• /Archive1 /Archive2 /Archive3 /Archive4/Archive5

.

Please see my fix for the header. The spelling 'WikiGirl97' occurs in your comment which I didn't try to change, but you might consider doing so. the 'G' should be lower case. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 17:05, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Astonishing to find that the comment "[this] sounds like some jewish gotcha bs" is now welcome on Wikipedia. But it appears that’s just fine. MarkBernstein (talk) 17:13, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Mark. You removed Norway as a subsection from the article Nazi thugs in the Nordic countries, but left it in the lead. Maybe you want to remove it there as well? (I think NRM probably does exist in Norway, but my thinking isn't a source.) Bishonen | talk 15:17, 23 October 2017 (UTC).[reply]

Hello, MarkBernstein. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Mark. Apologies if I'm misreading your last comment, but it seems like you think that anyone who prefers one image over another is doing it because they want to help or hurt Ms. Quinn, or some issue that she represents. That's really not the case. Most of us, on each side, are just trying to make the encyclopedia better, which in this case means picking the best images for it. Our editing is not centered around or driven to help or hurt any particular person or issue. Or at least mine is, and - in the proud tradition of the Dunning–Kruger effect! - I assume most everyone else's is too. :-)

Of course I can't prove that, but I can try to demonstrate it. So I went to your edit history and found the last article you edited which could use an image. This seemed to be Kris Paronto. I found/made a free licensed image for it. I have no opinion on Mr. Paronto, for or against. Until a few minutes ago I had no knowledge that he existed. But I found from your edit history that he has an article, which would be better with an image. Here. Hopefully you like it. If not that, hopefully you'll accept it as at least some evidence of good faith. And if not even that, in any case, one more Wikipedia article is just a little bit better. That's why I'm here, that's why most people are here. Really. --GRuban (talk) 16:34, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

In the past, many editors have attempted to insert unflattering or defamatory pictures into Wikipedia articles. In the past, Ms. Quinn has been the subject of a great deal of harassment through Wikipedia, including murder threats. One common harassment tactic directed against women is to invite endless discussion of their appearance and sexual history. I make these general observations without reference to any particular page, editor, or controversy. I do not wish to discuss the topic with you. MarkBernstein (talk) 21:01, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

To enforce an arbitration decision and for violations of your topic ban at Talk:Zoë Quinn [1][2][3][4], you have been blocked from editing for a period of 1 year. You are welcome to edit once the block expires; however, please note that the repetition of similar behavior may result in a longer block or other sanctions.

If you believe this block is unjustified, please read the guide to appealing blocks (specifically this section) before appealing. Place the following on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Please copy my appeal to the [[WP:AE|arbitration enforcement noticeboard]] or [[WP:AN|administrators' noticeboard]]. Your reason here OR place the reason below this template. ~~~~}}. If you intend to appeal on the arbitration enforcement noticeboard I suggest you use the arbitration enforcement appeals template on your talk page so it can be copied over easily.

---

Reminder to administrators: In May 2014, ArbCom adopted the following procedure instructing administrators regarding Arbitration Enforcement blocks: "No administrator may modify a sanction placed by another administrator without: (1) the explicit prior affirmative consent of the enforcing administrator; or (2) prior affirmative agreement for the modification at (a) AE or (b) AN or (c) ARCA (see "Important notes" [in the procedure]). Administrators modifying sanctions out of process may at the discretion of the committee be desysopped."

The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 00:44, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ack! What was that? I don't see User:MarkBernstein topic banned anywhere in Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/GamerGate. I mean it looks like the article was put under discretionary sanctions, but he didn't edit war, he just commented in a Request for Comments. Even if he didn't agree with me, that hasn't yet been made a blockable offense (that's part of my devious master plan I haven't put into operation yet). What happened? --GRuban (talk) 02:03, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

He was topic banned from Gamergate and people related to Gamergate here. His previous topic ban violations resulted in blocks of 1 week, 6 weeks and 6 months. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 02:07, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, fast response, thank you. OK, reading the case at the end of that rabbit hole, I can see the point, certainly seems harsh at first, but reading, wow ...; I will go away now. --GRuban (talk) 02:22, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: We are assured by the proposers that this discussion — the third? fourth? on the topic of Ms. Quinn’s picture -- is not related to Gamergate and not intended to harass the subject. If that is true (or if we affect to think it true), the discussion of her portrait is not related to Gamergate, nor is it a gender-related controversy.

• Unlike the majority Wikipedia editors, I have professional knowledge of the area: I work for a publishing house and have often been involved in choosing headshots for our authors. I also possess some expertise in literary hypertext, the subject’s vocation.

• It is conceivable that some editors actually did intend to embarrass Ms. Quinn. A current member of the Arbitration Committee did speculate in this regard. I have not previously done so on-wiki.

• It is interesting to observe that, on the subreddit where the original topic ban was planned, this matter was raised a few hours before this notice, in a thread not devoid of the customary anti-Semitic slurs. This is perhaps in accord with Wikipedia policy, but it does not reflect well on the project.

• This discussion occurs in the midst of a national conversation on sexual harassment, in the wake of accusations against senate candidate Roy Moore, the resignation of Sen. Al Franken and Rep. John Conyers, the dismissal of Harvey Weinstein, Bill O’Reilly, Garrison Keillor, and accusations against Donald J. Trump. This is a time when Wikipedia might prudently take special care and exercise especially thoughtful judgment. It is, I suggest, not the ideal time to enter into interminable discussions about a the image and appearance of a noted writer, one whose appearance has nothing to do with her accomplishments.

• I have within the week been once more in correspondence with WP:OVERSIGHT regarding libels and calumnies directed against this subject and other colleagues. This is perhaps the tenth or fifteenth such episode. To the extent that the effort here makes this thankless chore more thankless, it disrupts and damages the encyclopedia — unless, of course, the purpose of the project is, in fact, to harass one’s supposed enemies. MarkBernstein (talk) 17:12, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You're prohibited from editing any page relating to, (a) Gamergate, (b) any gender-related dispute or controversy, (c) people associated with (a) or (b), all broadly construed. Quinn's biography certainly counts even if it were construed as narrow as possible. In addition, you linked to Quinn's book that has Gamergate in the title. On a Talkpage of somebody who's name appears on Gamergate controversy exactly 40 times not counting references, who was one of the primary targets of Gamergate according to most RS, and who wrote a book about Gamergate. The topic ban violation is pretty obvious. There have been a number of edits you've made to pages in a gray area, where I extended the benefit of the doubt. This is not one of them. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 01:06, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#MarkBernstein. --Pudeo (talk) 23:51, 20 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I have closed the AE thread. For violating your topic ban, in the light of your block log and of the fact that these were the very first edits after your previous block expired, I have decided to block you indefinitely. For the first year, this is an AE action. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 19:17, 21 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi MarkBernstein. I don't typically visit AE as the person arguing somebody shouldn't be banned, but given the boneheaded stupidity of the above by somebody who seems to only sit around on Wikipedia to indulge in the fantasy of being an authority figure (I looked for edits unrelated to them being an admin and couldn't find em as long as 10 months back) I'd be perfectly happy to start an AE appeal if you were okay with that. Let me know. PeterTheFourth (talk) 22:52, 21 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm OK -- be my guest. MarkBernstein (talk) 23:09, 21 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Per Sandstein's decision, I can't do an appeal unilaterally. Perfectly happy to copy paste whatever, though. PeterTheFourth (talk) 00:10, 22 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The appeal has been procedurally declined as sanctions may only be appealed by the sanctioned user themselves. This is not prejudicial to any appeal you may wish to make on your own behalf. Instructions and advice on how to do this are at WP:GTAB. Thryduulf (talk) 01:56, 22 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

At https://teknopedia.ac.id/w/index.php?title=Chicago_Red_Stars&diff=1163771112&oldid=1163741589, see a slow-motion edit war between a SPA account engaged in Jew tagging and an IP. This might be of interest @Gamaliel: @Thryduulf: @PeterTheFourth: MarkBernstein (talk)

This user is asking that their block be reviewed:

MarkBernstein (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

Six years have passed.

I do not wish to relitigate Gamergate. I cannot apologize for my failed effort on that topic: I believe I was right. I was not correct in every detail, of course, and I was sometimes curt and angry. That I regret. I think the overwhelming opinion in both the general press and in scholarship now agrees with the position I tried to espouse.

I recently began research for a new book on a reconceptualization of computing. Wikipedia biographies of some 18th and 19th-century scientists and philosophers have proven valuable reminders for birth dates and such. In the course of that work, I’ve noticed typographic errors and infelicities; it might be nice to fix those. I might also be useful on some questions of pseudoscience and such.

MarkBernstein (talk) 22:33, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Notes:

• In some cases, you may not in fact be blocked, or your block has already expired. Please check the list of active blocks. If no block is listed, then you have been autoblocked by the automated anti-vandalism systems. Please remove this request and follow these instructions instead for quick attention by an administrator.
• Please read our guide to appealing blocks to make sure that your unblock request will help your case. You may change your request at any time.

Administrator use only:

If you ask the blocking administrator to comment on this request, replace this template with the following, replacing "blocking administrator" with the name of the blocking admin:

{{Unblock on hold |1=blocking administrator |2=Six years have passed. I do not wish to relitigate Gamergate. I cannot apologize for my failed effort on that topic: I believe I was right. I was not correct in every detail, of course, and I was sometimes curt and angry. That I regret. I think the overwhelming opinion in both the general press and in scholarship now agrees with the position I tried to espouse. I recently began research for a new book on a reconceptualization of computing. Wikipedia biographies of some 18th and 19th-century scientists and philosophers have proven valuable reminders for birth dates and such. In the course of that work, I’ve noticed typographic errors and infelicities; it might be nice to fix those. I might also be useful on some questions of pseudoscience and such. [[User:MarkBernstein|MarkBernstein]] ([[User talk:MarkBernstein#top|talk]]) 22:33, 16 December 2024 (UTC) |3 = ~~~~}}

If you decline the unblock request, replace this template with the following code, substituting {{subst:Decline reason here}} with a specific rationale. Leaving the decline reason unchanged will result in display of a default reason, explaining why the request was declined.

{{unblock reviewed |1=Six years have passed. I do not wish to relitigate Gamergate. I cannot apologize for my failed effort on that topic: I believe I was right. I was not correct in every detail, of course, and I was sometimes curt and angry. That I regret. I think the overwhelming opinion in both the general press and in scholarship now agrees with the position I tried to espouse. I recently began research for a new book on a reconceptualization of computing. Wikipedia biographies of some 18th and 19th-century scientists and philosophers have proven valuable reminders for birth dates and such. In the course of that work, I’ve noticed typographic errors and infelicities; it might be nice to fix those. I might also be useful on some questions of pseudoscience and such. [[User:MarkBernstein|MarkBernstein]] ([[User talk:MarkBernstein#top|talk]]) 22:33, 16 December 2024 (UTC) |decline = {{subst:Decline reason here}} ~~~~}}

If you accept the unblock request, replace this template with the following, substituting Accept reason here with your rationale:

{{unblock reviewed |1=Six years have passed. I do not wish to relitigate Gamergate. I cannot apologize for my failed effort on that topic: I believe I was right. I was not correct in every detail, of course, and I was sometimes curt and angry. That I regret. I think the overwhelming opinion in both the general press and in scholarship now agrees with the position I tried to espouse. I recently began research for a new book on a reconceptualization of computing. Wikipedia biographies of some 18th and 19th-century scientists and philosophers have proven valuable reminders for birth dates and such. In the course of that work, I’ve noticed typographic errors and infelicities; it might be nice to fix those. I might also be useful on some questions of pseudoscience and such. [[User:MarkBernstein|MarkBernstein]] ([[User talk:MarkBernstein#top|talk]]) 22:33, 16 December 2024 (UTC) |accept = accept reason here ~~~~}}

A few points:

• technically, you shouldn't even be mentioning gamergate. You're still topic banned.
• you say that you don't want to relitigate gamergate, but half your unblock request seems to be going on about it.
• your block log is full of gamergate-related blocks. I don't really think mentioning gamergate is a wise decision.
• copy editing old biographies sounds pretty harmless.

If you can stop talking about gamergate, I think you'd have a reasonable chance of being unblocked. I suggest you just erase all mention of gamergate. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 03:38, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I’m happy to do so. It is, I understand, customary for returning editors in this circumstance to confess their sins and beg forgiveness. I cannot do that. If I do not allude to the situation that caused this mess, I do not comply with the requirements of an unblock request. This is reminiscent of Catch-22: I must not mention that which I am required to address.MarkBernstein (talk) 04:25, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]