MarkBernstein (talk | contribs) |
Thargor Orlando (talk | contribs) →Statement by {other-editor}: +statement. The continued allowance of MarkBernstein to disrupt the proceedings at the relevant articles is a problem that is in need of an overdue solution. |
||
Line 42: | Line 42: | ||
This time around, I would hope that the ArbCom members carefully consider the actual ramifications of whether their actions are going to minimize disruption or provide a blueprint for how outside canvassing can be used to drive editors away and come up with a decision that is actually likely going to do so while maintaining the basic principles of creating an encyclopedia that everyone, including women, can edit without fear of arbitrary sanctions.-- [[User talk:TheRedPenOfDoom|<span style="color:red;;;">TRPoD <small>aka The Red Pen of Doom</small></span>]] 16:53, 10 March 2015 (UTC) |
This time around, I would hope that the ArbCom members carefully consider the actual ramifications of whether their actions are going to minimize disruption or provide a blueprint for how outside canvassing can be used to drive editors away and come up with a decision that is actually likely going to do so while maintaining the basic principles of creating an encyclopedia that everyone, including women, can edit without fear of arbitrary sanctions.-- [[User talk:TheRedPenOfDoom|<span style="color:red;;;">TRPoD <small>aka The Red Pen of Doom</small></span>]] 16:53, 10 March 2015 (UTC) |
||
=== Statement by |
=== Statement by Thargor Orlando=== |
||
Not to speak for Dreadstar or the Arbs, but the topic ban, as written at MarkBernstein's talk page, is in part for "any gender-related dispute or controversy." This is an incredibly controversial topic anyway, and Mark's own intentions in this clarification is to drag the drama he continually creates within the Gamergate space into the campus rape disputes. The goal of the topic ban is to keep him ''away'' from inflaming these topics, not to try and drive him to other ones. I hope the arbs and admins here clarify that this article and his involvement would fall under the relevant sanctions, and perhaps extend this topic ban toward MarkBernstein indefinitely as it should have been back at the original ruling, as he has continually shown himself unable to collaborate constructively in the space due to his personal feelings on the relevant topics of Gamergate, feminism, and Wikipedia's governance. The continued allowance of MarkBernstein to disrupt the proceedings at the relevant articles is a problem that is in need of an overdue solution. |
|||
Other editors are free to make relevant comments on this request as necessary. Comments here should address why or why not the Committee should accept the case request or provide additional information. |
|||
<!-- * Please copy this section for the next person. * --> |
|||
Also, this continued spamming of his blog posts and the ThinkProgress blog post is becoming exhausting and self-promotional, and is arguably becoming an issue of a conflict of interests in and of themselves. Since we're here, it is worth a mention. We wouldn't tolerate it from anyone else. |
|||
=== GamerGate: Clerk notes === |
=== GamerGate: Clerk notes === |
Revision as of 16:57, 10 March 2015
Requests for clarification and amendment
GamerGate and Campus Rape
Clarification request: GamerGate
Initiated by MarkBernstein at 16:11, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
List of any users involved or directly affected, and confirmation that all are aware of the request:
- MarkBernstein (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (initiator)
Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request
Statement by MarkBernstein
On Friday, March 6, Think Progress published an article by Lauren C. Williams on The ‘Five Horsemen’ Of Wikipedia Paid The Price For Getting Between Trolls And Their Victims. Two days later, I was topic-banned by @Dreadstar: under the standard AE sanctions, over his concerns regarding this discussion [1] of that article at the Gamergate talk page.
I had requested clarification by email about the intended scope of the standard topic ban. Receiving no pertinent response, I asked on my talk page.
- @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.
This evoked a vituperative response by email, which I believe to have been sent to you as well, and which is now being discussed at AN/I, which I believe is the appropriate forum. I do not wish to enquire further into that here.
I do not believe the topic ban was proper, just, or expedient. I do not wish to enquire further into that in this place and at this time, though of course you may discuss whatever pleases you.
The underlying question remains: an activist had contacted me that very day, seeking advice for a Wikipedia initiative among her membership and concerned -- not unreasonably -- over the sort of repercussions that were detailed in Think Progress and previously in a number of other newspapers and magazines [2].
Is it your intent that the standard Gamergate topic ban include pages relating to Campus Rape, which might conceivably be construed to be a controversy and arguably is related to gender?
Statement by Bosstopher
This isn't actually related to what Mark's said, but it's such a minor and uncontroversial issue that I don't want to create a separate RCA for it. Apologies to Mark for partially hijacking his ARCA. ArmyLine's topic ban (despite what's incorrectly been written on the GG General sanctions page, was actually given under Arbcom's BLP discretionary sanctions. This means FoF13 is factually innaccurate, as is remedy 12. Could these be ammended to note that ArmyLine was banned under BLP discretionary sanctions, as opposed to GG general sanctions? Bosstopher (talk) 16:45, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
Statement by TheRedPenOfDoom
This time around, I would hope that the ArbCom members carefully consider the actual ramifications of whether their actions are going to minimize disruption or provide a blueprint for how outside canvassing can be used to drive editors away and come up with a decision that is actually likely going to do so while maintaining the basic principles of creating an encyclopedia that everyone, including women, can edit without fear of arbitrary sanctions.-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 16:53, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
Statement by Thargor Orlando
Not to speak for Dreadstar or the Arbs, but the topic ban, as written at MarkBernstein's talk page, is in part for "any gender-related dispute or controversy." This is an incredibly controversial topic anyway, and Mark's own intentions in this clarification is to drag the drama he continually creates within the Gamergate space into the campus rape disputes. The goal of the topic ban is to keep him away from inflaming these topics, not to try and drive him to other ones. I hope the arbs and admins here clarify that this article and his involvement would fall under the relevant sanctions, and perhaps extend this topic ban toward MarkBernstein indefinitely as it should have been back at the original ruling, as he has continually shown himself unable to collaborate constructively in the space due to his personal feelings on the relevant topics of Gamergate, feminism, and Wikipedia's governance. The continued allowance of MarkBernstein to disrupt the proceedings at the relevant articles is a problem that is in need of an overdue solution.
Also, this continued spamming of his blog posts and the ThinkProgress blog post is becoming exhausting and self-promotional, and is arguably becoming an issue of a conflict of interests in and of themselves. Since we're here, it is worth a mention. We wouldn't tolerate it from anyone else.
GamerGate: Clerk notes
- This area is used for notes by the clerks (including clerk recusals).