's previous infamy on Gamergate, it is better for the project that it's administrators undestand the context. I am not otherwise participating. 10:11, 7 April 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by MarkBernstein (talk • contribs)

No, it wasn't cancelled, it was modified. As I understand it, the modified restriction allows you to bring enforcement action but not comment willy-nilly on anything you see.[6]. I wasn't particularly offended by your participation as I believe I refuted all of your charges and I am not in favor of such restrictions and don't support any sanctions based on them. I'd rather let the argument speak for themselves rather than dubious topic bans. I haven't brought up sanctions. I oppose the broader issues of personal attacks. I am not a GG supporter in any wy and certainly do not command "cadres." I'm too old for that nonsense.--DHeyward (talk) 10:44, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

DHeyward, if you believe it's still in place, why are you posting on MarkBernstein's talk page...? PeterTheFourth (talk) 10:55, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

Hello MarkB. The list of sanctions at WP:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions/Log/2015#ArbCom-authorised discretionary sanctions includes your name. The list is supposed to show current status, and it still shows your ban as being in effect: "MarkBernstein ... indefinitely topic banned from all edits and discussion regarding User:DHeyward and User: Thargor Orlando.." If you think the ban was lifted, please link to where that was done. Per this amendment of November 2015 your ability to open enforcement requests against DHeyward was restored but not the ability to discuss his behavior otherwise. EdJohnston (talk) 16:20, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

OK, Sorry for the misunderstanding. MarkBernstein (talk) 16:24, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

MarkB, since the restriction is now clear to both of us, you should follow through and cure the violation of your restriction:

1. Strike out the comments that you made in the EW complaint against DHeyward. (You shouldn't be participating in that thread at all).
2. Strike out your mention of DHeyward from a comment you made at ANI. (I don't understand what you are saying there but it's hard to see why DHeyward's name ought to be included). Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 03:03, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

You're welcome. I mentioned DHeyward's dog only because Gamaliel raised the matter of that fine animal, and it is convenient in a conversation to stick to a single image or metaphor. It is no doubt unjust that we refer to it only through its owners name, rather than using one or all of its three intrinsic and different names [7], always assuming that these apply to dogs as well as cats. But, just as Wikipedia lacks a meaningful harassment policy, and is apparently unwilling or unable to prevent Wikipedia's use to spread sexual rumors about women in the software industry whom Gamergate has conspired to target, it appears we have no policy regarding BLAs -- biographies of living animals. Of course, here I am assuming that the canine in question is living. If the animal in question, which Gamaliel says he kicked ten years ago, has subsequently departed this vale of tears and cats for the Happy Home for Hounds, I suppose our absent policy would regard biographies of rhetorical animals, or BRAs. I imagine that would attract interest from Gamergate, as did Gamaliel’s small hands. MarkBernstein (talk) 11:39, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

I apologize for inadvertently contributing to this misunderstanding. I should have provided the name of that fine canine so one would not have to employ the name of its owner. Unfortunately it's been so long since I kicked it I no longer recall what it was. Sparkles? Gamaliel (talk) 12:49, 9 April 2016 (UTC)