Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case - Wikipedia


Article Images

Requests for arbitration

Initiated by Vordrak (talk) at 15:41, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Involved parties

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

I have notified MarkBernstein per the diff here.

Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried

Statement by Vordrak

I am under an i-Ban with the subject of the complaint, Mark Bernstein, but there is an express exception per the notice on my talk page for dispute resolution. Also the standard ban exceptions apply to arbitration per WP:BAN, "[...] Engaging in legitimate and necessary dispute resolution [...]". In summary the complaint is that MarkBernstein engages in massively inflammatory WP:NPOV editing, especially on the Gamergate controversy article and is here to WP:RGW by his own admission.

Some people say I am WP:NOTHERE. I am most definitely here to help build an encyclopaedia, and as a show of good faith I link to 10 diffs on articles from law to bidets but there are many more - 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10

Until recently was I was a reader and very occasional anonymous contributor to Wikipedia. However, there are two controversies that I feel passionately about. These are the Grant Shapps / Contribsx case (now resolved) and the #GamerGate article. Some people say that I am here to benefit my blog. On the contrary the writing is a way of dealing with these concerns. I do not normally write about Wikipedian and once my concerns are resolved, I anticipate going back to being an occasional contributor. A consequence of my activity on this is that whistleblowers approach me about, say WP:CHILDPROTECT, but I anticipate that dying down once this is resolved.

The complaint is about Mark Bernstein. The grievance that personally affects me is the tendentious and extreme approach he takes to the GamerGate controversy article. As a law student and previously elected politician, I support the stated goals of GamerGate, as do many other prominent, respectable people. Bernstein and his supporters regard it as a 'terrorist' group and are unable to accommodate any other perspectives.

Bernstein says that the reliable sources only endorse his views - however this position is fortified by manipulation of the reliable sources rules. Bernstein et al have sought to have reputable journalists like Auerbachkeller and Breitbart (website) disallowed as WP:FRINGE. This led to a complaint by Mr Keller at WP:BLPN. Keller is unfamiliar with Wikipedia and was in the wrong place, but one admin commented as follows [11] and I agree.

Declaring journalists WP:FRINGE will alienate them and damage the reputation of the project. In fact Bernstein has shown a pattern of behavior of breaches of Wikipedia rules for nearly a decade. He has CoI edited his company's article and those of associated persons, without always declaring his interest on the talk page. My article has 25 or so examples here but 12, 13 and 14 are significant non-trivial edits.

On GamerGate Bernstein has baselessly attacked ArbCom in three articles cited in the Guardian and posted on-wiki here. He has incited aggrieved activists to join the Wiki by linking GamerGate to Charleston here. The spark for my arbitration request today is this edit, which has sparked further controversy off-wiki here.

Statement by {Non-party}

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.

Clerk notes

This area is used for notes by the clerks (including clerk recusals).

MarkBernstein: Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter <0/0/0/0>

Vote key: (Accept/decline/recuse/other)