Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 01:39, 14 April 2016

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

Important information

Shortcuts

Please use this page only to:

request administrative action against editors violating a remedy (not merely a principle) or an injunction in an Arbitration Committee decision, or a contentious topic restriction imposed by an administrator,
request contentious topic restrictions against previously alerted editors who engage in misconduct in a topic area designated as a contentious topic,
request page restrictions (e.g. revert restrictions) on pages that are being disrupted in topic areas designated as contentious topics, or
appeal arbitration enforcement actions (including contentious topic restrictions) to uninvolved administrators.

For all other problems, including content disagreements or the enforcement of community-imposed sanctions, please use the other fora described in the dispute resolution process. To appeal Arbitration Committee decisions, please use the clarification and amendment noticeboard.

Only autoconfirmed users may file enforcement requests here; requests filed by IPs or accounts less than four days old or with less than 10 edits will be removed. All users are welcome to comment on requests except where doing so would violate an active restriction (such as an extended-confirmed restriction). If you make an enforcement request or comment on a request, your own conduct may be examined as well, and you may be sanctioned for it. Enforcement requests and statements in response to them may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. (Word Count Tool) Statements must be made in separate sections. Non-compliant contributions may be removed or shortened by administrators. Disruptive contributions such as personal attacks, or groundless or vexatious complaints, may result in blocks or other sanctions.

To make an enforcement request, click on the link above this box and supply all required information. Incomplete requests may be ignored. Requests reporting diffs older than one week may be declined as stale. To appeal a contentious topic restriction or other enforcement decision, please create a new section and use the template {{Arbitration enforcement appeal}}.

Appeals and administrator modifications of contentious topics restrictions

The Arbitration Committee procedures relating to modifications of contentious topic restrictions state the following:

All contentious topic restrictions (and logged warnings) may be appealed. Only the restricted editor may appeal an editor restriction. Any editor may appeal a page restriction.

The appeal process has three possible stages. An editor appealing a restriction may:

ask the administrator who first made the contentious topic restrictions (the "enforcing administrator") to reconsider their original decision;
request review at the arbitration enforcement noticeboard ("AE") or at the administrators' noticeboard ("AN"); and
submit a request for amendment ("ARCA"). If the editor is blocked, the appeal may be made by email.

Appeals submitted at AE or AN must be submitted using the applicable template.

A rough consensus of administrators at AE or editors at AN may specify a period of up to one year during which no appeals (other than an appeal to ARCA) may be submitted.

Changing or revoking a contentious topic restriction

An administrator may only modify or revoke a contentious topic restriction if a formal appeal is successful or if one of the following exceptions applies:

The administrator who originally imposed the contentious topic restriction (the "enforcing administrator") affirmatively consents to the change,^[a] or is no longer an administrator;^[b] or
The contentious topic restriction was imposed (or last renewed) more than a year ago and:
- the restriction was imposed by a single administrator, or
- the restriction was an indefinite block.

A formal appeal is successful only if one of the following agrees with revoking or changing the contentious topic restriction:

a clear consensus of uninvolved administrators at AE,
a clear consensus of uninvolved editors at AN,
a majority of the Arbitration Committee, acting through a motion at ARCA.

Any administrator who revokes or changes a contentious topic restriction out of process (i.e. without the above conditions being met) may, at the discretion of the Arbitration Committee, be desysopped.

Standard of review
On community review

Uninvolved administrators at the arbitration enforcement noticeboard ("AE") and uninvolved editors at the administrators' noticeboard ("AN") should revoke or modify a contentious topic restriction on appeal if:

the action was inconsistent with the contentious topics procedure or applicable policy (i.e. the action was out of process),
the action was not reasonably necessary to prevent damage or disruption when first imposed, or
the action is no longer reasonably necessary to prevent damage or disruption.

On Arbitration Committee review

Arbitrators hearing an appeal at a request for amendment ("ARCA") will generally overturn a contentious topic restriction only if:

the action was inconsistent with the contentious topics procedure or applicable policy (i.e. the action was out of process),
the action represents an unreasonable exercise of administrative enforcement discretion, or
compelling circumstances warrant the full Committee's action.

^ The administrator may indicate consent at any time before, during, or after imposition of the restriction.
^ This criterion does not apply if the original action was imposed as a result of rough consensus at the arbitration enforcement noticeboard, as there would be no single enforcing administrator.

Appeals and administrator modifications of non-contentious topics sanctions

The Arbitration Committee procedures relating to modifications and appeals state:

Appeals by sanctioned editors

Appeals may be made only by the editor under sanction and only for a currently active sanction. Requests for modification of page restrictions may be made by any editor. The process has three possible stages (see "Important notes" below). The editor may:

ask the enforcing administrator to reconsider their original decision;
request review at the arbitration enforcement noticeboard ("AE") or at the administrators’ noticeboard ("AN"); and
submit a request for amendment at the amendment requests page ("ARCA"). If the editor is blocked, the appeal may be made by email through Special:EmailUser/Arbitration Committee (or, if email access is revoked, to arbcom-enwikimedia.org).

Modifications by administrators

No administrator may modify or remove a sanction placed by another administrator without:

the explicit prior affirmative consent of the enforcing administrator; or
prior affirmative agreement for the modification at (a) AE or (b) AN or (c) ARCA (see "Important notes" below).

Administrators modifying sanctions out of process may at the discretion of the committee be desysopped.

Nothing in this section prevents an administrator from replacing an existing sanction issued by another administrator with a new sanction if fresh misconduct has taken place after the existing sanction was applied.

Administrators are free to modify sanctions placed by former administrators – that is, editors who do not have the administrator permission enabled (due to a temporary or permanent relinquishment or desysop) – without regard to the requirements of this section. If an administrator modifies a sanction placed by a former administrator, the administrator who made the modification becomes the "enforcing administrator". If a former administrator regains the tools, the provisions of this section again apply to their unmodified enforcement actions.

Important notes:

For a request to succeed, either

(i) the clear and substantial consensus of (a) uninvolved administrators at AE or (b) uninvolved editors at AN or

(ii) a passing motion of arbitrators at ARCA

is required. If consensus at AE or AN is unclear, the status quo prevails.

While asking the enforcing administrator and seeking reviews at AN or AE are not mandatory prior to seeking a decision from the committee, once the committee has reviewed a request, further substantive review at any forum is barred. The sole exception is editors under an active sanction who may still request an easing or removal of the sanction on the grounds that said sanction is no longer needed, but such requests may only be made once every six months, or whatever longer period the committee may specify.
These provisions apply only to contentious topic restrictions placed by administrators and to blocks placed by administrators to enforce arbitration case decisions. They do not apply to sanctions directly authorized by the committee, and enacted either by arbitrators or by arbitration clerks, or to special functionary blocks of whatever nature.
All actions designated as arbitration enforcement actions, including those alleged to be out of process or against existing policy, must first be appealed following arbitration enforcement procedures to establish if such enforcement is inappropriate before the action may be reversed or formally discussed at another venue.

Information for administrators processing requests

Thank you for participating in this area. AE works best if there are a variety of admins bringing their expertise to each case. There is no expectation to comment on every case, and the Arbitration Committee (ArbCom) thanks all admins for whatever time they can give.

A couple of reminders:

Before commenting, please familiarise yourself with the referenced ArbCom case. Please also read all the evidence (including diffs) presented in the AE request.
When a request widens to include editors beyond the initial request, these editors must be notified and the notifications recorded in the same way as for the initial editor against whom sanctions were requested. Where some part of the outcome is clear, a partial close may be implemented and noted as "Result concerning X".
Enforcement measures in arbitration cases should be construed liberally to protect Wikipedia and keep it running efficiently. Some of the behaviour described in an enforcement request might not be restricted by ArbCom. However, it may violate other Wikipedia policies and guidelines; you may use administrative discretion to resolve it.
More than one side in a dispute may have ArbCom conduct rulings applicable to them. Please ensure these are investigated.

Closing a thread:

Once an issue is resolved, enclose it between {{hat}} and {{hab}} tags. A bot should archive it in 7 days.
Please consider referring the case to ARCA if the outcome is a recommendation to do so or the issue regards administrator conduct.
You can use the templates {{uw-aeblock}} (for blocks) or {{AE sanction}} (for other contentious topic restrictions) to give notice of sanctions on user talk pages.
Please log sanctions in the Arbitration enforcement log.

Thanks again for helping. If you have any questions, please post on the talk page.

Arbitration enforcement archives

1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9	10	11	12	13	14	15	16	17	18	19	20
21	22	23	24	25	26	27	28	29	30	31	32	33	34	35	36	37	38	39	40
41	42	43	44	45	46	47	48	49	50	51	52	53	54	55	56	57	58	59	60
61	62	63	64	65	66	67	68	69	70	71	72	73	74	75	76	77	78	79	80
81	82	83	84	85	86	87	88	89	90	91	92	93	94	95	96	97	98	99	100
101	102	103	104	105	106	107	108	109	110	111	112	113	114	115	116	117	118	119	120
121	122	123	124	125	126	127	128	129	130	131	132	133	134	135	136	137	138	139	140
141	142	143	144	145	146	147	148	149	150	151	152	153	154	155	156	157	158	159	160
161	162	163	164	165	166	167	168	169	170	171	172	173	174	175	176	177	178	179	180
181	182	183	184	185	186	187	188	189	190	191	192	193	194	195	196	197	198	199	200
201	202	203	204	205	206	207	208	209	210	211	212	213	214	215	216	217	218	219	220
221	222	223	224	225	226	227	228	229	230	231	232	233	234	235	236	237	238	239	240
241	242	243	244	245	246	247	248	249	250	251	252	253	254	255	256	257	258	259	260
261	262	263	264	265	266	267	268	269	270	271	272	273	274	275	276	277	278	279	280
281	282	283	284	285	286	287	288	289	290	291	292	293	294	295	296	297	298	299	300
301	302	303	304	305	306	307	308	309	310	311	312	313	314	315	316	317	318	319	320
321	322	323	324	325	326	327	328	329	330	331

TripWire

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

Request concerning TripWire

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: D4iNa4 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 14:53, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested: TripWire (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:Requests for arbitration/India-Pakistan:

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

Edit warring and WP:GAMING to have consensus, continues to reinstate something for which he has gained no consensus. Such as:-

[1] reverted here:[2]

Reinstated reverted edit again[3], got reverted again[4], then reinstated same edit again[5], then reinstated once again[6] after being reverted, and again[7], while sure that he was sure that his edit will be reverted.[8]

WP:NPA, WP:SOAP violation.

"Like I have said many times, stop wasting time. The best you can do is to support socks and their contentious edits, unfortunately you'll fail in that too."[9]

"I'd suggest that you keep your Mullah Raj theory with you and act maturely."[10]

Use of very hostile language, WP:BATTLE.

"I know a dear friends of yours was blocked for socking and one does get jumpy at times."[11]

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

Topic banned from all "edits related to Pakistani politics and Indian/Pakistani conflicts, for a period of 6 months".[12]

If discretionary sanctions are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see WP:AC/DS#Awareness and alerts): Just came off a topic ban this year.

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

Once he would realize that his topic ban is no more in force, he would go back to making those same kinds of edits that led to the topic ban, he would make three objectionable edits to Indo-Pakistani_War_of_1965 at first,[13][14][15][16] then he disrupted the article Bangladesh Liberation War by edit warring and making hostile comments on talk page, after that he would falsely accuse @Volunteer Marek: of harassment.[17][18] And now he seems to be missing no chance to attack editors like @Ghatus and Kautilya3: and others. D4iNa4 (talk) 14:53, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested: [19]

Discussion concerning TripWire

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

Statement by (TripWire)

tl;dr - you can unhat this when its 750 words or less

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Note: I'll be away on some chore for a couple of days, so will not able to reply any further. Thanks.—TripWire ︢ ︢ ︡ ︢ ︡ ︢ ︡ ︢ ︡ ︡ ︢ ︡ ^ʞlɐʇ 21:10, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A highly bad-faithed report. DiNA4was never in conflict with me and was not involved in the edits he is quoting as proof. We never interacted directly or at talk-pages. He has dug out events from history/past which has no bearing on policy vio.

Please note that most of edits referred by DiNA4 were made by as others (atleast 3) and myself were in conflict with MBlaze Lightning - a blocked sock. His master KnightWarrior25 was already blocked, NOT for socking, but for pushing-POV/edit-warring. So, these edits were challenges to an blocked POV-pusher/habitual edit-warrer and were mainly done to fight a sock while following WP:BRD, WP:CONSENSUS. If left uncheck, MBL threatened Wikipedia as project. All this was done while talking it out with the involved editors. At no place did I edit-war as being claimed or else I must have been reported to ANI. MBL's being a sock & his master being blocked for POV-pushing/edit-warring is altogether a confirmation that I was correct in my approach.

The policy for filing a report here says that "diffs older than one week may be declined as stale" but D4iNA4 has quoted weeks old diffs.

Reply:

Accusation-1:

[17]

Reply-1:

I was completely within my rights to make Edit [17] and gave full details in the edit-summary. In edit [18] I was reverted back by the adding editor, no problem, he was in his right too following the WP:BRD. This led to the 'D' part and I and the other editor engaged in a discussion over this at the talk page.

Accusation-2:

[19][20][21][22][23][24]

Reply-2:

Note: DiAN4 has quoted random unrelated edits and pieced them together to incorrectly show I edit-warred.

Edit [19] was made because MBlaze Lightning was trying to insert DUPLICATE content. So a talk page section was opened and it took 3 editors (including Kautilya3 and Ghatus - both Indians) to explain MBL that he was adding duplicate info:

Kautilya3 agreed with me by saying; "Yes, I too agree with TripWire's objection" [20]
Ghatus also said; "I think TripWire is right here" [21]

Only then MBL stopped his edit-warring and refrained from re-inserting the info. Hence my edit was correct/justified.

Now by stopping a POV-pusher (MBL - who later understood he was wrong) from adding duplicate info wasn't I building Wikipedia as per its polices and isnt DiNA4 wasting our time by manipulating facts?

Edit [21]: DiNA4 says that edit [21] was same as edit [19] (i.e. I reverted twice) to prove that I edit-warred which is incorrect. As edit [19] was made on 24 March whereas edit [21] was made on 1 April and concerned two DIFFERENT issues which were being discussed SEPARATELY at talk.
Edit [22] has nothing to do with either [23] or [24] as these three concerned three different issues and were made weeks apart. One being as early as 1 April and the latest one on 10 April. It's like digging up my entire history and linking random edits together in sheer bad-faith to show that I edit-warred. BTW, none of the edits mentioned violated any policy as all were being discussed per WP:BRD, not to mention that the edits were made to challenge a blocked sock whose master was also blocked for pushing POV.

Accusation-3:

"Like I have said many times, stop wasting time. The best you can do is to support socks and their contentious edits, unfortunately you'll fail in that too."[9]

Reply-3

Kutaliya3 has a history of supporting socks. He has been pushing MBL's edits even after he was blocked and also supported Ghautus' WP:OR here. He has supported POV edits of User:Akbar the Great, User:Bazaan's sock. He's been in close contact with User:Greek Legend, a sock of User:CosmicEmperor and now he openly owned edits of MBL. He has been exchanging emails with them and has admitted to be in contact with blocked socks on an Admin's page.

Moreover, I made the above reply when Kutaliya3 had attacked me first:

"Oh, good. You are dodging my question (which i did not) . That is what I thought you would do. For me to say anything on talk, you need to state an objection first, which you never did. Frankly, I don't think you have any clue what is going on here." diff.

Accusation-4:

"I'd suggest that you keep your Mullah Raj theory with you and act maturely."[26]

Reply-4:

This was made in response to Kutaliya's following comment:

"We are not going to have a Mullah Raj on Wikipedia."

I'll leave it to the admins to decide who was attacking whom.

Accusation-5:

"I know a dear friends of yours was blocked for socking and one does get jumpy at times."[27]

Reply-5:

Background: I removed a WP:FAKE content but Kutalia3 immediately reverted me in a knee-jerk reaction. Like any good editor, I opened up a talk-page section to discuss the dispute. After discussion with Kutaliya, he accepted his mistake and agreed to self-revert, which he did. As he was restoring the content of MBL (blocked sock) and have admitted of being in contact with him after he was blocked, I simply pointed out the fact that a senior editor like him should be careful before he reverts in favour of a blocked user. In short, I was correct in making that edit. Ktaliya3 agreed too.

Point scoring by DiNA4 in Bad-Faith:

Just came off a topic ban this year.

Reply:

First, I didn't come off topic just this year. I was banned on 3 July 2015 which ended on 4 January 2016 (3 months from now). I remained semi-active on Wiki during my topic-ban avoiding the topics I was banned from. When my ban ended, I still didnt start editing the pages I was banned from immediately. I only started participating on these topics from 20 February 2016 (1 month 12 days after the ban ended). I used this 1 month to develop more understanding of Wiki polices and didnt just jump back to editing. Even then too my first edit after my topic-ban ended was reverting something for which clear consensus had been reached after deliberate discussion at talk, but MBL without paying attention to the consensus tried to push POV (see my edit-summary). In short, the first edit I made after my topic-ban ended was to revert vandalism, but still I am being reported by DiNA4 for the same?

Accusation-6:

Edits [29][30][31][32] [33][34] and DiANA4's personal opinion without proof.

Reply-6:

Admins please note that Edits [30] & [31] are same edits but quoted TWICE to add weight to his WP:NPA report.
Edit30/31 was made as per WP:WEASEL on 28 Feb 2016 and has not been challenged to date. Wonder why did DiNA4 pointed it out then?
Edit [32] was made when Kutaliya removed some content saying that it was unsourced. I re-added the content by citing a source. What's wrong in that? Even Kutaliya agreed (the content is unchallenged todate)! DiNA4 has deliberately missed the very next edit where I added the source after restoring the content removed by Kutaliya3.

Edit [33] is same as edit [26], and has already been replied at Accusation-4.
Edit [34] is true as VM did indeed harass me and I took the matter to FPAS' talk-page. Self-explanatory details can be seen in the edit itself.

To Admins: I'll ask for boomerang as this report is vindictive and Di4NA4 implied that just because I was topic banned before, he can hound me on that basis even after the ban ended.

Reply to Capitals00

First, hey there, havent seen you much, thankyou for waking up. How did you know about this report by the way? Coming over to your accusations:

Edit [20,21,22,23,24,25] If you would add an image twice in the same article, then yes you are disrupting Wikipedia. Here's why:

Image: "1971 Instrument of Surrender.jpg" was already present in the article, but MBL (banned sock) added it again without removing the one already present. Dont know if you didnt see it or was it done deliberately to push POV. It was removed by someone but was then re-added by VM here. Yep, the same image twice.

I then undid it giving full explanation in the edit-summary [22]. But Capitals00 added it again. Yep, the same image twice in the same article.

When I saw that you are unable to understand my edit-summaries clearly mentioning that the image is a duplicate, I then opened a talk-page section for discussion [20], the same link that now you have quoted against me accusing me of 'disparaging' titles, which indeed was a plus for me as I followed WP:BRD (though it must have been you or MBL who should have followed BRD and got consensus). So yes, by adding a duplicate image over and again you were engaging in DE and hence the title "Disruptive Editing by Capitals00' you not only added a duplicate image but also made a blanket revert.

After opening the talk-page section, I undid the image while again explaining that the image was a duplicate. But the funny thing is that MBL again re-added the image without commenting on the talk page section!

The image was again removed and I warned you guys to stop or I will take this matter to ANI. Only then did VM removed the duplicate image and I backed-out while the second (same) image was moved up to the infobox - the sock succeeded!

Now Admins, please tell, was I wrong in asking them to remove a duplicate image over and again and even inviting them to discuss the issue? Why did Capitals00 not mention this in his comment and instead cherrypicked the 'title' (which was fine BTW) only?

Admins, none of the edits I made above violated 3RR,

Edit [21] We all had agreed on various Bangladesh talk-pages that newspapers would not be taken as RS when adding content to historical topics, rather books would be preferred. Kutilya3 will back me on this. There was a consensus on it. I only undid what the consensus said. My edit-summary made it clear too.
Edit [26] MBL and Capitals00 were adding a duplicate image, WP:BURDEN of consensus was on you, not me. But I still backed-out even when no consensus was reached.
Edit [27] Why? Did you even read my reply to Di4AN4?—TripWire ︢ ︢ ︡ ︢ ︡ ︢ ︡ ︢ ︡ ︡ ︢ ︡ ^ʞlɐʇ 14:26, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Spartaz, I cannot possibly reply to 18 accusations, most of which are false/bad-faithed, in less than 500 words. I request you to un-hat my reply, please in the interest of clarity.—TripWire ︢ ︢ ︡ ︢ ︡ ︢ ︡ ︢ ︡ ︡ ︢ ︡ ^ʞlɐʇ 14:54, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Kautilya3

Some general remarks concerning TripWire. As far as I can see, they are an SPA, whose contributions are limited to Indo-Pakistan conflicts. Secondly, the majority of their contribution are to edit-war over the content that the others have contributed, very little of their own content. How much of that the project can tolerate is a big question. TripWire has barely come off a 6-moth topic ban. Whether their behaviour has improved as a result is another question. I think it has. There is less edit-warring and more participation on the talk pages, even though I would say it is still far from ideal. The over-aggressive behaviour in discussions continues.

One factor that is currently playing out at the moment is that MBlaze Lightning has been indeffed, rightly, and the pro-Pakistan editors favour reverting all of his edits wholesale. I have objected to that approach and said that we need to discuss specific objections in an issue-based way. That has not gone down well with the pro-Pakistan editors, and they have taken to calling me a supporter, even a "meatpuppet," of MBlaze. However, ironically, TripWire has been forced to point out on this page how often I have opposed MBlaze and supported their stance instead. That is poetic justice, it seems.

Given that TripWire's behaviour shows improvement, I don't believe any serious sanction is warranted at this stage. However some cautionary remarks to TripWire to tone down their rhetoric and be more collaborative in their approach would be welcome. A recognition that editors like me are willing to listen to all sides would also be useful.

Statement by Freeatlast

We can see from the get go that the entire "evidence" here is fabricated.

The first claim of gaming cleverly and conveniently fails to say that in actuality Tripwire was undoing vandalism by a sockpuppet and trying his best to refrain from even touching the article. You will see that many of his reverts are to versions that are from uninvolved editors.
As far as the so called "personal attacks" go we have someone who is asking for a t-ban based on an editor saying "please act maturely". I do not know whether to laugh or cry at the copious amounts of bad faith oozing from this. This is a highly volatile area and truth be told if every editor who asked another to "act maturely" was banned from topics we will have to T-ban almost 75% of editors. So this is just a "filler" used by the nom to "beef up" his accusations, and make them look big. more space=more suspicion. The reaction usually is "There are so many diffs, he MUST have done something".
As far as the accusation of WP:BATTLE is concerned firstly you can see that once again it is a filler. Why not include it with NPA? no Sir! We are going to make a new accusation. Secondly it is clearly the exact opposite of what the nom claims, Tripwire is actually saying "no harm, no foul" at the end leading to quite a good faith ending to a heated discussion. Including such a diff here is mind bogglingly bad faith.

My advice is that the nom should spend time actually improving the encyclopedia instead of filling this kind of bad faith requests. I was going to suggest boomerang but then I though why ask for a block? he only comes online once or twice a week to revert etc. FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 23:54, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Capitals00

While I have nothing to say about the long and non-convincing explanations of TripWire other than that he is trying to reject any fault with his editing, he is also denying that he recently came off from a topic ban.

TripWire's discussions on talk page has been WP:BATTLEGROUND, he even prefers opening the sections with disparaging titles.[23]

His edit warring is too widespread that he removes what he doesn't like,[24] not to forget that he made four reverts only for removing an infobox image that he didn't liked,[25][26][27][28], despite he had no consensus to do that[29] and infobox image still exists on the main article.

WP:ASPERSION is being violated on this page alone.

TripWire: "including Ghatus and Kautilya3 - both Indians"

And also false accusations of meat puppetry and sock puppetry.

TripWire: "dragging me here to settle his personal scores on the direction of someone"[30]

I don't see how one can deal with such user after they create such a toxic environment. Blocks and topic bans are the only way. Capitals00 (talk) 09:16, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Result concerning TripWire

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

TripWire your statement is 1900 words. Reduce it to 500 or I shall cut it off at that point. Hint - spend less time casting aspertions at your opponants and just stick to explaining why you think your edits were not a vio. Spartaz ^Humbug! 06:06, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please move all your responses to your own section, I might be willing to extend your wordcount to 750 but no way can we give you license to write as much as you like. The word count is to concentrate your responses to the key matters. Sorry but you need to amalgamate your responses and edit it down to 750. Spartaz ^Humbug! 15:00, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

FreeatlastChitchat I have hatted your section as there is ample evidence that the OP has used socks - but they have done their time and you know where SPI is if there is new cause for concern. At first blush your section appears aimed at discrediting the OP rather than discussing the complaint. I'm sure you don't really mean to expose yourself by doing that do you so I must be mistaken but please don't do it again.

SheriffIsInTown I have removed your section entirely. Making a nationality based slur on an AE page? Really? Perhaps you could leave a short note on my talk page explaining how your participation in this area adds any value whatsoever as I'm strongly minded to impose a TBan for that edit. Please don't post to this discussion again. Spartaz ^Humbug! 06:05, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
TripWire, I moved your writing into your own section as required by the instructions here. Please pare everything down ASAP. I think you'll find that if you focus on explaining why your edits were not violations and remove any text referring to the actions of others, you will rapidly be in compliance. --Laser brain (talk) 23:29, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

HughD

Closing as no violation --Laser brain (talk) 12:15, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

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

Request concerning HughD

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: Springee (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 20:42, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested: HughD (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: [[31]] :

[[32]] of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it

Editor banned from edits related to conservative politics post 2009 [33] and the political activities of the Koch family in particular [34] (" I am imposing a one-year topic ban on you from all articles related to the Tea Party movement broadly, including but not limited to anything at all related to Americans for Prosperity, Koch Industries, the Koch brothers.").

The Fraser Institute is described as a conservative think tank in the article lead. The editor has previously added Koch related content to the article (example [35]) which makes the general article a violation of "broadly". The violating edit was related to a 2014 article about the institute which would violate the 2009 and later conservative topic's portion of the ban.

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

Previous issues with topic ban violations.

Oct 11, 15 Violation of topic ban resulting in warning.
Oct 29, 15 1 week block for violation of ban. Appeal of block was rejected [36]
Jan 7, 2016 1 week block for violation. Appeal of block was rejected [37]

If discretionary sanctions are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see [[38]])

Previously given a discretionary sanction for conduct in the area of conflict on Date by Ricky81682 (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA).
Alerted about discretionary sanctions in the area of conflict in the last twelve months, see the system log linked to above.
Gave an alert about discretionary sanctions in the area of conflict in the last twelve months, on Date
Participated in an arbitration request or enforcement procedure about the area of conflict in the last twelve months, on Date.
Successfully appealed all their own sanctions relating to the area of conflict in the last twelve months, on Aug 28, 2015.

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

Notification: [[39]]

Discussion concerning HughD

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

Statement by HughD

No topic ban violation. Complainant cites a superseded topic ban; the sanction currently in effect on the reported editor as of 11 December 2015 is a topic ban from conservative US politics post 2009 under WP:ARBAP2; please see Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions/Log#2015. The Fraser Institute is Canadian, conspicuously omitted from the complainant's filing. In any case, the edit reported above as an arbitration enforcement issue by the complainant was a good faith effort to restore content deleted, by an IP, with no edit summary, while improving sourcing, clearly an improvement to our encyclopedia, and not directly or indirectly related to conservative American politics, or to the Kochs or the Tea party movement for that matter.

Given the complainant's obsession with the reported editor, it is highly unlikely the complainant was unaware of the scope of the applicable sanction, or the nationality of the Fraser Institute; this filing therefore appears to be deliberate misrepresentations in an AE filing. Important context for understanding this filing is that complainant is the current subject of a proposed 2-way interaction ban at WP:ANI proposed by uninvolved editors to address copiously documented obsessive following and other harassment behavior issues. Colleagues are respectfully requested to please support the 2-way interaction ban proposed at WP:ANI#Springee campaigning; respectfully request snow close of this filing. Thank you. Hugh (talk) 21:33, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by (username)

Statement by Fyddlestix

Please note this ongoing ANI thread, in which an Iban between Springee and HughD has received some support and both editors have alleged harassment by the other. It seems to me exceedingly poor judgment in Springee's part to file a new AE report against HughD right now. Fyddlestix (talk) 21:17, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Also, the Fraser Institute is a Canadian think tank, focused on Canadian politics. It has nothing to do with the Tea Party or the Koch family, or American conservative politics. Neither does HughD's edit. This is just another example of Springee's hounding of HughD. Fyddlestix (talk) 21:31, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Springee

The admin, Ricky81682, made it clear that this is a broadly construed topic ban that applies to all Koch related articles. " I am imposing a one-year topic ban on you from all articles related to the Tea Party movement broadly, including but not limited to anything at all related to Americans for Prosperity, Koch Industries, the Koch brothers." [40] HughD previously tried to push the limits of the topic ban by adding links to Koch related material (but not a specific Koch statement in his edit). When HughD was blocked a second time for violating his ban he was told, "Second, your comments at my talk page that it's not a part of the topic ban because it "makes no mention of the Kochs" is ridiculously disingenuous if you are going to be adding content related to Donors Trust which is directly related to Tea party politics and to the Kochs in general." This article is clearly one that HughD feels is Koch related given that he added Koch related content last year. "Broadly" is certainly means cases where the Koch's are considered funders of the group. Certainly Ricky81682 should be given a chance to weigh in before this is closed. Springee (talk) 00:27, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Request close per Ricky81682's comments: Because the article is Koch related (based on HughD's own edits) I had assumed it would fall under the topic ban. It appears that outside of the US Koch related activities are allowed for HughD. HughD, please accept my apologies for this error. Laser brain, please close as a mistaken ARE request on my part. Springee (talk) 00:49, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Ricky81682

I'm no fan of HughD but HughD is correct on all accounts. As noted, the relevant topic ban is for all conservative US politics post-2009 which is a permitted subdivision of the larger US politics arbcom case. There is no case about Canadian politics and thus no basis for Fraser Institute to be in any such topic ban as it would not be included in the original Arbcom case and so on. While the US-based Koch foundation donated to the institute, it remains related to Canadian politics to me and I don't see a basis to claim a topic ban violation. A separate issue of disruptive editing about that page can be argued but it seems like the concurrent ANI report is the appropriate place for that argument. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 00:41, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Result concerning HughD

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

No technical violation and certainly seems to be a vexatious report given the ongoing conflict. I'm inclined to close swiftly unless anyone has objections. I can't help but to note, however, that characterizing an edit that adds negative information to the "Controversies" section of an article as "improving the sourcing" is causing quite a bit of eye-rolling on my end. --Laser brain (talk) 23:42, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't think being the topic ban enacting admin makes me involved but eye-rolling is a typical reaction in these cases. Support a swift closure and deferral to ANI. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 00:43, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

MarkBernstein

User has been issued a topic ban. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 01:38, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

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

Request concerning MarkBernstein

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: Starke Hathaway (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 17:08, 12 April 2016 (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 :

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

MarkBernstein is by now an inveterate Wiki-warrior in the Gamergate topic area. He has demonstrated time and again his apparent inability to refrain from lengthy WP:FORUM and WP:SOAPBOX diatribes about Gamergate, full of both sesquipedalian wordplay and naked aspersions against other editors, despite being asked numerous times, at numerous venues, to stop. For this he has been topic-banned, un-topic-banned, blocked, unblocked, blocked again, unblocked under conditions, given four final warnings for violating those conditions, and ultimately had the admins enforcing those conditions apparently throw up their hands in exasperation. His involvement anywhere in the Gamergate topic area invariably brings with it more heat than light. He has recently also begun interrogating journalists on twitter about their (unflattering) coverage of persons associated with the topic (Note: MarkBernstein's twitter handle is prominently listed on his personal webpage, which he links on his Wikipedia userpage). This has to stop. The following diffs are just the most recent of his grandstanding and generally disruptive behavior.

April 12 SOAPBOXing at Talk:Gamergate controversy.
April 12 Soapboxing is (properly) hatted.
April 12 Reverts the hat to restore the soapboxing.
April 10 Opposing a navbox because of "clueless Gamergate recruits."
April 8 SOAPBOXing at ANI about Gamergate.
April 8 More Gamergate SOAPBOXing at ANI, also in violation of his topic ban about DHeyward.
April 6 SOAPBOXing about Gamergate at ANEW, also a violation of his DHeyward topic ban.

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

November 28, 2014 Topic banned from Gamergate under GS:GG.
January 3, 2015 Blocked for violating Gamergate topic ban.
January 24, 2015 Blocked again for violating topic ban.
March 8, 2015 Topic banned from Gamergate again under Gamergate DS.
March 13, 2015 Topic banned under Gamergate DS from discussing DHeyward and Thargor Orlando.
March 21, 2015 Blocked for "topic-ban violations and repeated personally directed comments/battleground mentality" under Gamergate DS.
September 5, 2015 "Officially admonished" under Gamergate DS "not to be a jerk."

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

Has been the subject of multiple DS enforcement requests and sanctions.

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

MarkBernstein seems to believe that the righteousness of his cause overrides any concerns about civility, collaboration with others, and building the encyclopedia generally. He's been given plenty of chances to bring his behavior in line with expectations, and has declined to do so. Enough really is enough.

If we're concerned about the DHeyward topic ban, MarkBernstein was still mentioning him in comments as recently as today. -Starke Hathaway (talk) 20:13, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Wordsmith, I understand your hesitation to apply sanctions, especially if (as seems to be the case) you are coming to this dispute with entirely fresh eyes. The issue with MarkBernstein's behavior in this topic area is admittedly difficult to nail down in individual diffs, not least because MarkBernstein is actually quite clever and skilled at not making comments that will result in immediate sanctions for him. Nevertheless the cumulative effects of his edits, which continually fail to assume good faith from other editors and use the Gamergate talk pages for grandstanding about how awful Gamergate is rather than discussing the article, is far more disruptive than any positive contributions he has made in the topic area. MarkBernstein's modus operandi, especially since his most recent block for personal attacks and topic ban violations, is to constantly nettle those who disagree with his position on the article topic with grandstanding, insinuations about their character, and at times outright aspersions that maintain just enough deniability that he can claim he didn't mean anything by it.

You need to understand that he has now been doing this, essentially without interruption except for his blocks, for better than a year and a half. Others have been indefinitely banned from the Gamergate topic area for far, far less disruption than he has caused. In fact I would say the only reason he has escaped lasting sanction is that Gamaliel (who has pretty much always been the main admin enforcer in the Gamergate topic area) has never failed to show up and defend him whenever other editors complain, as he has here. I understand that it might be difficult to appreciate this without having seen it happen in real time, but I assure you that the exasperation you have probably noticed from me and other commenters here is both real and well-founded. It might help you to understand where we are coming from if you were to review the previous AE discussions concerning his disruptive behavior in the Gamergate topic area. -Starke Hathaway (talk) 01:30, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

As usual, Ryk72 demonstrates that they can be relied upon to actually put in the legwork and assemble the facts needed to decide a difficult or complex issue. I subscribe to Ryk72's very detailed accounting below. -Starke Hathaway (talk) 17:55, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

By my count, MarkBernstein's combined statements below come to more than 1500 words, well over the 500 he is allotted. I am not suggesting that any of his comments be removed but I do think he should be encouraged to use less Milton and more simple declarative language. -Starke Hathaway (talk) 22:33, 13 April 2016 (UTC) [reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

[41]

Discussion concerning MarkBernstein

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

Statement by MarkBernstein

Good grief!

Gamergate has repeatedly sought to use Wikipedia to harass its targets and to exculpate its actions. You may recall that the first murder threat sent to the first Gamergate target was delivered through Wikipedia. The Gamergate Controversy page, and the pages of Gamergate’s victims, continue to be used to threaten women in the software industry and to rehash their sex lives in order to demonstrate the fate that will befall women who accept employment in this field -- or indeed anyone with whom Gamergate becomes displeased.

Gamergate’s long-planned operation against "the five horsemen of wiki-bias", again thoroughly documented in newspapers, magazines, and academic journals, was rewarded last year by ArbCom’s infamous decision. In recent months, the fora used to coordinate that campaign (and some new ones) have planned a fresh assault on their new Wiki targets. An ArbCom case was brought against Gamaliel yesterday over a supposed BLP violation in the Signpost involving Donald Trump’s small hands, and (surprise!) here we are today.

Civility to other editors does not preclude condemnation of campaigns of misogynist harassment coordinated with ruthless energy on shadowy web sites and chat boards. I have worked to write firmly and honestly but -- especially since my block -- with scrupulous civility. I have done my best to find humor where I can, and have worked on-wiki and off to find a path to ending this protracted and unproductive dispute. Those overtures have been rebuffed by many, including some of those whose names appear here.

I have many calls on my time, and may occasionally and unintentionally have written ambiguously or unclearly. I apologize. I am hardly alone. I sometimes write allusively; I am accustomed to writing for an educated audience. I am sometimes sloppy; I am, after all, a volunteer. I do not apologize for writing forcefully in defense of The Wiki Way and, in point of fact, in defense of common decency.

I note in passing that scarcely a day passes in which Gamergate boards and media accounts fail to question my sanity, cast aspersions on my professional credentials, insinuate that I am a pedophile, caricature what they believe to be my religion, call for new editors to hound me on wiki and off, or speculate that I am engaged in a homosexual relationship with Gamaliel. When I have spoken at universities, Gamergaters have sent letters to their chancellors or presidents demanding that my host be fired. When I reluctantly agreed to speak at a Gamergate event (since cancelled), they openly planned my downfall in the most vivid terms. All this is childish and vexatious, but it is also fatiguing, and since Gamergate's rhetoric is prone to violence, it would be imprudent completely to ignore it all. Though a few Wikipedians have been helpful and sometimes sympathetic, Wikipedia has seldom lifted a finger to help or offered any expression of thanks for arduous work defending Wikipedia's own principles against this pernicious menace.

@Newyorkbrad: I was momentarily under the mistaken impression that the tridirectional DHeyward topic ban had been waived for noticeboard complaints. It had in fact only been waived for initiating noticeboard complaints. I did and do apologize for the error on April 6, though the remark itself was intended only to explain the subject in dispute, a context that had not to that point been made clear. On April 8, I was responding to an unprovoked personal attack from Sitush, or more accurately deflecting it with a humorous allusion to a remark that Gamaliel had made a little earlier about Gamaliel’s having once kicked DHeyward's dog. The comment is not directed at DHeyward, whose name only appears to clarify a sentence which would otherwise be obscure. No doubt I should have used one of the dog’s three different names [42] rather than identifying it by its owner (if dogs in fact share this nomenclatural oddity with cats), but I have not had the honor of being introduced to that august animal. MarkBernstein (talk) 20:06, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@StarkeHathaway: You link to a comment I made today. It contains nine sentences. The subjects of those sentences are (a) Gamergate’s actions, (b) Gamergaters, (c) Gamergate’s actions, (d) none, (e) We (few, we happy few, we editors), (f) I, (g) We, (h) We, and (i) You, dear reader. Nor is DHeyward plausibly a direct object of any of these sentences. The specific edit I am criticizing here was written by Ryk72, but the criticism applies very broadly to a number of editors who are inclined to support or excuse Gamergate’s harassment campaigns. MarkBernstein (talk) 21:45, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Sitush: Wikipedia has, as I recall, rules against linking to sites where WP:outing is planned, people are doxxed, opponent's naked images (stolen or faked) are distributed, and Wikipedians threatened. All admins who have read the sources know the urls, as do journalists who have covered Gamergate. At the board most focused on Wikipedia this week, Gamaliel and I were the subject of 7 of the top 10 threads. (Has action been taken, incidentally, against the habitue of those boards who outed Gamaliel today on social media? ) MarkBernstein (talk) 07:03, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Drmies: I'm sorry I don't amuse you. I'm trying. With respect to the diff in which you say I use "GG advocacy accusations rather haphazardly," I believe you are mistaken. I was responding to an assertion, immediately above, that harassment is not intrinsic to Gamergate, or is the fault of some small splinter of Gamergate. You will find this argument, made by other editors, advanced dozens of times in the archives. It is, as I explained once more, completely incompatible with the consensus of reliable sources and also incapable of proof. We cannot know who a typical or representative Gamergater is, or what they believe:. We only know what they have done. Even then, we don't know that a threat attributed to Gamergate was actually the responsibility of Gamergate; in principle, one could assert that the real Gamergate is (say) a graduate journalism seminar in Biloxi, and everything the newspapers and journals attribute to Gamergate is actually the work of impostors. This premise has actually been advanced in the archives, incidentally, though for obvious reasons it gained little support. In set-theory terms, this situation is the dual to WP:NOTRUESCOTSMAN. Again, many administrators are coming to this afresh, while those of us who have been trying to defend Wikipedia policy have been through these discussion many times before and for this reason the discussion can seem even more cryptic than it is. MarkBernstein (talk) 19:36, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Again, :@Drmies:, I'm simply responding to the previous editor who had asserted as a fact that “the activities appear to have been carried out by "several dozen" persons;even if all of these were also part of the wider "Gamergate movement", they would be a tiny, lunatic fringe.” How could we know whether the opposition researchers and the harassers are a small fraction of Gamergate, or the entirety? With no governance, spokesperson, leadership, headquarters, or platform, we cannot; the editor is asserting as fact something they cannot know. When Ryk objected to form of the rhetorical question, I was happy to rewrite it. Would it be better to reply with acronyms? Perhaps, but I've already replied that way in some of the numerous past discussions of this same question. Would it be better to have said, "Neither you nor I know whether this is a fringe or the whole of the conspiracy?" Perhaps, but that might have been objected to as well. The stakes are very high indeed for Gamergate's targets; this isn't a matter of info boxes or redirection wars, but threatens the careers and futures of many, many people. You may not find me much fun -- again, I'm sorry about that, I really am -- but I've done a ton of work to prevent these pages from being used for harassment and to uphold Wikipedia policy. For more than a year, I've been quietly working with various admins and oversight to minimize continuing efforts to abuse Gamergate pages. What have my detractors done? I deserve better from all of you. MarkBernstein (talk) 22:21, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

By my count, I'm using 1575 words, of which 833 are responses to queries and 417 were an attempt, apparently unsuccessful, to lighten the mood. It's gone now; my statement per se is (I think) 325 (or maybe 489) words. It apparently has escaped the perspicuous StarkeHathaway’s notice that Masem chimes in at 1112 words, Ryk72 at 633. Imagine that!

If anyone has further questions, or if I can oblige you in any way, kindly email or call my office; if I don't reply to an email with 24-36 hours, it's in the spam filter and a phone or twitter ping would help. MarkBernstein (talk) 23:13, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

And.... we’ve just seen what, if I can read the illiterate scrawl correctly, what appears to be a death threat arising from this charming discussion. I have notified Oversight. You folks sure expect a lot from volunteers, and we receive very scanty thanks. MarkBernstein (talk) 22:04, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

Statement by Masem

I had brought Mark Bernstein to AE before, which resulted in the Sept 5 2015 diff linked by Starke above; I voluntarily took a break from the page for a minimum of 3 months but only returned in March 2016, when I saw a WashPost article I felt was interesting in its neutral take ([43]). That was met with ad hominem comments from Mark Bernstein (among others) that had nothing to do with the policy issues I raised. [44], [45]. Further discussion brings more of these ad hominem comments [46], [47]. In particular, this ad hominem statement is based on the original personal attack he made against me ("rape apologist") that got him blocked in November 2014 (linked by Starke above) simply because I explained the factual nature of a certain image and colors used by GG (which by no means implies that I support that, but that's how this is being taken). I want to stress again that this block occurred simultaneously to the GG Arbcom case, so his behavior was not the subject of any review there. Several of Starke's diffs are statements that continue this type of ad hominem attack against other editors as a means of discrediting them instead of talking about policy issues on what is a very difficult subject to cover by a neutral encyclopedia.

I have purposely, pursuant to the previous AE I raised and its conclusion by ArbCom, avoided any direct response to any of Mark Bernstein's comments and otherwise potentially engaging with him on any topic, simply letting them go and focusing on policy aspects with other editors. (The GG page is actually still off my watchlist to avoid any urge to engage routinely). I did this purposely to avoid recreating the situation that led to the first AE, at least from my own end. I would hope that evidence here shows that while normally it takes two to tango in heated discussions, that Mark Bernstein appears to rather snipe at editors that don't take up his very specific POV, instead of discussing the nuances with covering the topic neutrally. He is creating more discourse than needed, and he should not be participating in this topic area. --MASEM (t) 17:50, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

To address some of what The Wordsmith has asked, I believe most of the diffs provided by myself and others demonstrate Mark Bernstein's personalization of the issues. While each in isolation is an edge case of what might be taken as a personal attack and thus unenforcable or only worth a warning, this behavior as a whole, in addition to having been blocked several times before (including the first block in Nov 2014 by Gamaliel), shows no sign of stopping this personalization. But in considering the GG Arbcom case resolution, I would specifically highlight Mark Bernstein's situation in comparison to the findings and decision regarding NorthBySouthBaranof, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/GamerGate#NorthBySouthBaranof, specifically on "battleground conduct" and "improper use of sources".

The latter was recently demonstrated at Christina Hoff Sommers who would easily fall under the GG topic area since she is an outspoken feminist and critic speaking in favor of the GG movement. It's clear from sources that not all other feminists consider Sommers a "feminist" with some even calling her anti-feminist. But Mark Bernstein and other editors wanted to use these opinions of other feminists as to label her an anti-feminist in the lede, going against Sommer's self-claimed statement about herself. This discussion Talk:Christina_Hoff_Sommers/Archive_6 led to a some issues at ANI regarding the edit warring on a BLP page (Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive915#Alleged_BLP_vios_on_Talk:Christina_Hoff_Sommers). This is basically misrepresenting the sources, particularly on a BLP page, as demonstrated by talk page discussions there and at the BLP/N (Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard/Archive236#Christina_Hoff_Sommers). But moreso, this statement by Mark Bernstein (diff on Sommer's talk page) summarizes what I believe identifies the motivations of his actions over the last 1.5 years: We are asked here to endorse an extreme political ideology in which an individual’s specious and self-serving redefinition of feminism -- a redefinition that have been broadly rejected -- is required to be taken at face value.. Mark Bernstein seems to believe that if editors or Wikipedia present an unpopular, fringe or extreme view, that we (editors or the work as a whole) are endorsing that view, and thus his modus operandi has been to fight hard to assure that Wikipedia does not present at all any view that is from these extreme sides, and call out editors that suggest that we should include such views as supporters of this view. This applies to his "rape apologist" statement about me for simply explaining a color scheme, and this applies to how he wants to call GG as a terrorist organization, and considers any editor suggesting a more neutral term a GG sympathist. This is, of course, patent nonsense if Wikipedia is meant to be neutral. We document plenty of horrific and ghastly topics that are morally deplorable with sourced information on why people do these things anyway; that doesn't mean Wikipedia supports these concepts at all, as we are not censored, but we do need to make sure such criticism is also included if it is by far the popular view. There is no way to work towards consensus with editors that take that view and use those tactics to personalize the issue and attempt to discredit editors; for example he has refused to consider a detailed analysis that Rhoark conducted in June 2015 of high quality reliable sources to seek neutral wording based on those sources (see Talk:Gamergate_controversy/Archive_40#What_reliable_sources_say and particularly Talk:Gamergate_controversy/Archive_40#Revisiting_The_Pinnacle_of_Whimsical_Delight.)

To add one more aspect, Mark Bernstein seems to want editors to take him to AE [48], [49], [50], which is simply not helpful as it is gaming the system and taunting. I'm sure other editors have been wary about starting yet another AE against Mark Bernstein, as the committee has expressed very low tolerance for petty claims in the GG topic area, and I believe Mark Bernstein knows very well that because of this, he can behave just beyond the line of civility set by the ArbCom case, since it's a waste of time to bring one or two slights of that line to AE. But key is that this has been persistent, it was there before well before I took my break, and while I haven't reviewed all the page logs over that 5-6 months, it's clearly happened since I've been back. Again, this is a battleground attitude that does not serve to improve consensus, atop his personalization and ad hominem statements towards editors. --MASEM (t) 17:14, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

To add to @ColorOfSuffering's point here, the continued accusations that editors that speak against him are in some way "plann[ing] a fresh assault" were he to be blocked from the article, using the opportunity to promote GG and/or continue the type of harassment that is associated with GG on Wikipedia, is absolutely inappropriate without any evidence to back this up - that's basically more personal attacks and refusal to accept any effort to work in good faith. Mark Bernstein is absolutely right that there are offsite forum posts that do seek ways to alter WP's GG page (I see one trending today suggesting this in the usual place), but that's why 500/30 was added to prevent offsite brigading, and now as of last week that's enforced by software taking a load off from admin enforcement. Thus to cast aspersions that editors are leading charges to use the GG Wikipedia page to continue the actions of GG movement requires evidence that established editors are in fact doing so, or otherwise these are unfounded personal attacks, which have been going on for well over a year. It goes to my point above that Mark Bernstein refuses to accept that writing about a topic neutrally does not bind editors or Wikipedia to endorse those principles. --MASEM (t) 00:23, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Brustopher

@Gamaliel: I went AWOL for 4 months so I might have missed something but when did DHeyward violate the iban and not get sanctioned? I can only recall one case of him violating the IBAN (in the signpost comment) and he got blocked for that. Brustopher (talk) 20:05, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

In light of recent evidence I would support a topic ban. If MarkBerstein dislikes an editor he seems to manage to find a way to twist everything they say or write as condoning Gamergate Harassment (mainly Masem). This disappeared to an extent when Masem took a break from the topic area but now it's come back with a vengeance. Even in THIS VERY AE request he is doing so talking of "a number of editors who are inclined to support or excuse Gamergate’s harassment campaigns"!

Take this totally benign and seemingly apolitical talk page section, in which Ryk72 suggest a navbox. MarkBernstein immeadiately spins this as an attempt to allow gamergaters to "harass people more efficiently."
In this one he implies Masem thinks sending rape cartoons to female developers isn't harassment because rape cannot be depicted in art.[51] What Masem actually said (over a fucking year ago at that) was that he didn't think a purple and green stripes on a t-shirt of a cartoon character was something that could imply rape, in reference to this image.
Here he is implying that because someone disagreed with him they're in on a secret Gamergate harassment plot. He does this quite a bit. If you want I can try and find all the times this occurs in the archives.[52]

Admins have raised concerns that everyone engages in such low key incivility on the talk page, but if that's the case I invite them to take us all to AE and provide diffs and the like.Brustopher (talk) 23:21, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Ryk72

MarkBernstein's original statement is, to quote an old friend, long on commentary and short on diffs.

While I join that editor in deploring harassment, and threats to any person anywhere (including threats to women in the software and journalism industries), none of these are exculpatory of:

continued personal attacks and aspersions towards other editors [53][54][55][56] (particularly Masem [57][58][59][60][61]);
nor do they excuse constant use of the article Talk page as a WP:FORUM for WP:SOAPBOXing [62][63][64][65][66][67][68][69][70];
nor do they excuse disruptive hatting of ongoing discussions [71] or deleting discussion about their potentially having a conflict of interest [72];
nor disruptive, derailing shitposting and "directions to AE" [73][74][75][76][77][78];
nor suggestions that core policy (WP:NOR, WP:NPOV) not be followed [79][80][81].

I am not a member of the Gamergate movement; Masem, DHeyward and other editors are not a members of the Gamergate movement. It is utterly inappropriate for MarkBernstein, or any other editor, to treat us as if we are; or as if we are responsible for or apologists for any of the actions of the Gamergate movement.

We are Wikipedians and should be treated with the same respect as any other editors.

Multiple editors have requested many times that MarkBernstein's disruptive behaviours cease. (My own most recent requests:[82][83][84]) . It is time that they did, preferably voluntarily, but if not, then by administrative action.

I began with a quote, and should finish with a quote, from a respected editor: Sometimes we (and I put myself at the top of this list) act in ways that aren't helpful or in the best interests of the encyclopedia when in the midst of a heated conflict. It is difficult to realize or admit what you may have or have not done wrong when you feel you are being attacked, and sometimes you think cannot make any admission or concession because you think your opponent will take advantage of it or not do the same. That's when I know it's time for a Wikibreak.[85]

If MarkBernstein sees Gamergaters in every shadow and beneath each rock, then it's time for a Wikibreak. - Ryk72 ^'c.s.n.s.' 12:26, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Gamaliel:, With respect, and regret, it is clear that you no longer have the required level of objectivity with regards to either the Gamergate controversy or User:MarkBernstein.[86][87][88][89] I respectfully request that you either strike your statements or move them from the Uninvolved Admins section to a new Statement by section. - Ryk72

'c.s.n.s.' 21:49, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@The Wordsmith:, With regards to question of involvement, I would consider that a Wikipedia administrator:

reading Reddit forums related to the Gamergate controversy is fine;
having identified themselves as an individual Wikipedia administrator, posting on Reddit forums related to the Gamergate controversy, both pro- & anti- is borderline involved;
having posted on Reddit forums as above, then taking on-Wiki administrative action based on unspecified threads on Reddit forums is unacceptably involved;
having posted on Reddit forums as above, then taking on-Wiki administrative action to unilaterally apply 30/500, based on unspecified threads on Reddit forums, to a Talk page on which the immediately previous edit is the deletion of a COI discussion by the editor being discussed, when the only contemporaneous Reddit threads discussing that particular page were focused solely on the deletion of the COI discussion, is beyond the pale.[90][91][92][93][94][95] - Ryk72 ^'c.s.n.s.' 12:26, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Drmies and Dennis Brown: As two respected administrators who have previously been involved in AE discussions on MarkBernstein's behaviours, your input may be valuable.[96] - Ryk72 ^'c.s.n.s.' 12:26, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by MONGO

There is such a thing as fighting the right fight in the wrong way or with excessive zeal in which we see boogeyman in places where there aren't any. A six month vacation from GG topics is long overdue for Bernstein. Its not like the topic will implode with his temporary hiatus...they may just get better.--MONGO 22:33, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Carrite

I've got no idea whatsoever, none, why Mark Bernstein has been allowed to once again edit on the Gamergate topic. The Gamergate crew may well be the biggest band of jackwagons on the planet, but NPOV is NPOV. If one can't set aside their biases, but rather continues again and again and again to engage in polemics and to make one-sided claims, it is time for that editor to be removed from that topic. We're at least a year past that juncture here. Carrite (talk) 00:08, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by ColorOfSuffering

This has gone on long enough. The fact that MarkBernstein is allowed anywhere near Gamergate-related articles continues to confound me. I don't have much more to add beyond the evidence that has already been provided in this and previous AE requests. MarkBernstein's behavior has not changed, and it will not change. His edits are not productive. He is frequently attacking other editors and questioning their motivations. Given the diffs provided, I don't know how anyone could expect this editor to hold even a shred of neutrality in this space. He has demonstrated time and time again that his contributions to any Gamergate-related article will never be productive due to his oft-admitted bias. WP:NPOV is a core content policy. We have to be better than this. ColorOfSuffering (talk) 00:19, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@The Wordsmith:I count at least 40 diffs in this discussion with actionable infractions by MarkBernstein -- the 35 diffs provided by Ryk72, in particular, merit a second look. But you need look no further than the obvious battleground mentality present the response MarkBernstein posted above. He actually uses battleground terminology to justify his actions: "...those of us who have been trying to defend Wikipedia policy have been through these discussion many times before..." "I do not apologize for writing forcefully in defense of The Wiki Way and, in point of fact, in defense of common decency." "...the fora used to coordinate that campaign (and some new ones) have planned a fresh assault on their new Wiki targets." I would love to hear an explanation as to how this does not violate WP:BATTLEGROUND. This was the second principle outlined during the original arbitration case, and it has been cited in previous indefinite topic bans given to DungeonSiegeAddict510, TheRedPenOfDoom, NorthBySouthBaranof, Ryulong, Tarc, The Devil's Advocate, Tutelary, Loganmac, Willhesucceed, Singdavion, 09I500, and TaraInDC (obviously we're well past the point of "candy"). MarkBernstein appears to hold a sincere belief that Gamergate agents are using Wikipedia to harass women, and any editor who disagrees with him is ipso facto complicit in the conspiracy. When an editor views dissenting editors as the enemy, productive discussion is impossible. That's why WP:SOAP, WP:BATTLEGROUND, WP:FORUM, WP:BITE, WP:DAPE, WP:OWN and WP:AGF (policies and guidelines repeatedly violated by MarkBernstein as shown in the diffs already provided) are vitally important in controversial articles. If you read nothing else, I would beg you to read the Gamergate Controversy article from top to bottom. Do not skim it. Read it. The mess you are seeing is the byproduct of a year-long failure to equitably enforce these behavioral guidelines. ColorOfSuffering (talk) 23:42, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by GamerPro64

I don't think I've ever seen a comment made by MarkBernstein where he doesn't bring up GamerGate into a discussion. I think he has reached the point of obsession and should find a different topic to take part of here. I echo ColorOfSuffering's comment on his contributions on anything GamerGate being productive. I suggest topic-banning him. This has gone on far too long. GamerPro64 01:05, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@The Wordsmith: I want to point out how rather problematic it is to have MarkBernstein be part of GamerGate topics when he has a section in his user page dedicated to GamerGate. The last paragraph alone where he imagines a meeting with Zoe Quinn scolding him doesn't show a person unbiased. GamerPro64 20:01, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by CoffeeCrumbs

The editor in question already has *7* hits on his block log on this topic and Starke Hathaway could have put three times as many diffs in his statement if he wanted to -- it would actually save a good deal of space to post the diffs in which Bernstein *wasn't* soapboxing or casting aspersions on others. These are among the reasons he received those previous blocks, this isn't new behavior. If you find an uncivil Gamergate discussion, Bernstein's usually at the heart of it. Let Bernstein and his Gamergate rivals go have their feud elsewhere.

And per Ryk72, Gamaliel should not be pretending he's not personally involved in this topic and this editor. Even now, he's using Gamergate as his bogeyman in an unrelated arbitration case request against himself and requesting another administrator take concerns about his level of involvement behind closed doors rather than out in public. Gamaliel is certainly entitled to express his opinion, but not presenting it under the guise of an impartial, uninvolved administrator. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 01:59, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Some diffs that haven't yet popped up:

[97] on April 6th, casting aspersions about the "cadre."
[98] on March 19th, more taunts and some WP:OWN.
[99] on March 19th, accusing Masem of outside coordinated support without evidence

And it keeps going. And more than just Gamergate page itself, it's a problem with any related page. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 06:58, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Kingsindian

It is virtually impossible to find a thread on the Gamergate talk page in which Mark Bernstein does not engage in soapboxing or unfounded accusations about Gamergate collusion off-site. Maybe Mark Bernstein has reasons to be paranoid or careful, but when every thread is like this, it gets tiring. To give a few months old example of some rather egregious behaviour by MB, here is one where he implies another editor (Sitush), is anti-Semitic, without actually saying it explicitly. This kind of passive-aggressive behaviour is par for the course and is long-standing. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 05:37, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Sitush

What Kingsindian says above and Spartaz below. I've no idea why MB is still allowed anywhere near any of his pet topics. He's clever with his words, insinuations, passive-aggressiveness, suggestions of something similar to martyrdom etc but ultimately highly toxic. Things are never going to stand a chance of improving while he is permitted to operate in areas such as Gamergate. It has gone on for long enough.

I also think Gamaliel is far too involved to act as an admin in this area. - Sitush (talk) 05:46, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@MarkBernstein:, you say above "In recent months, the fora used to coordinate that campaign (and some new ones) have planned a fresh assault on their new Wiki targets." Prove it. - Sitush (talk) 06:17, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@MarkBernstein:, thanks for your reply. In response, please find some uninvolved admin to whom you can pass on the info. Not Gamaliel. As for this sort of thing, right here in this request, well, it is typical of the sort of tripe you write. If you could perhaps try not to go all round the houses with irrelevant commentaries, aspersions, intellectual meanderings and the like then maybe you'd not piss so many people off. You'd still annoy a lot because you're a POV pusher of the extreme variety but at least you wouldn't tire out everyone. - Sitush (talk) 13:22, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Only in death

Its openly acknowledged that Bernstein enjoys the protection of Gamaliel (except of course, by them) due to their shared POV and idealistic crusade against all things gamergate. If at this point his previous blocks and the diffs supplied above (let alone his off-wiki actions where he bullies his opponents through social media) are not enough to get someone a topic ban from an area under discretionary sanctions, then there really is no point in AE as a noticeboard, as it is failing in its purpose to enforce sanctions. Only in death does duty end (talk) 07:32, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by AnonNep

The statement by Sitush caught my eye. Let's change the username. To wit:

" I've no idea why (Eric Corbett) is still allowed anywhere near any of his pet topics. He's clever with his words, insinuations, passive-aggressiveness, suggestions of something similar to martyrdom etc but ultimately highly toxic."

Just saying. AnonNep (talk) 15:59, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Mr Ernie

It's time to take action or close this request. There has been ample evidence presented. The longer this goes on, the more off topic it will become. Topic Ban or close with no action, but be ready for the next one in a few weeks. My recommendation is a 6 month topic ban or so, with a continued plea to experienced editors that help is clearly needed at the Gamergate article. The reference to Eric Corbett is entirely unnecessary and is only intended to derail this report. Mr Ernie (talk) 16:05, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Torchiest

@The Wordsmith: I wasn't going to comment here, but the diff Drmies provided after "Mark Bernstein uses GG advocacy accusations rather haphazardly", the diff you quoted in your most recent reply, is the very first diff listed in the original request by Starke Hathaway. That is, in fact, the comment that I found unacceptable enough that I collapsed it (the second diff in the original request) and warned MB that further such comments would force me to bring him here. That's the comment that he repeated almost word for word (minus the most personal attack), the third diff in the original request. That is in fact that straw that broke the camel's back and finds us here. —Torchiest ^talk_edits 20:01, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by (Username)

Result concerning MarkBernstein

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

WP:DROPTHESTICK. Gamaliel (talk) 17:55, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I have removed a personal attack from an IP. Casting aspersions without providing evidence is unwelcome here. As to the complaint, I'll look over the statement and diffs. I'm baffled, though, that GamerGate is still this contentious after all this time. Stricter sanctions may be necessary if editors in that area are incapable of policing their own conduct. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 18:22, 12 April 2016 (UTC) EDIT: The filer has voluntarily reinstated the comment, so i'll respect his/her wishes at this time. Future comments of this nature will, however, result in blocks. Proper decorum is not just a suggestion. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 18:24, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
April 8 & 6 edits appear iban vios. There is unnecessary invective and battlefield language in the other diffs. Personalisation of disputes and labelling enemies might be a useful tactic in the playground or in politics but is not compatible for encouraging a collaborative environment. There have been enough warnings. I support an indef topicban from all things gamergate and a 1 week block for the Dheyward iban vios. Spartaz ^Humbug! 19:42, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I should note that MB redacted his possible violations at the request of EdJohnston and seems to have had some confusion over the current status of the topic ban, which I did modify and was not a traditional iban in the first place. I should also note that DHeyward has also violated the ban numerous times and has not been similarly sanctioned. It would not be appropriate to impose different sanctions on different users for the very same offense. Gamaliel (talk) 19:52, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

*And the vio from today that Hathaway Starke mentioned? Spartaz ^Humbug! 20:24, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I do not believe that is a violation. I told both editors I specifically designed the ban so they could productively discuss each other's edits, so it wouldn't turn into a game of gotcha or you had a scenario where the first editor who comments on a subtopic "owns" it because the other cannot reply. In that diff I see only a mention of "DHeyward's comment" which Mark Bernstein redacted. He did not reply to it or discuss the editor, he merely mentioned an action he had taken. He could not quote the comment, because the comment in question was deemed to be a BLP violation (and later revision deleted). Gamaliel (talk) 20:40, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

One person not being sanctioned for an Interaction Ban violation has no bearing on whether or not another user should be sanctioned. If there was a separate violation by another user, then anyone is free to bring an AE request about that. However, it seems that the ban itself was not entirely clear, and perhaps clearing it up would be sufficient remedy.The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 20:05, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ethically, I believe it does, if we are talking about a small group of users interacting with each other in a contentious topic area. That's not "other stuff exists", that's the same stuff, in the same place. Gamaliel (talk) 20:10, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Also, perhaps it would be productive if we could collectively come up with a better ban that is superior to my clearly half-assed and ineffective attempt. Gamaliel (talk) 20:13, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

*Lets go for a TBAN then. Simple and not open to gaming. Spartaz ^Humbug! 20:24, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm disinclined to support a topic ban, but I ask Mark Bernstein to respond to the allegation regarding DHeyward. Newyorkbrad (talk) 19:45, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I also do not think the evidence presented supports a topic ban at this time, but things are getting close. Enforcing admins need to break the back of the dispute in this topic area if we want to keep Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Gamergate 2 a redlink. Perhaps we need to be more proactive in the future about removing tendentious editors from the topic area. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 20:05, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I really hate to do this, but this section is completely uncooperative and not likely to resolve this AE issue The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 21:19, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Once of the biggest problems I've had trying to negotiate this topic area is the battleground mentality and low-level incivility of everyone. It's difficult to single out one user for their behavior when you can produce a list of diffs for pretty much every long-standing editor in this topic area off the top of your head. Can we ban them all and start over? Gamaliel (talk) 20:10, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse this sanction. Indefinite topic ban on anyone who has, in the last six months, edited any page related to GamerGate, broadly construed. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 20:18, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Simple solution is to tban every regular editor who behaves badly. Lets start with an editor who has demonstratively shown battlefield behaviour/labelling enemies and personalising disputes? I.e. This one. Gamaliel I'm confused, you are not a regular at AE and are coming across as somewhat emotionally invested in the outcome. I dunno. Perhaps you should tone it down and let other voices contribute to forming a consensus? Spartaz ^Humbug! 20:24, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I was a regular, at times daily participant at AE before joining Arbcom and I thought it prudent to reduce my involvement in case I became a participant in matters that would end up before the Committee. I'm participating here now because I am one of the admins most familiar with this topic area and I created the sanction that we're discussing here. I feel like I am contributing constructively and I don't think it's appropriate for you to call me out with such loaded language. If you have an issue with me personally I'll be glad to take it to talk pages or even email, but don't think this is the appropriate venue for tone policing. Gamaliel (talk) 20:31, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

*Loaded? Tone police? That sounds like an emotional response to me and rather answers my question. Spartaz ^Humbug! 20:52, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I have no idea how to respond to this without you assuming it as proof of your claim. Gamaliel (talk) 21:02, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

While I believe his suggestion was humorous, this topic area has been a plague on Wikipedia since day one. I definitely agree that we need to remove problem editors swiftly, and i'm open to considering that MB might be one. However, the diffs presented here don't support that right now. Find me some actual evidence that he's detrimental to the area and he will continue to be so, and I'll wholeheartedly support a t-ban. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 20:40, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note to editors: I have absolutely no problem invoking the "At wit's end" measure the Committee is so fond of (See WP:DIGWUREN for the first known example of this precedent) and handing topic bans out like candy. However, the evidence presented here is a little light. Provide something actionable, show me Mark or any other editor is violating policies or Arbcom rulings with clear and convincing evidence, and I'll ensure those editors are removed promptly. Enough is enough, no uninvolved admins are going to indulge the POV pushers in this topic area anymore.. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 01:12, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Starke Hathaway: I know what you're saying, I really do. I dealt with the same type of editors when I was policing the Climate Change area. However, I'm sure you can understand that I simply can't issue a topic ban based on hearsay from involved editors; that would be against the spirit of the discretionary sanctions even contrued as broadly as possible, not to mention general Wikipedia policy. Even if I were inclined to do so it would be overturned instantly on appeal. If, as you claim, Mark is one of these editors, there must be evidence of such. Give me diffs, links to entire discussions, whatever you can find that points to tendentious editing or other policy violations. I promise I will carefully read every link and make a fair determination. I don't care if an editor is pro-, anti- or otherwise, the patience of the community has been thoroughly worn out. Few others seem willing to step on toes and take action, so I'll take up the banner again. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 02:11, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I for one am tired of seeing GamerGate brought into everything, but Mark Bernstein isn't the only to do so--in some of the six thousand diffs above he's pontificating in an unproductive manner ([100], [101]), yes, but it was Gamaliel who brought it up first in that part of the thread (the ANI discussion over Gamaliel's edits that are now themselves up for scrutiny). Having said that, I see plenty of occasions where Mark Bernstein uses GG advocacy accusations rather haphazardly ([102]) and I think he was indeed the first one to go GamerGating in the Gamaliel thread ([103])--and I am bored with the attempts at playfulness which for me are failing. I have no comment on possible iBan violations since my head is already spinning, but the use of talk pages as a forum (diffs above, some of them stronger than others) is, in my opinion, established. Such foruming around is certainly unproductive and leads to yelling back and forth, hatting and unhatting, whatever. I do not oppose a topic ban for Mark Bernstein but, if this happens, I think we should see topic bans being spread more liberally to other editors as well. And now I have to go unspin my head. Drmies (talk) 18:13, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Mark, when I said "rather haphazardly" I was being euphemistic in characterizing your comment, "But perhaps you have secret knowledge of the scope of Gamergate’s membership?" If you want to amuse me, tell me the one about the pirate with the missing leg, the hook, and the missing eye. Drmies (talk) 21:31, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Mark, I pointed at a pretty serious allegation you made, and you answered with 1511 characters of "it wasn't me". This is the kind of thing that has gotten editors topic-banned or worse. Drmies (talk) 00:55, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
[Redacted at the request of Drmies]The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 21:52, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

See, those diffs actually do show a disturbing pattern of bad faith (warranted or not). AGF is not a suicide pact, but behavior such as this is clearly unacceptable by any reasonable standard, especially from an experienced Wikipedian. Statements like "Gamergate's reprehensible, criminal and evil actions need no scare quotes. Gamergaters aren’t boogiemen; they are a real and immediate danger to their numerous targets and victims." demonstrate a clear bias and call into question Mark's ability to participate in accordance with policy and without contributing to the toxic atmosphere. I had previously been leaning towards not sanctioning based on weak evidence, now I'm considering whether an indef topic ban might be the better option for the topic area. I'll need to look into it further, but if you or anyone else has additional evidence (actual diffs, not just insinuation), then please post them. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 19:34, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I've watched the topic from afar, from the first Arb case to now, only participating in one AE and never in any GG article. I've said before and will repeat that Mark needs to be topic banned. I also believe that Gamaliel is too close to both Mark and the GG topic area that he should be considered WP:INVOLVED when it comes to both, and recuse himself from acting as administrator in both areas. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 00:15, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[1] The administrator may indicate consent at any time before, during, or after imposition of the restriction.

[2] This criterion does not apply if the original action was imposed as a result of rough consensus at the arbitration enforcement noticeboard, as there would be no single enforcing administrator.

[a]

[b]

@@ Line 276: / Line 276: @@
 ==MarkBernstein==
+{{hat|reason=User has been issued a topic ban. <span style="font-family:Courier New;font-size:3">[[User:The Wordsmith|'''The Wordsmith''']]</span><sup>[[User talk:The Wordsmith|Talk to me]]</sup> 01:38, 14 April 2016 (UTC)}}
 <small>''This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below. <br>Requests may not exceed 500 [[Word count#Software|words]] and 20 diffs (not counting required information), except by permission of a reviewing administrator.''</small>
@@ Line 510: / Line 511: @@
 *I've watched the topic from afar, from the first Arb case to now, only participating in one AE and never in any GG article.  I've said before and will repeat that Mark needs to be topic banned.  I also believe that Gamaliel is too close to both Mark and the GG topic area that he should be considered [[WP:INVOLVED]] when it comes to both, and recuse himself from acting as administrator in both areas.  [[User:Dennis Brown|<b>Dennis Brown</b>]] - [[User talk:Dennis Brown|<b>2&cent;</b>]] 00:15, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
+{{hab}}

v t e Noticeboards
Wikipedia's centralized discussion, request, and help venues. For a listing of ongoing discussions and current requests, see the dashboard. For a related set of forums which do not function as noticeboards see formal review processes.
General	Administrators Main Incidents Bots Bureaucrats Centralized discussion Closure requests Education Interface admins Main Page errors Open proxies VRT Oversight User permissions
Articles and content	Biographies of living persons Copyrights Questions on media Problems Dispute resolution External links Fringe theories Neutral point of view Original research Pending changes Reliable sources Resource requests Scalable vector graphics Spam Blacklist Whitelist Style Titleblacklist Translation
Page handling	History merges Mergers Splits Moves Protection Importation XfD Articles Redirects Categories Templates Files Miscellany Undeletion
User conduct	Conflict of interest Contributor copyright Edit warring and 3RR Sanctions Personal restrictions General sanctions Contentious topics Sockpuppets Usernames (Requests for comment) Vandalism
Other	Arbitration Committee noticeboard Requests Enforcement Edit filters Requested False positives Questions Help desk Teahouse Reference desk New articles Requests for comment Village pump Policy Technical Proposals Idea lab WMF Miscellaneous WikiProject proposals Discussions for discussion
Category:Wikipedia noticeboards