A project which punishes editors for defending the good names and reputations of living people from vicious Internet trolls does not deserve to survive.

• /Archive1 /Archive2

	The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar
	Awarded for your work on Jews and Communism. Balaenoptera musculus (talk) 15:48, 9 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

		The Socratic Barnstar
		This barnstar is officially presented to MarkBernstein for starting a butterfly effect that created the tipping point and ended up moving a mountain. Thank you for your eloquence and your effort to stop systemic bias on Wikipedia. USchick (talk) 05:34, 19 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

		The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar
		Dear MarkBernstein, your passion for the truth is a guiding light. Thank you for entering the sordid discussions surrounding the even more sordid discredited "Jews & Communism" article. Your principled no-nonsense expression of nothing but the truth and your courageous nomination of the article for its second deletion nomination eventually rid Wikipedia of a great stain on its reputation. "The Defender of the Wiki may be awarded to those who have gone above and beyond to prevent Wikipedia from being used for fraudulent purposes" and this is 100% true about you. Do not despair, the forces of evil and lies are always seemingly more "overwhelming" but they can never defeat the power of truth. Keep on going strong and please continue on as a beacon of light on Wikipedia and beyond. In admiration, IZAK (talk) 21:51, 19 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Z147

	The Barnstar of Diligence
	Thank you for your diligent efforts improving the quality of the article on Aaron Swartz. — Cirt (talk) 10:59, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Re [1] . don't let the trolls get to you! -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 20:25, 22 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The following sanction has been imposed on you:

Indefinite topic ban on edits and discussion related to GamerGate, broadly construed. This ban does not include participation on ArbCom pages regarding any relevant case.

You have been sanctioned for disruptive rhetoric and behavior incompatible with collaborative editing.

This sanction is imposed in my capacity as an uninvolved administrator as authorised by the community's decision at Wikipedia:General_sanctions/Gamergate, and the procedure described by the general sanctions guidelines. This sanction has been recorded in the log of sanctions for that decision. If the sanction includes a ban, please read the banning policy to ensure you understand what this means. If you do not comply with this sanction, you may be blocked for an extended period, by way of enforcement of this sanction—and you may also be made subject to further sanctions.

You may appeal this sanction at the administrators' noticeboard. You may also appeal directly to me (on my talk page), before or instead of appealing to the noticeboard. Even if you appeal this sanction, you remain bound by it until you are notified by an uninvolved administrator that the appeal has been successful. You are also free to contact me on my talk page if anything of the above is unclear to you. Gamaliel (talk) 17:39, 28 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have blocked you for one week under the general sanctions provision for violating your topic ban with these edits: [2] [3]. — east718 | talk | 00:08, 4 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I was not aware that any discussion of outing Ryulong was "Gamergate, broadly construed." But as I stated in my edit, I have no desire to contribute to Wikipedia further than what I believed was a necessary protest against patent injustice. MarkBernstein (talk) 00:18, 4 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This is a notification to make you aware that I made a request for enforcement against you here [4]. Have a nice day Avono (talk) 16:17, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

To enforce a community decision,

you have been blocked from editing for a month. You are welcome to make useful contributions once the block expires; however, please note that the repetition of similar behavior may result in a longer block. If you believe this block is unjustified, please read the guide to appealing blocks and then appeal your block using the instructions there. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 16:42, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

---

Reminder to administrators:
Community sanctions are enacted by community consensus. In order to overturn this block, you must either receive the approval of the blocking administrator or seek consensus at a community noticeboard.

This block is made in accordance with the GamerGate general sanctions and may not be reversed without my consent or consensus at AN or ANI. Should the arbitration case close before the block expires, it will become a discretionary sanction under arbitration enforcement provisions. The reason for the block is a violation of your topic ban by discussing the GamerGate controversy elsewhere than the arbitration case (namely User talk:Jimbo Wales), and because your edits show no intent to separate yourself from the topic area, which is the purpose of a topic ban—you have repeatedly skirted the edges of your topic ban by avoiding explicit mentions of GamerGate, and I have let these slide in the hope that you would move on. As you have continued, and now unambiguously violated your topic ban, I see no choice but to block you. The duration is relatively lenient given that the majority of your edits since your topic ban have been in some way related to GamerGate; unless you separate yourself from the topic area or successfully appeal your topic ban after this block expires, the next block will be considerably longer. You may appeal this block by making a statement and using {{unblock}} or {{adminhelp}} to request it be copied to AN or ANI. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 16:42, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

In fact, on reflection, I believe you have no intent to stick to separate yourself from the topic area and you will continue to skirt the edges of it and even outright violate it. In addition, your previously stated that you had no interest in continuing to contribute to Wikipedia, and almost every edit you've made since has been in some way related to GamerGate. Thus, I have increased the duration to one month. If you carry on regardless after a month, the next block will be a year. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 17:00, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There is a widespread view in the community that topic bans can be a restriction on not just disruption, but on dissent and free speech. Your topic ban was intended to prevent disruption, namely disparagement of individual editors. However, it has also served to silence your dissent about this issue and has prompted those who disagree with that dissent to play gotcha when you have made non-disruptive statements tangentially related to the matter covered by the topic ban. Arguably, a case could be made that the violations of the topic ban you have been blocked for were not covered by the scope of the ban or were very minor violations, and in neither case was it an example of the disruptive behavior that prompted me to impose the topic ban. As you know, I have pondered this matter for quite some time and I am convinced that the topic ban has become punitive and not preventive. Given your assurances that you will no longer engage in the disruptive behavior that prompted the ban, I am now lifting the sanction completely. This does not affect your current block imposed by a different administrator, which as per policy will remain in place until it is removed by the administrator who imposed it, it is removed by a consensus arrived at through a community discussion at WP:ANI or elsewhere, or it expires. Gamaliel (talk) 22:06, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Mark. As we discussed by email, I've unblocked you with the sole condition that you avoid personally directed comments; this isn't a sanction but more of a gentlemen's agreement. There should be no need to comment on anybody's person anyway—it's perfectly possible, as I'm sure you know, to criticise contributions and opinions without attacking the person making them. If you have any problems with the autoblock (you shouldn't, but jist in case), let me know. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 17:52, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@HJ Mitchell: Please see the bottom of this page for your gentleman's agreement. [5] --DHeyward (talk) 21:02, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@DHeyward: It appears that Dreadstar has dealt with this. I trust his judgement. AE is the best venue for any future concerns. Mark: I strongly suggest you heed Dreadstar's final warning. Admins aren't daft; if an editor is causing problems, they'll get their comeuppance sooner or later, but by commenting on their person you put yourself in that same category of "editors causing problems", especially by doing so on an article talk page. You're not prohibited from filing enforcement requests if you feel an editor's conduct is in need of scrutiny. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 21:11, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@HJ Mitchell:: Noted, apologized already, as you have seen and as @DHeyward: should know. I've even done an hour of community service, cleaning up Uninstaller and trying to improve Dudley Herschbach. I even took a glance at Cleavage, now at AN/I, but promptly ran away -- have fun with that.

On the question of the daftness of admins, you know that I have reservations -- some expressed yesterday in verse, others mentioned in my recent memorandum to you. I welcome your views.

In point of fact, confidence that the exemplary care you have shown at Frank Wu could reliably be anticipated elsewhere would do a great deal to alleviate these excursions and alarums, whether pursued by bears or by fans. Both Brianna Wu and Sarkeesian have been beleaguered -- and I see Brianna’s page is now at AN/I. As for filing enforcement requests, again my perspective may differ from yours based on my own experience; if you'd like to convince me that experience is uncharacteristic or misinterpreted, you have my address and I'm all ears. MarkBernstein (talk) 21:46, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

	Poet Wikiat
	I just saw your response at ARCA, perhaps the most moving poem I have heard since "On the Pulse of Morning"! Bravo! -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 20:20, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You've been warned multiple times not to comment on others, yet you persist. [6]. I've blocked you for 24 hours. Dreadstar ☥ 03:36, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please carefully read this information:

The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding living or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles, a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is here.

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

This message is informational only and does not imply misconduct regarding your contributions to date.

Dreadstar ☥ 02:02, 25 February 2015 (UTC)Template:Z33[reply]

Just FYI, I also intended oblique references like It is fascinating that the particular group of editors who recently were so eager... to be covered by our agreement. While I think your contributions to the topic area are generally constructive, please do try to remember the mantra "comment on content, not on contributors". I know from our interactions that you're more than sufficiently articulate to make your point without resorting to sarcasm. A less sympathetic admin might not. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 20:56, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I happen to be less sympathetic for continued disruption by this editor. When the 90 day topic ban I've imposed below expires, another comment that isn't about content will be met with an indefinite topic ban. Dreadstar ☥ 21:10, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Due to your continued comments about other editors [7], I'm imposing upon you a 90-day ban on all edits about, and all pages related to, (a) GamerGate, (b) any gender-related dispute or controversy, (c) people associated with (a) or (b), all broadly construed per Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/GamerGate. Dreadstar ☥ 21:05, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Excuse me. Did I comment on other editors? MarkBernstein (talk) 21:18, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Wouldn't at all mind seeing Dreadstar explain how exactly that applies to the diff linked either. PeterTheFourth (talk) 21:45, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, check out the link I provided above, it contains this comment about other editors It is fascinating that the particular group of editors who recently were so eager... Dreadstar ☥ 21:47, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'll admit to not understanding exactly how this is a comment on other editors, although it certainly mentions them. Without full knowledge of the discussion between HJ Mitchell and Mark Bernstein, however, I am somewhat fuzzy on the exact spirit of the sanction. Given your larger understanding of the specifics of what these two other people agreed to, I'll bow to your judgement. PeterTheFourth (talk) 22:01, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm really puzzled that you think a comment can 'mention' other editors, yet not be a comment on them. And this has nothing to do with HJ Mitchell's prohibition, I've warned MB several times to not comment on other editors on article talk pages - yet he continues to do this over and over. It stops. Dreadstar ☥ 22:07, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If it's not pursuant to HJ Mitchell's agreement, I'm very interested to hear which policies support a blanket ban on mentioning other editors (and how it's to be selectively enforced on only one person.) Perhaps you misspoke? To mention something is not to comment on it. A comment is defined on google (regrettably, not a published source) as "a verbal or written remark expressing an opinion or reaction." Emphasis is mine. PeterTheFourth (talk) 22:17, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Per WP:TPNO, WP:CIV, WP:NPA and WP:DR; rules which are especially tightened under Discretionary sanctions. Since I've enforced this against several other editors, I'm not sure how it's selective on my part. Dreadstar ☥ 22:25, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Other editors? Really? Did someone from that round of discusssion get topic banned? ForbiddenRocky (talk) 22:57, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@User:Dreadstar, just a reminder that the person you are engaging with has a very different standard as to what is considered incivility towards other editors with different backgrounds phttp://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Gamergate_controversy&diff=650066626&oldid=650065764], so I think it is probably a waste of time trying to reach agreement with them. 96.245.254.115 (talk) 18:27, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Just a note of support Mark. I'm watching this train-wreck unfold and wondering if there's going to be a Wikipedia in a year's time. Banned for mentioning that there are editors doing certain things, without naming those editors? I'm 99% sure nobody proposing these rules ever expected them to be interpreted that way.

There's a microscope on you within Wikipedia, by an unholy combination of gamergaters, and a Wikipedian establishment that apparently has a very thin skin. Outside though, I think the microscope is on the Wikipedia establishment, and they still don't appear to understand that sanctioning editors for "being uncivil" while protecting Wikipedia from libelous vandals - after those vandals ran a sustained off-wiki campaign to provoke an uncivil response - might just be seen as very, very, very, bad.

Not about to become a regular editor again, and I'll be honest, I cannot fathom why anyone of good faith wants to stay associated with articles under attack. My hat off to the few people left protecting the Gamergate controversy article, but I can't imagine it staying protected for much longer.

--Squiggleslash (talk) 22:04, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Just how are we supposed to deal with building consensus when some editors do switch to arguments contradicting previous arguments they made depending on how the feel about the sources? ForbiddenRocky (talk) 23:00, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Brief comment coming after 6:32 EDT. MarkBernstein (talk) 22:08, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Best make sure to include the fact that you cannot seem to abide by Wikipedia Policy, even after many warnings. Dreadstar ☥ 22:10, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Best make sure to include the fact that you and ArbCom's first priority appears to be covering up Wikipedia's culpability in this debacle and sweeping it under the rug. My apologies for mentioning some inconvenient truths. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 22:15, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

In a discussion about what articles should be listed on the talk page’s list of media reports on Wikipedia's Gamergate page, I wrote:

“It is fascinating that the particular group of editors who recently were so eager to cite Gamergate wikis, weblogs, and Breitbart are reluctant to inform newcomers to this article of this important new essay. Why would that be? There is no question that Lauren Williams’ study is the best examination of the Wikipedia scandal to appear to date. It is also very widely read.”

In my reading, this was not a comment on any editor, but rather a comment on Wikipedia, on its shameful collective behavior which has continued for months, and on the active conspiracy whose operation and effect was most recently chronicled in the article under discussion, Lauren C. Williams masterful account of how The ‘Five Horsemen’ Of Wikipedia Paid The Price For Getting Between Trolls And Their Victims.

The specific question being discussed on the talk page was whether this article should be excluded from talk page mention. It is remarkable that so many proponents of excluding this article from mention were, just days ago, strong advocates of including material from the Gamergate Wiki and from Breitbart.com. Because the phenomenon is remarkable, I remarked on it; not to remark on it would be as false as not to remark on the article itself, an article in which a superb and dauntless editor reminds Wikipedia that "We’re not here to be a weapon of slander, libel and character assassination."

The facts speak for themselves, as does Wikipedia’s complicity.

NorthBySouthBaranof writes: “A project which punishes editors for defending the good names and reputations of living people from vicious internet trolls does not deserve to survive.” – . MarkBernstein (talk) 22:53, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

So it is, and posted on an article talk page....so it's WP:NOTFORUM, so lose-lose, unless you can change Wikipedia Policy. And be clear, MB talked about other editors on article talk pages; as he was warned not to do over and over and ever again. Dreadstar ☥ 23:07, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I've no idea what Dreadstar means to say immediately above (other than he imagines himself to be right), but that doesn't matter. I requested email clarification and was refused that courtesy, so we'll do this in public. @Dreadstar: Is it your intent that this topic ban include pages relating to Campus Rape, which might conceivably be construed to be a controversy and arguably is related to gender? One might say that opposition to rape is uncontroversial, but doubtless campus rape has supporters, too, or controversy of some sort. (Then again, one might assume that commenting on other editors involved commenting on actual editors!) I ask only to advise an organization seeking my advice on promoting wider participation by women in the areas of its expertise in the wake of recent press coverage of Wikipedia. MarkBernstein (talk) 23:38, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, are you saying that I condone rape? You'd best back that one up or retract it immediately. I have never and NEVER condoned such a thing and you'd best retract it. Dreadstar ☥ 00:06, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No, @@Dreadstar:, I am not saying that you condone rape. I asked whether or not the topic ban should include pages relating to Campus Rape, a topic which might conceivably be construed to be a controversy, and that might also conceivably be construed to be gender-related. I further observed that the question cannot be easily dismissed -- at least not by someone who is not a great authority on Wikipedia like yourself, because it's quite hard to know precisely what is (or might become?) a controversy in your eyes, or what might be gender related? I think the answers to both questions is clear, but as I also think I made no comment about any editor, you asked for clarification. You replied by calling me a "motherfucker" in email, incidentally, a charming sentiment.

Go take a deep breath, laddie. Make yourself a pleasant beverage. You're seeing threats where there are none, you're demanding satisfaction where there is no satisfaction to be had, and you're making a mistake worse. I'm off to make some duck confit with caramelized mirepoix, crepes, and hoisin sauce and a nice right-bank Bordeaux. MarkBernstein (talk)

Topic ban 2 section break

• I think a topic ban is a little over the top, but within the bounds of reason and certainly editors have been sanctioned for less (usually because they've contributed less) and a break won't do you any harm, Mark. Perhaps give it a few weeks and then ask Dreadstar if he's willing to reconsider. As to "libellous vandals" and other remarks, I haven't seen any of that for a few weeks, and what I have seen is being stamped on very quickly (including by me) and met with blocks, page protections, revision deletions (even oversight in a few cases) and other measures. If I'm looking in the wrong place, somebody please point me to the right place and I'll go and eradicate that sort of abuse there too. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 23:15, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• • Guess you'll have to find your own now, Harry, or live with those consequences. You might start with the claim today that ThinkProgess does no fact checking despite its explicit About page claim to do so -- the claim to which my argument responded by quoting chapter and verse -- and trying to draw your attention. MarkBernstein (talk) 23:38, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • One more threat from you, either here or via email and I'll indefinitely ban you from Wikipedia. Dreadstar ☥ 23:57, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Threat? I can't imagine what threat you're imagining, or suppose yourself to be responding to. Or perhaps there is no threat at all, and that indefinite ban is the point?

Harry Mitchell says, “We've got the libel tamped down”; I pointed out to him an apparent libel he'd overlooked a few hours ago -- as you overlooked it, too. Hard to imagine, I know, escaping your vigilant eye! As Lauren Williams observes, though, these little slanders and libels don't really seem to bother you all very much: "I (and Wikipedia) neither support nor oppose Zoe Quinn."

Of course, there's the threat of even more ridicule being heaped on Wikipedia, but that’s not my fault -- or not mine alone, even if you agree with a certain other editor who wrote not long ago that “it still must be said that his inflammatory and erroneous description of the situation is what caused all this nonsense in the first place.” I don't happen to agree with that completely (inflammatory? sure. erroneous? nope. all my doing? you flatter me, sir.). Perhaps you do? Be my guest.

Still waiting for advice requested above and by email. MarkBernstein (talk) 00:19, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• • • @MarkBernstein: What you seemingly fail to realise, is that a reliable source is characterised by a "reputation for fact-finding and accuracy". That's a very different animal from a website claiming it's accurate and checks facts itself. Here's a claim on a website. Is that sufficient for you to add me to the article on the Royal Shakespeare Company and to call it libel when somebody objects? --RexxS (talk) 02:27, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Take it to WP:ARCA, my ban stands, you don't edit anything regarding living people. You're lucky I haven't increased it. And yes, I call you an unpleasant name whenever you accuse me of condoning rape, what would you expect, candy? Dreadstar ☥ 00:39, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Do you even realize how depressingly ironic it is that you keep saying "you're lucky im not punishing you more" while demanding he stop 'threatening' you? Parabolist (talk) 00:48, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It's nor ironic at all, I ask an editor to stop violating policy over and over, yet after this, I receive false accusations that I condone rape and other false defenses against the obvious misbehavior of the concerned editor. And yes, at this point, I would feel quite justified in an indefinite block of this user for their their continued threats and accusations on this talk page and via email harassment. So no irony involved - only that less public editors have been banned while this one continues to violate policy. There's your irony. 00:53, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

Further discussion here between Dreadstar and MarkBernstein is obviously not going to be helpful. The dispute-resolution step of discussing with the sanctioning administrator has been exhausted, and it's up to MarkBernstein whether to appeal or not. Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:14, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I would say the recent behaviour by Dreadstar invalidates the admin action he's taken. He has been far more personal and threatening than Mark, by the enth degree. I now impose an interaction ban between the two and lift the topic ban. Making threats to numerous editors and reading into comments things that are not there is enough to invalidate the topic ban. Dave Dial (talk) 01:26, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

And you'll need to take that to WP:ARCA, you can't unilaterally undo an AE ban; nor can you unilaterally impose an 'interaction ban:. Dreadstar ☥ 01:29, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• • Regardless, I'm done with MB and with GG, I leave this burden to the community. Dreadstar ☥ 01:38, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You don't want this going to any board, you've made it personal and have engaged editors with threats and false accusations. Mark can be a pain sometimes, but so can many editors on here. Of course I can't dictate punishments by fiat, or any other means. I'm not even an admin. I was trying to get you to see the manner in which you are coming across. You're probably a good person and admin, but from my observations in this short month so far, you have started to take issues in a very personal manner. You need to rescind and step back. Thanks. Dave Dial (talk) 01:40, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Mark, your options for appealing an AE topic ban are given at WP:AC/DS#Appeals. Admins who have attempted to enforce any of the Gamergate sanctions are used to the feeling that no good deed goes unpunished. EdJohnston (talk) 01:46, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, @EdJohnston:. I'm not sure what (or who) you're responding to here, though I agree that your general observation is likely true. I am accused, it seems, of commenting on an editor -- though I seem not to have actually done so. I am accused, in email to arbcom which I have not seen, of making a threat of some sort; I cannot see that I have threatened anyone with more than the justified condemnation of public opinion, and that threat was (a) extremely indirect and (b) is bound to be implicit in anything I say at about Wikipedia, and so it's not a threat at all. I am accused of saying that Dreadstar support rape; this is a wild fantasy. I am accused of being a motherfucker. I'm not sure what good deed is going unpunished -- perhaps the defense of ThinkProgress, that vile bastion of the radical moderate center -- but perhaps you'll explain it all to me someday. MarkBernstein (talk) 02:40, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

All of this is WEAPONS GRADE BULLSHIT. Dreadstar, I cannot understand how you imputed any threat from Mark Bernstein's statements nor do I see in any way shape or form an accusation that you condone rape. This statement is clearly, clearly a statement about what articles are or aren't controversial so he can determine where to edit. It's Mark Bernstein, so instead of doing the right thing and simply saying "I plan to work on thing X, I assume that won't be a problem." he turned it up to 11 and left out any tact. But COME ON. And if you were so shocked by the apparent personal attack on yourself that you failed to see or care to see the context the policy on involved admins might have clarified it. That's why it exists, to avoid things like this. This block is completely unacceptable. Following it up with threats like this (among others) is completely unacceptable.This block sanction should be appealed immediately to allow uninvolved administrators to review it. I should hope it is lifted. Protonk (talk) 02:03, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There was no block here, and certainly no sanction based on my reading of MB's comment that I believed to be accusing me of condoning rape. Since MB has stated that he in no way intended it in this manner, then I'm happy to retract my accusation that they did. Nonetheless, prior to this current drama, MB did indeed continue to comment on other editors on the article talk page, and not on content, thus violating not only NPA but multiple warnings by several administrators; and he was therefore sanctioned; so I stand by my 90 day topic ban and apologize for any part I may have held in the subsequent thread with MB regarding his question regarding rape. Dreadstar ☥ 02:59, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Any interested party is welcome to open discussion of this matter on any applicable Wikipedia forum. If convenient, I’d appreciate notification but don't insist on it. MarkBernstein (talk) 02:40, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, and will someone advise me whether the topic ban does or does not apply to Campus Rape and related topics? Again: Campus Rape would fall under the topic ban if it's a gender-related controversy. Is it a controversy? I think not, but obviously only Dreadstar's opinion (or whatever administrator steps up to the plate next) counts. And is Campus Rape gender-related? I think not -- but who knows? Or is that the point? MarkBernstein (talk) 02:47, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

FWIW, I think only you can start a forum discussion about your sanction. ForbiddenRocky (talk) 03:20, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

To everybody here: I haven't sorted through all this drama yet but I think those of you piling on User:Dreadstar would do well to remember that he has nothing to do with the actions of GamerGate or the decisions of the Arbitration Committee, and if you are angry about those things you should find somewhere else to vent your frustrations. He has done more work than most of you realize to attempt to keep order and sanity on GG-related articles. If you disagree with the call he has made here, then the appropriate noticeboard is open to you. Gamaliel (talk) 02:58, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Gamaliel! I agree that ArbCom is not Dreadstar's fault, though of course this little debacle is. MarkBernstein (talk) 03:02, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No, MarkBernstein, it's your debacle. You seem unable to not talk about other editors. That is clear. It comes up again and again and it's the same issue. Harry chose to warn again while Dreadstar chose a topic ban. There is, however, no disagreement that your comments violated policy. A topic ban is probably the best course if you do not comprehend the violation that is plain for others to see as it will keep you from repeating the error. Your participation on articles regarding campus rape is up to you to decide whether your edits veer into the topic ban. There are no mind readers and it would likely depend on the edit you make. --DHeyward (talk) 04:43, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You realise, of course, that people are aware of your constant hounding of MarkBernstein, DHeyward? Your involvement here is not a secret, and you are not doing yourself any favours by continuing this. PeterTheFourth (talk) 06:25, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Section Break 3

Just to clarify the "libelous vandals" comment Harry responded to: that phrase was referring to the underlying dispute, the attacks on the Gamergate article by said vandals last year with the subsequent sanctioning of the so-called Five Horsemen by Arbcom for being supposedly uncivil trying to protect the page from them, not anything that might be occuring now. That is what the Thinkprogress story was about, and that is what Wikipedia's admins are under a microscope about when they sanction outspoken critics of the sanctioning such as Mark Bernstein.

I must admit to increasingly having difficulty making sense of the current dispute, as Mark's now been accused of three different things by the same admin, none of which apparently have any real basis beyond a possible twisting of rules designed to avoid personal attacks to include criticisms of self-identified groups of editors. I'm glad Dreadstar has chosen to walk away from the Gamergate articles, as I understand it from his talk page comment, but if I were put in the same situation, I'd have reversed the ban too for much the same reason. If the ban were fully justified, other admins would re-impose it anyway.

Wikipedia is not going to learn from its mistakes if it continues to comb through the words of every good faith critic, looking for anything that could, if squinted at, be interpreted as a breach of an, again, squinted at, rule, providing some excuse to silence and eject them. Bernstein is not your enemy. Hubris might very well be, however. --Squiggleslash (talk) 14:13, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yesterday, Shanley Kane wrote a series of Twitter posts which explain what's going on here at Wikipedia and why it matters. For ease of reading, I've reformatted into conventional paragraphs and lightly edited.

Who do you believe is doing this? Rhoark (talk) 03:33, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not attempt to bait topic banned users into talking about topics from which they are banned, Rhoark. Further harassment will be reported, especially given that you yourself have been banned from the Gamergate controversy page. PeterTheFourth (talk) 07:17, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If this is about something in the scope of the topic ban, the cows have left the barn, and its too late to close the door. On the other hand, its not at all obvious that this is the case. Internet harassment is a major problem that affects a lot of people in a lot of contexts, not necessarily within the scope of MarkBernstein's topic ban. If there's some way we can take action on the matter through Wikipedia we should do so, but this tweet-essay lacks actionable specifics. Rhoark (talk) 12:34, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have no idea. At the time I posted it, I assumed that I was no longer topic-banned. I expect to see my Congresswoman, Katherine Clark (D-MA), tomorrow; she's taken some recent action with regard to finding out who using the internet to harass women. If In have the opportunity, I'll pass along your question. MarkBernstein (talk) 15:05, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

We can all hope for progress. Rhoark (talk) 18:34, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Where by "progress" we mean the conviction of the perpetrators. All the best, MarkBernstein (talk) 19:07, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

As per the discussion here, you are indefinitely topic banned from all edits and discussion regarding User:DHeyward and User: Thargor Orlando. You are also restricted from opening and participating in noticeboard discussions or enforcement requests related to these users without the permission of an uninvolved administrator. Gamaliel (talk) 21:32, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Gamaliel: Silly question. How would the users involved get permission from an uninvolved admin without violating the tban? Or is the expectation that they should get permission via email first? Having written that perhaps email would be the avenue most in-line with the intent of the restriction. — Strongjam (talk) 17:06, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

They are all veteran editors, I'm sure all three of the users know an administrator they can contact via email. None of them had a problem airing their grievances in the past. If no one else is available, poor, overworked User:HJ Mitchell will probably get contacted. Gamaliel (talk) 17:08, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I must have done something awful in a past life! ;) HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 17:33, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Victim of your own success. If ever we meet I'll buy you some whiskey. — Strongjam (talk) 17:35, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Amen to that. From the top shelf, too. GoldenRing (talk) 03:47, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I thought you would appreciate this rather good, humorous overview of some of the past events on Wikipedia. PeterTheFourth (talk) 19:48, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sea Lions of Wikipedia unite! You have nothing to lose but your b.... Nope, let's not go there. No comment: Over the precipice. MarkBernstein (talk) 20:17, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

		The Barnstar of Integrity
		In a room where people unanimously maintain a conspiracy of silence, one word of truth sounds like a pistol shot - Czeslaw Milosz

Stars are nice. Doing something to fix this nonsense would be even better. MarkBernstein (talk) 14:16, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

To enforce an arbitration decision you have been blocked from editing for a period of one month. 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. You may also appeal directly to me (by email), before or instead of appealing on your talk page. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 21:07, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

---

Reminder to administrators: In May 2014, ArbCom adopted a procedure instructing administrators as follows: "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."

This block is a discretionary sanction, as authorised by the gamergate case. The proximate cause is your use of the phrase "armies of Mordor" to refer to your opponents, who include Wikipedia editors in good standing. More broadly, the block is a response to your repeated refusal to focus your energies on the encyclopaedia, despite having been asked nicely, warned, topic-banned, and blocked, by multiple administrators, to the extent of using that phrase during an enforcement request about your conduct towards other editors. You have been given far more latitude than most editors in this topic area, but it seems that you are incapable of separating editors who disagree with you in good faith from trolls and misogynists. Nobody could deny that the latter exist, but it is possible to hold a divergent opinion from your own in good faith and without being a troll or a misogynist. This block brings me no pleasure whatsoever, and I am genuinely sorry that it has come to this—I believe you are an asset to the encyclopaedia on other topics—but I believe both the block itself and the duration are absolutely necessary to restore order to the topic area and, as you have not only refused to abide by your topic ban but have continued precisely the conduct that it was intended to prevent, I can't see another alternative. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 21:07, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You write, "I believe you are an asset to the encyclopaedia." This was formerly true.

You persist in believing that the people who regularly libel software developers who have done no wrong are not misogynists. I wish you the joy of the company you prefer. Everyone knows how to reach me if I’m wanted. A “project” or, really, a “boy’s club” which punishes editors for defending the good names and reputations of living people from vicious internet trolls does not deserve to survive, and is unlikely to. MarkBernstein (talk) 22:22, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is precisely that you are not defending the good names and reputations of living people from vicious internet trolls; you are repeatedly and gratuitously attacking editors in good standing and anybody who doesn't absolutely agree with you—now including me, it seems. I've lost count of the number of times you've been asked to stop, and yet you refer to your opponents as "the armies of Mordor" during an enforcement request about precisely that sort of comment. What misogyny and trolling there is is being controlled; it is simply disingenuous to suggest that it's rife, and certainly what goes on here pales in comparison to most of the rest of the Internet (and we put significant effort into dealing with it). This is not about trolling, this is about your inability to engage in good-faith discussion without attacking your opponents. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 23:03, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I know of two, possibly three, posted statements that were both libelous and disgusting within the past week. I don't doubt there were more. That’s a fairly mild week, as you well know. The previous week, one of those lasted for many hours. The term “Armies Of Mordor” was coined by Prof. David Millard, as you know, and is self-evidently satirical. As for the control of misogyny, how’re you doing with this week’s plan to purge the page of the term -- launched by a zombie account (again), 6500 words long (again), raised anew every two weeks by your “good faith” goons who always just happen to have a fresh zombie to kick things off, and with which you haven't dirtied your hands (again).

These are not good-faith discussions; they are a sham. As, unfortunately, is Wikipedia.

No need to reply here. Wikipedians seem to think that everyone reads these back-alley pages, but they don’t; it’s a fantasy treasured by little boys of various sizes in their basements the world over. You may think the "rest of the internet" is worse, but this pile of garbage is your patch, HJ, and where you should be cleaning it, you're making things a good deal worse while failing to protect the victims against whom your allies are wielding this project. MarkBernstein (talk) 23:28, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Asking questions is not disruptive. It takes more than one editor to get a discussion going round in circles, and if others disengaged and ignored there wouldn't be a problem (Assuming there is one to start with). More to the point, that's not even close to misogynistic trolling. There were some very unpleasant edits to Brianna Wu's article the other day, and they were reverted within minutes, oversighted shortly after, and I fully protected the article as soon as I got to my computer. When something nasty happens, it gets dealt with. The rest is not going to be won by calling your opponents names. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 00:44, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Want to add a concurrence to everything Mark has said. Seriously Harry, if you guys aren't simply here to create drama, you and the others need to do some serious introspection. Everything Mark writes above is accurate. People do not always "ask questions" in good faith - and long, essay like, questions that come up month after month after month from supposedly "new" accounts all in the same long winded style are not in good faith; expecting others to ignore them and simply leave them up unanswered for new, unfamiliar, users to find and take seriously, shows a serious disconnect between the combination of humanity and practicality ordinary people need to live their lives, and the supposed principles Wikipedia's establishment apparently works by.

This ban was for a minor gray area violation of a topic ban that was never justified to begin with. The only reason Arbcom is taking it seriously is because Mark is the current GG target, and because Mark pointed out in public that Arbcom's actions concerning the Gamergate controversy page were morally and practically reprehensible.

But here you are, not only trying to justify this rotten decision, but actually piling on its victim. Have you no shame? --Squiggleslash (talk) 13:59, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I release you from the topic ban I imposed; and as such I ask the blocking admin, HJ Mitchell to undo the block for violating the restrictions I imposed. Dreadstar ☥ 23:07, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think the ping works unless you get it right the first time. @HJ Mitchell: --Bbb23 (talk) 23:16, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Regardless, my t-ban is undone. Dreadstar ☥ 23:22, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Dreadstar: Not sure if we're talking about the same thing. I'm talking about pure technical stuff involving pings, nothing else. See WP:NOTIFS ("Note that the post containing a link to a user page must be signed; if the edit does not add a new signature to the page, no notification will be sent."). In other words, when you first posted the message and got the ping wrong and signed your post. When you corrected the ping, you didn't re-sign. That means the ping won't work. Over and out.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:28, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for fixing the ping. Dreadstar ☥ 00:58, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Since the blocking admin has shown fit not to respond, I've unblocked this user. Dreadstar ☥ 16:36, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

	The Special Barnstar
	For taking a metaphor for a walk, a run, a marathon! -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 01:13, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Every person I know who works in academics warns students away from Wikipedia. That alone will be a problem at the end of the next education generation. The slow evaporation of exhausted editors fighting against kook, fringe, and hate-mongering editors only hastens things perhaps. ForbiddenRocky (talk) 17:44, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure exactly which outrage prompts this observation, but of course it's quite true. Still, wikis were not such a bad idea and this wiki, having the example of Ward's wiki to learn from, should have done better. It still should. And someone should witness and record its apparent surrender to the forces of right-wing extremism. MarkBernstein (talk) 21:21, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Pro-tip: It's pretty much this very Mark, who writes articles outside of Wikipedia based on his well known political biases, then being quoted by media outlets and then causing citogenesis which confirm that Wikipeda is not a valid source and makes referencing Wikipedia in an adult line of work professional suicide. 77.97.24.152 (talk) 00:47, 5 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I am his majesty's dog at Kew./Pray tell me, sir, whose sock are you?MarkBernstein (talk) 02:58, 5 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Mark, about the hat note you wrote here, could I ask you to take a bit of the "sting" out of it? I saw that hatnote earlier today and didn't get around to addressing it, but I was reminded about it on my User Talk. There were two issues--one is that you made a reference, albeit obliquely, to an editor in a place where that editor couldn't really respond to you directly; two is that the comment was made in a hatnote, which is intended to end a discussion, but the note itself was a bit provocative, making for a situation where you're getting in a pretty sharp last word but leaving no opportunity for responses. Overall this came across to me as, well, unfair. I'm not going to quote WP:BLUELETTERS at you, but the cornerstone of civility is respect, and making a somewhat sharp comment in an unreachable venue isn't showing respect.

Incidentally, typically a hatnote shouldn't even be used by an involved editor unless everyone obviously agrees the discussion is over. Just as a discussion strategy, hatting can easily backfire. Reaching for the hat is a form of playing chicken, and if someone calls your bluff by undoing the hat, if you're not in a position to do anything about it (and as an involved editor you can't) you'll actually end up in a weaker position.

Anyway, I've been curious whether the 500/30 restriction would be accepted by the overall community and it looks like it will be. I know you've actually said you feel it doesn't go far enough, but it should provide quite a bit of relief. I've been trying to change the dynamics of the Talk page so that editors can actually go back to using it to, you know, have productive discussions about the article that can actually stop when there's nothing further to add that's useful. Can you think about changing your approach by casting off some of the old baggage there, and starting to treat the article like it's any other? I think you have a wonderful writing style, it'd be great if you felt like you were freed up enough from beating dead horses there to actually make significant content contributions, either there or outside the GG topic area. Thanks... Zad68 05:08, 5 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Zad68:: Thanks for your thoughtful note. As you are doubtless aware, this question I hatted is systematically raised by new, zombie, sock, or brigaded accounts at astonishingly regular intervals. It has been settled many times. At one point, I made a fairly complete list for either AE or ARCA; the typical interval is two weeks, over a span of eight months. These are not naive or good-faith new editors who have neglected to read the archives; they're recruited by Gamergate specifically to raise this question, or to discuss the sex life of one of their targets, or to speculate that one of their targets has defrauded the police.

The core question before you and me is this: is it sufficient to reduce the use of Wikipedia to punish women for pursuing careers in software and to drive them out of the industry? I maintain this is not sufficient: either Wikipedia must find a way to end its use as a weapon against Gamergate’s victims, or the educated world must eliminate Wikipedia's power to harm. In recent months, I believe we have made some progress on both fronts. (I assume you've seen Infamous and its sequels?) I'm not beating dead horses; I'm doing what little I can to defend the project -- and the concept of Wikis -- from forces that would first pervert and then destroy it.

Most of my colleagues, and nearly everyone in the press who has followed the story, thinks me a Quixotic fool for attempting to help with this. They've already written off Wikipedia as a dead horse itself.

To be blunt: it would not be necessary for editors like me to hat these discussions, if administrators like you were willing to do your work. It would not be necessary for editors like me to take a firm line, if administrators like you did. In this respect, your contribution in recent weeks has been very encouraging indeed. Still, I have not seen any definitive sign of real progress and, for that matter, I've not seen an unambiguous indication that you would be unwilling to settle for, say, half the abuse that Gamergate demands as a compromise.

I should like nothing better than to end this, and I have urged you (and literally begged other administrators and Arbcom, in prose and verse) to end it. And yet, every day or two, there's a new libel on one of these talk pages, new insinuation that Gamergate’s victims are faking, or not really software developers, or stuff so vile I can't describe it here. Lately, these are buried in great walls of meaningless text -- text that's systematically and deliberately thrown up to bore you and to confuse you in the hope that the good bits will be overlooked. They won't be overlooked by Wikipedia's victims.

I'd be happy to treat Gamergate and its ilk like any of the other computer science articles I watch, if only they were like the other computer science articles I watch. We can't treat the question of whether Wikipedia will excuse threatening to rape and kill women because they dare pursue careers in software as a minor dispute that merits calm, civil, and extensive discussion. We can't treat Wikipedians’ McCarthyist insinuations about the victims’ sex lives as if they're minor technical or historical disagreements.

If you can find a way to end the ceaseless abuse perpetrated by armies of zombies and farms of puppets and promoted by a small cast of experienced Wikipedians, I'd be glad to help. Let me know how! MarkBernstein (talk) 15:42, 5 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have, reluctantly, complied with your request regarding the hatnote, relying on your assurance that further brigading, puppetry, and stonewalling will not be countenanced. MarkBernstein (talk) 17:26, 5 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Mark. Zad68 17:52, 5 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

What evidence do we have that a crime was committed beyond the words of the accuser? Is that not the same evidence we have that so-and-so slept around to further her career? In both cases the evidence points to the accused's innocence yet you advocate publicizing the former while vigorously condemning any mention of the latter - why is that? What distinguishes these two cases? 104.254.90.2 (talk) 03:21, 10 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I am his majesty's dog at Kew/Pray tell me, sir, whose sock are you? MarkBernstein (talk) 10:19, 10 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

In the one case, a specific individual has alleged that a specific individual committed a crime, and that crime is the subject of a notable art work. As I wrote at AN/I, this raises a thicket of perplexing questions; I did not claim to know the answer there and I do not claim to know it now. In the other case, an individual spread malicious gossip about his former girlfriend; no crime was alleged, no notable artwork was created. This has been another episode of "simple answers to simple questions." MarkBernstein (talk) 15:42, 10 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I favor simple questions, they help to keep discussion focused. I agree fundamentally with your assessment of the two situations:

In the one case, a specific individual has alleged that a specific individual committed a crime ... In the other case, an individual spread malicious gossip about his former girlfriend; no crime was alleged -MarkBernstein

WP:BLPCRIME indicates it's less appropriate to repeat the accusation and name the accused when a crime is alleged, but here you suggest the opposite. Do you feel the WP:BLPCRIME policy is misguided? 104.254.90.2 (talk) 21:03, 10 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I am his majesty's dog at Kew/Pray tell me, sir, whose sock are you? MarkBernstein (talk) 21:20, 10 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I hoped to engage in honest dialogue on policy and content. Would that be possible? 104.254.90.2 (talk) 21:27, 10 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Since you're presumably a banned editor's puppet, it's hard to call the discussion "honest". I've written a little bit more at AN/I on the complexity of the mattress issue. The Gamergate issue, pn the other hand, is open and shut, clear and simple. Now, please go away and come back with your real account or not at all. MarkBernstein (talk) 21:56, 10 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That was a roundabout way of answering my question but it is an answer. I'll respect your request and not comment here again. It's a shame we couldn't engage more fruitfully or civilly. 104.254.90.2 (talk) 22:18, 10 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. 168.1.99.209 (talk) 16:49, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I am filing an AE regarding your repeated accusations and ignoring my warnings. This is the required notification of that. It may take me a few more minutes to actually submit it. Handpolk (talk) 01:11, 13 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Congratulations, Mark! I always knew you could do it. Parabolist (talk) 01:14, 13 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

<popcorn.gif> --Jorm (talk) 01:20, 13 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Can you counter file a proposal for Handpolk for ignoring everyone's warnings? Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:25, 13 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

He's probably going to be blocked in the next five hours or so. I don't think there's a point in wasting time on it.--Jorm (talk) 01:29, 13 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Are you saying that Handpolk's hysterical handwringing hastens his hanging? 208.76.111.246 (talk) 02:27, 13 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. When you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion (but never when editing articles), such as at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement, please be sure to sign your posts. There are two ways to do this. Either:

1. Add four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment; or
2. With the cursor positioned at the end of your comment, click on the signature button ( or ) located above the edit window.

This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is necessary to allow other editors to easily see who wrote what and when.

Because you didn't sign your most recent addition to the long discussion, it isn't obvious that it was added on 16 June, after the rest of the comments. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:27, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Robert McClenon: Sorry about the signature. I recently saw the contrary advice at Arbcom, as a way to reduce the clutter of signatures in sections. I'll fix it. MarkBernstein (talk) 16:29, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"I neither sought nor received any payment from the Warren campaign" - That's what we need to know; thanks. Rhoark (talk) 13:50, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know who's right and who's wrong in the gamergate thing, and won't be getting involved (it's a time thing) but I'd like you to know I really appreciate your prose. For a project all about writing there's very little eloquence and wit here. Thanks. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 06:29, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. It's not easy. MarkBernstein (talk) 11:18, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]