Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2015/Candidates/MarkBernstein

MarkBernstein

Mark Bernstein attempted to get me banned from Wikipedia because of my behavior. I vote against his adminship. 2602:306:8B40:CC20:6466:4F15:BFBB:ADCA (talk) 21:45, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

So are you banned? Why edit as an IP then? Smallbones_(smalltalk) 16:30, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

It's not an RfA, it's an Arbcom election. You will need to vote using the voting system, which requires that you use a registered account, of a certain age and with a certain number of edits. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 21:20, 22 November 2015 (UTC).

I think this user should be banned from Wikipedia for his leftist, SJW and anti-free speech mindset. He is a fanger to Wikipedia and unfit for any arbcom or even admin tasks. He is a frequent pain in the rear for editors who want to add sourced material and a user who often tries to keep articles such as gamergate completely NOT npov. Banning him from Wikipedia has already been done, yet he keeps coming back because of his leftist SJW friends. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.90.245.209 (talk) 16:57, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

But what about the pie? Why don’t you tell us what you really think -- and who you really are? MarkBernstein (talk) 19:44, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

I don't object to anonymity. IPs are people too. However, for the benefit of uninvolved electors, accusations of this kind should be sourced, preferably in the form of diffs. Unsubstantiated scuttlebutt can and will be ignored. De Guerre (talk) 01:31, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

STRONG SUPPORT: I strongly endorse Mark Bernstein's candidacy for ArbCom. He is a deep thinker is deeply knowledgeable about hypertextuality. He is a hard worker, and is fair and principled. Pleasantville (talk) 01:41, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

ENDORSE: I voted for you, Mark. Even though I am sympathetic to the GamerGators and generally loathe SJWs, I know that there should be balance on ArbCom. That means that there will be leftists. If we need to have leftist SJWs I would rather have you than someone totally irrational or high-strung. You are not irrational, you are not high-strung. I'm just happy that you're willing to be on ArbCom, as we could have a lot worse than you. I am not being sarcastic. I did vote for you. Thank you for your service in general. --FeralOink (talk) 03:57, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

Comments/questions As far as I can tell, this candidate seems to be driven by one very important issue. But that's just one issue. What if that issue doesn't come up in any ArbCom cases during the next term? Has he pre-judged any cases that are pending? He has a rather elaborate and hmm... I'll say floral writing style that makes me not really want to read. Does this candidate work well with those of opposing views, or will he muck things up with endless, righteous, stubborn argument? We need strong voices on this one issue, but I have seen no sign of neutrality before the evidence. All I see is advocacy. We need that on this issue, but how will that make ArbCom a fair and open body? It's like WP's Supreme Court. I don't want Johnny Cochrane on the bench. I want him on the other side of the bench, arguing the cases.

If I sound like I'm just being critical, I am, but critical in the academic sense. I really want to understand this candidate, and if my comments are misguided, I would like to learn why. I would not be here wasting my time if I weren't interested. Dcs002 (talk) 07:50, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

Where were you in the questions period? Can we still do questions? These are better than all the inside baseball!

You worry that my writing is florid. My ArbCom writing has been florid because (a) ArbCom’s silly pseudo-judicial trappings, and the mock-heroic style so many affect on the drama boards, invite it, and (b) a lad’s got to have some amusement when dealing with this nonsense. I don’t usually write that way: see my book if you like, or my research papers. I promise not to write extended passages of alliterative verse and to keep Milton out of it. Malt (and pie!) do more than Milton can to justify God’s ways to man.

I work very well indeed with people who hold a variety of opposing views. The questions that are my central concern here are harassment and extortion. I probably won’t collaborate effectively with people who believe that Wikipedia ought to threaten to maim software developers, or to tell their families that they’ll shortly be murdered. If people advocate using Wikipedia to commit extortion, then yes, I'm very likely to muck things up with stubborn argument if that’s the best way to stop it. If you want to encourage harassment and extortion on Wikipedia, or think we should be neutral about harassment and extortion, then you have many better choices. You don’t need a voter guide: the incumbents have been doing a fine job. If you want someone who will try to stop harassment and extortion, I’m your guy.

No, I've not prejudged any cases. If no case that involves harassment or extortion comes up in the next two years, I'd be delighted. But what odds are you giving? MarkBernstein (talk) 15:14, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for your thoughtful reply. I did not post this in the question section because I thought maybe some of your supporters might want to weigh in (I still hope they do), and I did not want to pose questions that appear to be thinly-veiled criticisms of a candidate. I also think a talk page like this allows you more room as a candidate to offer more than a sound bite that has to be general enough to be relevant to most people, and therefore possibly limited in substance.

I am just learning about the harassment that happened, and I've now read a fair bit about it, including your off-site essays. (I have to tell you, I have a suspicion that there is some amount of spin in those essays. Of course I might be wrong, and of course the truth of such crimes needs to be made known.) Such crimes need to be met with absolute intolerance, if everything I have read is true, and I get the impression that more happened than I have read. But I have a few follow-up questions for you: Did you have access to private information at the time? If so, did you use that access to look up identifying information about the person committing these crimes? Did you or anybody else contact any law enforcement agency? If not, then why not? What you describe is a series of felonies where I live. If a person was put in fear of her life, shouldn't ArbCom or WMF or any user who knew about these crimes have taken steps to protect her, other than advocating for administrative action on WP?

I will post a question, maybe more, on your question page. Thanks again for your reply. Dcs002 (talk) 23:35, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

STRONG SUPPORT AND MY VOTE, DESPITE NOT BEING AS MIFFED AT PR: I strongly support Mark, however I'm not as miffed as he is about PR agencies on Wiki. I have nothing to do with them, but frankly, I think they add a lot of value to Wiki. For example, I'm the main creator of the List of Music Software Article, and I actually enjoy when agencies and shills add links to new software. It keeps us more Amazon like, and gives researchers options and choices, buyer beware or not. In fact, I even like Amazon links to books as much as ISBNs that you have to wade through. I know this is a much different view than Mark's and in fact most other editors, and I wanted to strongly voice my support despite this major difference of opinion. I respect his strong views on care about living persons also, even though some of his edits have a fine enough sorting algorithm to exclude some possibly worthy academics. Trade off acceptable for the good it does. All these candidates have trade offs, but Mark and Callanecc have the experience needed to fix Arb, and anyone burned by it after working their butts off on articles knows it NEEDS fixing. So, after all that, I happily show my hand: Mark is thumbs up because he knows how much this needs fixing, and has the experience, objectivity and passion to make it happen. Pdecalculus (talk) 14:43, 27 November 2015 (UTC)