Oh, I don't know. They know what side their bread is buttered (and no, "bread" is not a euphemism, just a metaphor).

How is that "absurd"? She clearly is an industry expert, at least by Wikipedia's (not particularly high) standards, and since that's how she makes her living, such an assertion could have a deleterious effect on her career. And since BLP does, in fact, apply to edit summaries, as it obviously should, it's a BLP violation. You're wrong, Bernstein is right. Open and shut.

I'm hoping we can all overlook the fact that User:JzG is also right by agreeing with him. After all, a stopped clock and all that.

You're as delusional as them.

As Handpolk (T-C-L) is shown the door, in comes Neptune's Trident (T-C-L), the next in line at AE! Reported by Thorrand (T-C-L), if you listen really carefully you can hear the sound of the infamous Gamergate clown car's engine puttering away, accompanied by the faint squeaks of their novelty horns, as the GGC clowns prepare to grace AE with their presence once more.

You'd think they'd just delete the whole sodding mess as pointless inconsequential naval gazing and restrict it to very small notes on the bios of victims of threats. Given about two of them are notable when you consider the actual population and not one loaded with basement types, that won't be many notes.

It's almost like they enjoy this sort of thing. And we all know that this can't be true. Not on the internet.

(Seriously - there is far, far too much coverage of gaming. Toast and toasters are far more ubiquitous than games and games machines, yet you don't see 400 f'ing articles about the chemical engineer who's led the team that delivered the latest multi-grain WonderBread.)

*cough*
Dave's Killer Bread (T-H-L)


True it's not 400 of them.

Does that go with Dave's Ultimate Insanity Chilli Sauce (which isn't nice, just inaanely hot)

But seriously, that's a good example. There's the bread article and it covers the company tbat makes the bread, and maybe the owner. If it were a gaming company (and one that employed fewer people and had lower revenue), you'd get a damn article about every single games designer on staff, because they had a couple of lines in the industry mag.

All of the anti GGer people on en.wp are shadows of Ryulong. They're warriors looking for a war.

I think we may see a Gamergate 2 arbcom case, sooner rather than later.

I'm sure this band of dingle balls masquerading as arbitrators will get it right this time.

What continues to amaze me about this nonsense is that it is still going on.

I think both sides of this 'debate' are populated with shitheels.
They're all edit warriors who are out to write the truth in the face of evil opposes who are trying to bury the truth...etc, etc, etc

Ban them all.
Delete all but one article.
Let Masem or someone similar write the one article.
Lock that article.

DHeyward's AE case got archived without sanctions being imposed so anti-GG SPA and serial wikihounder PeterTheFourth tried to bring it back, but MONGO blocked his efforts. It has been followed by much gnashing of teeth at the Arbitration talk page, MONGO's talk page, and Gamaliel's talk page. Gamaliel, for his credit, is beginning to catch on a bit to PeterTheFourth's obvious game, though appears to still be ignoring that the editor is an SPA who can be freely topic-banned on site for repeated misconduct.

There's that word "obvious" again.

Hurry! Hurry! The clowns are in town!



The straightforward enforcement request against Neptune's Trident (T-C-L) was looking mundane, but got a little interesting as Neptune's Trident ended up repeating the claims about Brianna Wu (which got him blocked and topic banned in March) while trying to explain himself.

Neptune's Trident's statement caused outrage from noxious GGC nutjob MarkBernstein (T-C-L), who, no doubt seething and grinding his teeth as he typed, wrote a scathing comment (edited a few minutes later to include another attack against "the usual suspects"):



Gamaliel removed Mark's unproductive comment, but then foolishly believed Mark when Mark claimed he hadn't disparaged Neptune's Trident's topics of choice.



Mark later came back to AE to let everyone know that what Neptune's Trident had said about Brianna Wu was the kind of thing that caused suicide or "massive" lawsuits.



In a sort of related, ongoing dramafest at Mark's Talk page, Arkon hit the nail on the head:

He just a better educated version of Ryulong aka Michael Cohen.

The fight must be won and all wiki-enemies vanquished!

Bernstein is every bit the toxic edit warrior that Ryulong was.

The follow on from Arkon's point.


So much for BLP is a bright line.
I guess it MUST be but only for those BLPs MArk Bernstein designates as worthy of protection.

Jesus, what a pompous fuck. Just about as hipster as you can get.


WP:NLT anybody?



Mark Bernstein is what stupid people think smart people look like.


And Masem's got the patience of a monk.

Get out your popcorn, Sitush has arrived on the scene with a long list of complaints. Massive potential for a drama explosion.

Wow, this is still going on?

Surely this latest incident will finally yield the decisive conclusion to the whole affair that we all so desperately seek?

This is the drama that doesn't end...

Sitush has darted off to the drama boards asking for anyone with any serious involvement in the page to be "good faith topic-banned" to allow for the improvement of the article by outside parties.

Not what I said.

Why don't they just ban him already? It's obviously what he wants, or he wouldn't be acting like such a total diva-moron. Shouldn't they try to give people what they want?

Also, can I copyright the term "divamoron," or has that already been done by others?

Here is a rather interesting comment from Mark in response to Masem accusing him of personal attacks when Mark "praised" Masem's greeting of "certain" new editors:



I especially like the part where Mark implicitly likens Masem to Macbeth, the character from the eponymous Shakespearean play, who was led on by the prophecy of three witches to commit mass-murder and regicide only to become a paranoid and ruthless tyrant who was eventually toppled and decapitated to much rejoicing, but that was certainly not meant as a personal attack on Masem! Mark was offering up praise!

P.S. Andreas is now apparently a "sea lion" according to this Ghazi user's blog about the Wikipedia GamerGate dispute.

Mark Bernstein needs to be GG topic banned again.
It's just as simple as that.

Will never happen in any meaningful way until Gamaliel is also removed from the topic area, i.e. never.

You're over-interpreting. By saying "all hail Masem and Banquo," he's putting himself in the position of the witches, who are only trying to help by greeting Macbeth (or Masem, if you insist) with what they know will eventually be his titles. It's not their fault that nearly everyone dies by the end of the play, and besides, Macbeth only commits one murder before becoming King, namely that of the current King. Once he's King you can't call it "mass murder," because for 11th-century Scotland it's really just "business as usual." And since you've already covered King Duncan's murder with "regicide," adding "mass murder" is just completely gratuitous.

So have they banned Sitush yet, or what? I haven't seen a cry-for-help case this bad since User:ChrisO decided to get involved with the Don Murphy article.

You forget that he also killed the guards stationed outside the King's room, though I suppose "mass murder" is still a slight exaggeration as it was only three people he killed in that instance.

It's a reference to Masem being king of the sea lions and its fleeting glory. You have to follow Mark's rather primitive understanding of Shakespeare. Mark isn't casting himself as the 3 witches but more likely his belief that Masem is being manipulated. If I would have to guess, Banquo is NBSB with the belief the "true line" will prevail. Not sure where "not of woman born" fits into misogyny though. Wondering whether Mark was untimely ripped.

Hmm... It occurs to me this Bernstein guy is probably smarter than the average bear, so it's possible he decided to throw in the Shakespeare reference just to see if folks like Mr. Advocate would notice, and if so, how he'd overreact. I mean, if you go Shakespeare in that situation as opposed to, say, Bible or Monty Python or Star Wars, you're much more likely to get people trying to read things into it that can be used later to cast aspersions on their sanity, or at least reaffirm that they're hopelessly obsessed with him.

He does Shakespeare often enough. Often claiming innocence to offense even when the reference to Shakespeare has a clear offense (i.e. see definition of 'Havoc'). It's not his first rodeo. Learn about Swarthmore, Quakers, Friends, Meeting and colloquial Shakespeare and he is fairly well defined. Read about Arthur Chu's experience at Swarthmore with alum's stealing the hearts of Freshman women at mixers leaving the current students lonely and depressed might make even more sense. Sins are being atoned for in a way or maybe it's simply atoning for unrequited lust.

Whoa man, are you wasted? You lost me after the first sentence! I get the "dogs of war" reference, but... ehh, whatever.

(Not that I have a problem with posting-while-wasted, mind you. It's a lot better than posting-while-drunk - at least it's not as belligerent!)

I see where the confusion may have arose. My suggestion was not that Mark was engaging in any sort of clever comparison with him as the witches or really anything more complicated than just likening Masem to Macbeth. He was probably just suggesting that Masem has been misled into a seemingly noble role only to turn into a brutal tyrant who will be removed violently.

In my experience, when established editors have been fighting a long-running battle with each other over some intractible political or social topic, they often resort to creative methods like this to insult each other, because they know that if they're more direct about it they'll immediately get reported to the admin spanking forum.

Wait, what?

Please explain.

Well, well, well...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk ... An_apology

Game on!

Both Sitush and Mark Bernstein are members here. One of them could start a fresh topic and the two Wikipediocracy members could have a calm, reasonable discussion. People would be so disappointed.

I don't know much about Sitush, but my experience with Mark Bernstein leads me to believe firmly that neither "calm" nor "reasonable" are in his repertoire.

I don't see what the hypocrisy is - sealionsofwikipedia.com is more of a one-man commentary, there's no organized strategizing on how to get people banned, in fact I don't see any direct calls for banning anybody, just calling them "SPAs." And they're saying Bernstein should be banned from WP for tweeting links to that site?

And why is User:Sitush even still there at all? Can't they see he's on a razor's edge?


Frankly, I think this is all just a big shits-and-giggles game for him. I'm not saying he doesn't care about fair treatment of women and all that stuff, but I'm pretty sure he's not taking this anywhere near as seriously as you all think he is.

Well, either he's a histrionic fool or he's a massively insincere troll.
Either works for me.

There are several more options than that...

The thing is, his tone has changed during the past few weeks. It might be hard for the Gamergate people to detect, because they don't usually deal with real human beings, but I think what's happened is that they've already done the worst that they're likely to do - so now he just figures he can say whatever he wants, sort of like he has nothing to lose. I mean, they're not going to attack him physically at home because that would be a PR disaster for them, since everyone would know what the motive was. The worst they can do is keep mentioning him on various websites in conjunction with the worst crimes known to humanity to try and SEO him out of business, but now that they've already tried that, what's left? Not much, right? They've shot their load.

So now he's probably thinking, "who cares, I'll just say whatever I want about these guys, and oh-by-the-way the girls will all love me for this." He wins either way. He even wins if he gets banned from Wikipedia - in fact, especially if he gets banned from Wikipedia.

I'm sure it's all been very stressful and time-consuming, but it's also publicity that might be useful for him down the road.

He better watch himself, though, as Imperfect Twilight Future has started dipping his toes back in and is on the prowl with his eyes fixed on Sitush. Mark is more than happy to help Sitush look bad, though Sitush has opted against playing for now. A collision between Future Perfect and the Manchester Gangbangers with Mark Bernstein and the gender gap brigade giving Future back-up would be just plain delightful.

I also rather like how even the regulars are having a hard time telling the different anti-GG SPAs apart.

Indeed. He might also be a histrionic troll or a massively insincere fool.

All these permutations keep life interesting.

One thing is clear: he should have been topic-banned off the Gamergate Controversy piece months ago...

RfB

Please summarize how this thread continues to shed light on Wikipedia and the WMF. Thanks!

You're welcome!



Wait a minute, are you trying to imply that having a daily blow-by-blow account of Mr. Advocate's obsession over his current bête noir is somehow not germane to our purpose here...?

You both make a good point. I'll try to figure out just what it is.

For the most part, others have bumped this thread and it is hardly a blow-by-blow. People may tire of hearing about it, but it is still having a pretty serious impact on Wikipedia and the potential for more major events related to it is rather high. Most of the normal contentious topics are relatively contained to their zone, but GG routinely breaches the containment wall and spills out into the wider wikiverse.

Although the controversy is a tempest in a teapot in a lot of ways, it does have some interesting aspects to it. For one, in my opinion, the individuals on both sides of this dispute are the kinds of people who, in the past, were basically ignored by society. About the only places I used to see or hear about hard-core video gamers or young liberal activists before the Internet and social media was on posters or notices plastered to bulletin boards and walls on college campuses and letters to the editor in a few magazines and in "people's" publications passed out for free in the downtown areas of big cities. The Internet and Twitter seems to give these people more of a voice, rightly or wrongly. What is going on in Wikipedia is an extension of it.

Another thing is that, in my opinion, the combatants on both sides have picked the wrong battle. Quinn and the dude who was obsessing over her (which still makes me cringe for various reasons), are both flawed individuals who basically had a bad break up. That the zealots on both sides of this issue are trying to use this to score an idealogical victory seems to show that there really wasn't that much of a problem (misogyny / compromised journalism in video games) in the first place. If there was, then there would be better incidents on which to base their moral outrage. Both sides are greatly exaggerating the severity of what's going on here.

Anyway, it is interesting to follow how Wikipedia is attempting to handle it, because it doesn't seem to be handling it very well. I guess I'm a little biased when I say that since I'm currently topic banned from participating in the GamerGate topic area in Wikipedia.

Wikipedia is big enough for everyone to avoid it though. I can't imagine it going into say the Military History Project, "Pokemon" or "18th-century European Art." Why would editors in those areas fear GamerGate coming to get them?

One anti-GG SPA followed Cla68 to the Disney World article, so there are all sorts of ways GamerGate can affect completely unrelated areas.