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.

Gamaliel What I would say to Gamaliel is that your plan is somewhat counter-productive. I have tried to engage in good faith with Wikipedia - to the extent that jimbo_wales visited my sub-reddit. Thus far, for example, I have observed Wikipedia's rules - some of which are contrary to the public interest. The two key rules I have in mind are WP:NLT and WP:OUT. He also regrettably omits my various good-faith edits.
I have archived Gamaliel's comments about his proposed reasons for blocking me here. I am not entirely sure he has thought it through but invite him to reconsider. Vordrak (talk) 17:22, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Jorm

Vordrak is not here to build an encyclopedia. He has a one-way interaction ban with Mark Bernstein because of his obsession with him. He continually engages in off-wiki collaboration in an attempt to dig out small particles of dirt all in a transparent attempt to remove someone who GamerGate proponents see as the biggest obstacle towards getting "their" version of their story on the page and in Wikipedia's voice.

Vordrak has a history of yellow dog journalism and very recently went so far as to include Mark Bernstein's name fairly prominently in a "news article" about pedophelia that he wrote, for no apparent reason other than to hammer the seo around Mark's name into the realm of kiddie fiddlers.

This is the person who is opening this case.

I recommend closure without action.

Statement by AndyTheGrump

Per Jorm, it is self-evident that Vordrak's only purpose on Wikipedia is to promote his personal views, and his repulsive personal guilt-by-association blog. Close without action. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:03, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Robert McClenon

Something needs to be done other than closure without action, although almost certainly not by ArbCom. Either this complaint has merit, or it does not. If it has merit, then the subject party should be the subject of arbitration enforcement. If this complaint does not have merit, then the filing party is in deliberate violation of an IBAN and is otherwise being disruptive, and an uninvolved administrator should indef him. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:07, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by {Non-party} Gamaliel

So far, Vordak's contribution to Wikipedia has been to leave a series of messages which demand that editors and administrators take his preferred actions or face negative media scrutiny, promote his blog via User talk:Jimbo Wales and Reddit (which has long been a brigading station for Wikipedia edits in this topic area), prominently mention the subject of his complaint in a long blog post about pedophilia while claiming he had absolutely no intention of linking him to such a thing, and running a contest "for the best satirical animated GIF connecting Wikipedia and Paedophilia." At the conclusion of this matter I will be blocking Vordak as WP:NOTHERE unless he is blocked by the Committee or I am advised by a member of the Committee not to take this action. Gamaliel (talk) 17:11, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Question and Statement by Floq

Could someone explain any conceivable benefit of the "you can start ANI/AC threads/cases about the person you're IBANed from discussing" loophole? It seems like standard wording in some template/notice somewhere, but we should change that. In general, I mean. In this particular case, I support Gamaliel's plan. --Floquenbeam (talk) 17:17, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Bosstopher

While this case is obviously going to be declined, I still feel the need to make a few points to Vordrak.

  1. Absolutely nobody (including Mark) is looking to have Auerbach's articles for a reputable outlet like Slate removed from the article. The dispute is on whether or not to use the twitter essays he writes on the topic. If you had actually read wikipedia's article on Gamergate you would notice that Auerbach response to the 'Gamers are Dead' op-eds is cited in it.
  2. You are mentioning Mark criticising Arbcom as a reason why arbcom should open a case on Mark. Seriously?

Bosstopher (talk) 17:20, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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 <0/4/0/0>

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