This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below.
Requests may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs (not counting required information), except by permission of a reviewing administrator.

Request concerning Eric Corbett[edit]

User who is submitting this request for enforcement

Amortias (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 19:10, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested

Eric Corbett (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Search CT alerts: in user talk history • in system log

Sanction or remedy to be enforced

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Interactions_at_GGTF

Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it

1. 26/02/2015 I believe this particular comment is in breech of point 1 of the above listed sanctions.

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

If discretionary sanctions are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see WP:AC/DS#Awareness and alerts)

*Mentioned by name in the Arbitration Committee's Final Decision linked to above.

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

Although not an outright statement about the GGTF it is an easily drawn inference as to whom Eric is referring to and this is in breech of his previously impemented topic ban. Amortias (T)(C) 19:10, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

[19]

Discussion concerning Eric Corbett[edit]

Statements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator.
Administrators may remove or shorten noncompliant statements. Disruptive contributions may result in blocks.

Statement by Eric Corbett[edit]

I think that any block ought to be for at least a week, else I won't have learned my lesson. I have until now avoided the use of my admin account, but that's another possibility going forward. Eric Corbett 05:23, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Capeo[edit]

I don't see how this is a violation of the TB personally. There's no mention of the GGTF, the gender disparity or any process or discussion about either of the above. It's a comment about a dispute that doesn't fit any of the above criteria either. And it doesn't matter who the comment can be construed to be about. No editor is the embodiment of the GGTF so that simply engaging them can be broadly construed as mentioning the GGTF by proxy. Capeo (talk) 19:36, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If we exchanged "militant feminists" with "POV pushers" would we even be having this conversation? Because honestly that's all the sentence expresses. A sentiment that's been expressed a million times at ANI, by admins no less. Capeo (talk) 21:52, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Hal peridol, if there indeed were "misogynist POV pushers" brought to ANI I'm quite sure they'd be dealt with like any other POV pusher. Hence my point. Militant is the key term as it espouses a radical form of feminism well outside of what this encyclopedia would consider neutral and I'd say there certainly has been some folks lately that have been approaching topics from that POV, at times to the point of disruption. Capeo (talk) 00:03, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by (anonymous)[edit]

This doesn't appear to violate the topic ban per se; however, I'd also note here that the Arbcom decision also states: Eric Corbett agrees to a restriction prohibiting him from shouting at, swearing at, insulting and/or belittling other editors.... If however, in the opinion of an uninvolved administrator, Eric Corbett does engage in prohibited conduct, he may be blocked. I dare say that describing other editors (considering the context, it does appear he has other editors in mind) as militant feminists who should be dealt with once and for all qualifies as insult. 76.64.13.4 (talk) 19:44, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by EvergreenFir[edit]

Lightbreather was involved in the GGTF arb case and presented evidence against Corbett specifically. Indeed the now-infamous quote by Corbett "[The] easiest way to avoid being called a cunt is not to act like one" was directed at Lightbreather and the subject of much discussion during the arbcom case. It seems clear to me that this statement is related to events with the GGTF and the arbcom ruling and is thus a breach the ban. EvergreenFir (talk) Please ((re)) 20:03, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Note also Corbett was blocked about 1 month ago for comments to Lightbreather of a similar nature. See this previous AE.

• Perhaps Black Kite should recuse themselves from this discussion if they cannot keep a civil tone and suggest that the target of prolonged harassment should be the one removed. No one, regardless of their politics, deserves the crap Corbett dishes out routinely. EvergreenFir (talk) Please ((re)) 02:43, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Giano That's WP:OTHERSTUFF. Unrelated to the arbcom ruling related to Corbett. If you think another user is too incivil, start and ANI. EvergreenFir (talk) Please ((re)) 18:08, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Knowledgekid87[edit]

The thread on WP:ANI was started by LB, when he said "feminist militants" it was referring to a person or group in particular here on wikipedia. I don't know how the comment can be taken as another general broad opinion with that description. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 20:12, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• @J3Mrs - Facts come with evidence, if you think that a group of editors here on Wikipedia are "militant feminists" then please take it up with the right venue, otherwise it is just a counter productive baseless attack. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 21:51, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• @EChastain - Yeah this is very polite... [20]. What does Rationalobserver or other editors not named in this discussion have to do with what happened on WP:ANI anyways? - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 23:12, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• @Ddstretch: It is a weird way of joking when you are facing a possible block for disruptive behavior. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 14:18, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Im looking at other's comments in a bit of disbelief as well the wording was "Isn't it about time that these militant feminists were dealt with once and for all?" Who are these "militant feminists" which are referred to? The comment was made without provoking Eric as noted and the section had nothing to do with a discussion about a gender and it was a REPLY to H.I.A.B.'s comment which was this: "the underhanded actions are hurting the ncylopedia that's why it is hard to ignore. She is destructive in her method." Connect the dots here please, anything could have been said but that is not what took place. Lastly I want to say, why would Eric be commenting there (A thread about LB and HIAB) in the first place when he has an IBAN between himself and LB? Usually there is a reason for comments made. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 02:12, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Buster7[edit]

It is just as easy to construe that Eric meant to type omnipitent but hit the "L" instead of the "P" and at the same time had a lapse in spelling or a short-term memory loss. It happens to me all the time. . Buster Seven Talk 20:42, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Kk87. Its "militant feminists" not "feminist militants". . Buster Seven Talk 23:18, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Perhaps a bit facetious, yes, I'll agree. But not fallacious. Look at your keyboard. The L and the P live right next to each other. It's easy to strike one instead of the other, especially for us elderly editors that aren't challenged by the arrogance of youth but are limited by the challenge of arthritis. A little levity never hurt especially considering that this request is a joke. . Buster Seven Talk 06:27, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Ironholds[edit]

Agreed with Evergreenfir, here; even were it not for the GGTF sanctions (there's an argument for this not falling under those, although frankly the fact that Eric hasn't learned to just avoid the entire topic area is...ludicrous), the prohibition on him deliberately insulting others is clear, as is the fact that this sort of behaviour violates that prohibition - BusterSeven's fallaciousness aside.

As an aside of my own: User:HJ Mitchell, you had some honour to maintain, I believe? ;p. Ironholds (talk) 21:25, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by J3Mrs[edit]

This is the most stupid of sanctions. Not only is it an open invitation to some editors to be spiteful and vindictive but it is counter-productive. "Militant feminists" as applied here is a statement of fact. J3Mrs (talk) 21:45, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It is obvious to me that militant feminists are attempting to ban Eric and I feel sorry for those who can't see it. They have been allowed to create a vile and disruptive atmosphere for many other editors that has been allowed to continue unchecked. This drama is entirely the creation of Arbcom's most ridiculous sanction. J3Mrs (talk) 08:46, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Liz[edit]

I'm incredulous by the fact that some of Corbett's defenders lines of argument are a) militant feminists don't exist on Wikipedia or b) it shouldn't be taken as an insult or c) the fact that militant feminists are, by implication, ruining Wikipedia, is a statement of fact and that negates any restrictions that might have been placed on Corbett. He said what he said and admins can decide whether it crossed a line or not. But the point here is not to defend or interpret what he said. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:11, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by EChastain[edit]

Yesterday, after extensive disruption on his talk by Rationalobserver who has been disruptive there before and who has made extensive derogatory remarks on her own talkpage regarding his inability to edit well and that she wouldn't want his help, now asked for his help, after apologising to him for joining the feminism bandwagon against him on Rose-Baley Party where FR writer Victoriaearle has already been driven off. Rationalobserver is turned down. Eric Corbett was polite at first, but she continued until he deleted her subsequent remarks. She proceeds to edit Donner Party an FAC for which he was a principal editor, and argue extensively on the talk page with other editors in defense of her edits. She also goes to the RS noticeboard and questions his sources, and continues to argue there on the noticeboard talkpage after that section was closed by other editors. Nevertheless, Eric Corbett is blamed by Knowledgekid87 for her behavior, because he mentioned Donner Party.

Anyone following GGTF, which is a political advocacy task force, and seeing some of what has resulted from discussions there (recent ANI's and article disruptions like on Breast cleavage) and others, can't help but wonder. I'm a female as I've said before, but I'm afraid to say that I might support Eric Corbett's remark, although I think the remark was ill-advised because of the PC atmosphere on wiki; it seems that no female editor (though I've been hassled by some of those same female editors), can be criticised by those perceived as males. There's a chill in the community, and even admins seem fearful. Really, just using the term "militant feminist" is sanctionable? (anonymous says above: " it does appear he has other editors in mind"). After what he endured just yesterday from a "friend" of Lightbreather, an editor who filed for a ds sanction against Eric Corbett just days after Lightbreather successfully did,[21] I can understand his remark as he is a human. There are many, many females on this project who abhor what's going on at GGTF and the targeting Eric Corbett.

The "cunt" remark, brought up above, occurred last fall but is still being brought up repeatedly to tarnish him, spread around by those same (female) editors, repeated verbatim over and over again by Lightbreater who claimed it was a personal attack against her. (And there clearly is a cultural difference in the way that word is used.) [edited] EChastain (talk) 01:57, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Agree with Capeo and Black Kite that "militant feminism" is essentially a political remark, not a personal attack as we typically think of one, directed at an editor who pushes a POV whether it's GGTF-type attention-getting dustups, or gun control articles.
• Agree with John Carter. "Political descriptions and biological descriptions are not the same thing". There are problems in defining what is a gender-related offense. One point of a political view shouldn't be stifled.
• @Knowledgekid87:, "militant feminist" isn't a gender-based term, as both males and females can be extremist on this subject.

Statement by Drmies[edit]

To those who think that they're doing anyone a favor by starting an arbitration request hoping to see someone get kicked in the balls, why don't you just make up your mind and be consistent? If you think Eric is a troll, then don't feed him. Let it go. Here's yet another manufactured controversy. Just move on. There's plenty of people who make stupid remarks all the time, no need to make a fuss. I think the "militant feminists" remark was foolish, and I think that the ANI thread started by someone was foolish, and I think some of the remarks made by someone else that started an ANI thread were foolish. Motes and beams, pots and kettles. Eric, be careful lest you fart with the wind from the wrong direction. Drmies (talk) 22:53, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Hal_peridol[edit]

@Capeo, J3Mrs - what about if rather than "militant feminists", someone had said, "Isn't it about time that these misogynists were dealt with once and for all?" - we probably would be having this conversation. And it is possible that some people would see it as a statement of fact.Hal peridol (talk) 23:09, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by John Carter[edit]

I agree with Black Kite below in thinking that "militant feminist" is more of a statement of someone's political or social positions than a description of gender, and thus possibly outside the scope of the existing sanctions. In fact, there are, at least some, biological male "feminists", from what I remember seeing in some sources. On that basis, I would have to say that while this may well be not unreasonably seen as being an attempt to determine just how far Eric can go in using comments which are not necessarily gender-specific or insulting, it is also, at least in the eyes of some, an at least potentially gender-neutral term and not-necessarily-judgmental term, and on that basis I have difficulty seeing how it necessarily relates to the "gender gap." Political descriptions and biological descriptions are not the same thing, and it is not reasonable to believe that someone who may have opinions regarding the political or social positions of others with whom (s)he may not share the same ethnicity or gender is necessarily disparaging either an ethnicity or gender when that person is making a comment which specifically relates only to one ideological group within that broader community. I would think that maybe simply advising Eric that these comments are unacceptable and considered violations of the existing sanctions might be enough. That is, if they are violations, which I actually personally think they aren't, because "extremism" of all sorts exists, and it isn't insulting to describe such people by such terms. John Carter (talk) 01:45, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I tend to agree with Johnuniq below that a comment made at ANI is both (1) on a page allegedly open to everyone, to which one does not have to be "invited" in any way but allegedly should be free to comment freely, and (2) that it is a place where the level of decorum is often sub par, but that there have been to my knowledge anyway few if any sanctions imposed to date on comments there. I am unaware that we have ever had people sanctioned for comments specifically at ANI in the past, but I tend to think that if there have been such cases they will likely have been few and far between. I am welcome to any input anyone might have regarding previous sanctions for comments there however.

Also, and this may be a first here, I think I may agree with Giano below on this topic. It is very, very hard to not get the impression that there are perhaps a largish group of editors who make a point of reviewing each and every character Eric types around here for the express purpose of finding a reason to sanction him. There are a few terms for that: witch hunt and stalking come to mind. I sincerely doubt anyone would be able to stand up very well knowing that there are individuals who seem to be, at least in part, dedicated to finding a pretext to sanction them almost before all else, and I cannot but think that few if any of us would necessarily behave well under those circumstances. Taking everything into account, I would tend to think that the best option here would be a trout slap to the stalkers, a warning to Eric about whether using what are seemingly reasonably well-recognized academic terms, like "radical feminists," are terms he can no longer use or not (and I do not think that is called for here), and maybe urge the stalkers to find something more acceptable as per WP:NOTHERE to do than to place every character Eric types under a microscope. John Carter (talk) 16:43, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by BoboMeowCat[edit]

I initially was not going to contribute here because although I suspect Eric's comment was technically a violation, he doesn't even seem to be the worst offender here with respect to the battleground disruption, and it seems like this is a case of going after the weakest link considering Eric is more vulnerable due to past sanctions. However, I decided to chime in here to second EvergreenFir's observations regarding the inappropriateness of Black Kite's below suggestion that some admin should have the balls (or female equivalent) to act unilaterally to remove Lightbreater from Wikipedia. Very inappropriate. I do not think such an action would have community support as in it would not be supported at ANI. I would actually be similarly disgusted if an admin were encouraging someone to take unilateral action to remove Eric Corbett. --BoboMeowCat (talk) 04:44, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Intothatdarkness: Your comment seems to go beyond Lightbreather and Eric Corbett, so my reply does too. To me it seems your argument basically amounts to: "she's annoying, so therefore she made me follow her around and insult her/bully her". That seems counterproductive to the encyclopedia. I mean, if someone is being a nuisance on your talk page, ban them from your talk page, and if they won't respect that then take them to ANI. If they are hounding you, it seems there should be documentation of that. Aren't there admin tools to track edits to see who is following who around? I think it might be helpful at this point if those tools were used and applied to all of the various participants here, to have some actual evidence regarding who is following who around. On GGTF, it appears LB is the one being hounded because she appears to have genuine interest in gender issues and reducing the gender gap etc, while others who do not show up there to argue with her. Could someone provide some actual data using those interaction tools to see who (if anyone) among the various participants is hounding? --BoboMeowCat (talk) 17:27, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Intothatdarkness: My observations were basically based on what appears to be wikihounding on GGTF, which I've noticed going with respect to various participants for a while (notably not from Eric Corbett). I don't recall ever seeing you participate over there, so would not really expect you to be aware of this. Again, I wish some admin would analyze the interactions of various participants so we have actual data on this. --BoboMeowCat (talk) 18:00, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Giano[edit]

Here's some extracts From Eric's talk page yesterday [22], posted by an agitated Rationalobserver, who was furious that Eric had politely declined to collaborate with her:

• "(EC) Honestly, I feel sorry for you. It must be an unpleasant existence for a grown man to consistently act so immature and mean-spirited. You've bought into your own Wiki-myth, which is based in reality but greatly exaggerated. If you are really so great, why won't a publisher pay you to write something? Rationalobserver (talk) 19:45, 25 February 2015 (UTC)"

• "You seem to resent Wikipedia so much that I assumed you were unemployed, because if you were being paid to write stuff like Bile Beans, I would think you'd do that versus giving away your work for free. I'll bet that if you wrote that article under a new account that nobody knew was you, you'd be surprised and disappointed at the reception you might receive from the same people who praise your work now. "Eric Corbett" is a Wiki-brand, but in a blind test I'm not convinced you'd get the same level of support. Rationalobserver (talk) 19:56, 25 February 2015 (UTC)"

• "The attacks are far too petty to have validity, that's why I feel sorry for him. Adults behaving like immature teenagers is pathetic and sad. And no happy person would act this terrible on a regular basis. Rationalobserver (talk) 19:59, 25 February 2015 (UTC)"

So where were all you Admins and editors so obsessed with civility and nice, pretty behaviour yesterday when Rationalobserver was trolling him? Perhaps you feel being nice and polite is only obligatory to men, and women are exempt from the rules? It seems very obvious to me that a group of what appear to be militant feminists and their hangers-on have had a target pinned to Eric's back by an Arbcom who clearly hasn't a clue or more likely driven on by a man-hater in its midst. Where's this going to end I wonder - these females and their attendants clearly want Eric off the project and some Admins and Arbs seem to be only too happy to be manipulated into that opinion.That's very concerning. Giano (talk) 08:27, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• @ ddstretch. Yes, I had noticed your block of Rationalobserver, and I was jolly pleased to see it, not so much for her rudeness, but the blatant trolling and provocation. My point, however, was that none of the well known members of the civility police (of which you are not a member) saw anything wrong in RO's behaviour. I find it impossible to believe that not one of them, or one of the militant females, has Eric on their watchlist. This is just gross hypocrisy as is this current attempt to have Eric blocked. It looks to me like we are about to enter a very militant battle zone, a battle zone of the Arbcom's deliberate making. I wonder who's going to win and how many will fall in the process. Giano (talk) 11:16, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Sitush[edit]

Anyone who doesn't think there are militant feminists disrupting this project, just as there are caste warriors and nationalists etc, needs their eyes testing. As a political descriptor, the term can be applied to men as well as to women and its scope extends well beyond the supposed purpose of the GGTF. If people here are to be prevented from calling a spade a spade, and instead are expected to soften things to the point of banality in order not to cause alleged offence etc, then we may as well shut up shop and go home: it is asking too much of human nature and putting too much power in the hands of the politicians. - Sitush (talk) 08:47, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@BoboMeowCat: I don't think Eric has been on the GGTF talk page since before the ArbCom case concluded, so your point is probably not relevant to this request. However, if you were to conduct such an analysis I do hope that you distinguish between hounding and legitimate criticism - they are not synonymous. - Sitush (talk) 18:06, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Johnuniq[edit]

Eric's comment was at ANI where it is standard practice to speak bluntly about other editors and to suggest that other editors be removed from the project. The comment has no shouting, swearing, insulting, or belittling. Harej is reading far too much into the Arbcom remedy. Johnuniq (talk) 09:02, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Ddstretch[edit]

@Giano: Quite independently of this appeal for enforcement, here, I had taken User:Rationalobserver to task for her offensive comments on Eric Corbett's talk page. As a result of her thinking nothing she had written was in any way wrong, and given that she had subsequently been given a warning by @Drmies: for being offensive on his/her talk page, I have blocked Rationalobserver for two weeks and suggested that if she wishes to be unblocked she considers carefully her behaviour and gives an undertaking to not be so offensive in future. I blocked because the disruption caused by her was very likely to continue given that she claimed she had done nothing wrong, when clearly she had.  DDStretch  (talk) 09:09, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

(Added later): I might add that @EChastain: has also covered, rather extensively, the same ground that I covered in determining what to do about Rationalobserver. My action to block happened now because I am in China, time differences and real life meant I could not act until now.  DDStretch  (talk) 09:20, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Chillum: I rather read Eric Corbett's comment as a joke. He clearly cannot sock as an admin, and the joke would fit in with his view of this process as being a bit laughable, like a few others do, here.  DDStretch  (talk) 09:12, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Knowledgekid87: it may be weird to you, but I think it is quite in character, and, indeed, I laughed out loud and would like to steal it for any future use (possibly modified) myself. I think it just goes to show that cultural sensitivity is needed: it appears that Eric Corbett and myself come from similar parts of the UK, which is why I can immediately appreciate the humour (also recent comments by ClemRutter apply)

Also, I have to say that this edit here, by you, Knowledgekid87, doesn't help and merely stirs up the drama more. You would be well-advised to stop making such inflamatory and plainly wrong comments about some who has been rightly blocked. Your insinuation here: " [a]circle of editors here on Wikipedia who defend each other like crazy. Your mistake was going to Drmies for help, if you look at Corbett's talkpage history you will know why. Anyways I hope you come back after all of this I cant say I blame you though if you want to call it quits. I believe you are innocent here, you asked for help on Eric's talkpage and while Eric did turn down your offer Montana made things worse by ganging up on you." is insulting and offensive to a number of editors. I am taking action against you as a result of this.

Statement by ClemRutter[edit]

I am getting increasing bored with this continual harrassment of Malleus. Consistently, he has been unqualifiedly helpful to newbies, and provided a string of FAs that one can refer to for inspiration. Nit-picking comments by a small group of editors who seem detemined to play wikilawyer with flawed policy and text. So what have they found this week-- absolutely nothing, so they make up a new offence. It appears that the nineteen sixties term 'militant-feminist'is no longer a description but an insult. Tosh.

Looking at Civility policy- there appears to be one glaring ommission. (c) Indirect rudeness- by not respecting an editors register of speech, racial, class or regional variety of English. Eric is an outstanding academic who in his ' professional register' will use terms precisely with well defined meaning. Eric obviously uses that register when discussing professional matters with colleages. It is grossly uncivil to try and wikiwonk a phrase out of that register. Within the professional register in the North of England, one relies heavily on humour: not to accept that is to show you don't understand the culture- and are ready to belittle it. That is indirect rudeness.

The accusation is plainly malicious. I don't understand why this harrassment is not picked up- why we have serious administrators that fall to look at these weekly attacks from a wider perspective. Next week couldn't the admins just block the accuser for eight days to send a message. The serial accusers/abusers could be required to make a nominal 500 edits to main space before being unlocked to make accusations. Admins can protect a page, so how about extending that and allowing them to protect the user. -- Clem Rutter (talk) 13:45, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Moxy[edit]

It's time for the community to look at who is causing all theses problems and solve it. Odd always the same people that just dont have the right skills to collaborate here. -- Moxy (talk) 15:54, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by AnonNep[edit]

@Drmies - "If you think Eric is a troll, then don't feed him." No-one 'fed the troll', Eric chimed in on a discussion where he wasn't mentioned, in which the Arb case may be applicable. Where is the baiting?

@Hal_peridol - "what about if rather than "militant feminists", someone had said, "Isn't it about time that these misogynists were dealt with once and for all?" If someone with a history with Eric, with similar Arb case finding against them, chose to comment like that on a discussion in which they weren't mentioned, wouldn't there be a substantial ban? AnonNep (talk) 16:23, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Intothatdarkness - "Their constant use of innocent victim status when challenged or questioned regarding their conduct also runs counter to the ideal of collegial behavior (it fosters a chilling effect on discussions and an exclusionary mindset), yet it is conduct that continues to be tolerated and even encouraged by many." That makes sense, but, despite constant warnings, a history so relevant that others have raised it (above, which includes Arb prohibitions), Eric still entered a discussion where he is not mentioned, and makes that comment. And in your analysis Eric is the victim? AnonNep (talk) 18:17, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Intothatdarkness[edit]

On the whole I attempt to avoid these boards and discussions, but I find this case an interesting example highlighting an issue Wikipedia seems unable to address - how to deal with passive-aggressive incivility and behavior (conduct which, by the way, is independent of gender). Was Eric's comment unacceptable? Likely yes. But is the continual passive-aggressive behavior and conduct of many who continually bring these issues here acceptable? One would hope not, but apparently they are. Many of those mentioned here (RationalObserver, Knowledgekid87, and Lightbreather) have a pattern of passive-aggressive accusations, forum shopping, and superficially polite badgering designed to further their views. Their constant use of innocent victim status when challenged or questioned regarding their conduct also runs counter to the ideal of collegial behavior (it fosters a chilling effect on discussions and an exclusionary mindset), yet it is conduct that continues to be tolerated and even encouraged by many. Eric is prone to ill-advised comments, and in this case he certainly made one. But I find the root conduct of others in this incident far more disturbing. Intothatdarkness 16:40, 27 February 2015 (UTC)\[reply]

@BoboMeowCat: My comment is based on the fact that I don't see the sort of bullying you do. What I see is behavior calculated to generate a result that can then be spun as bullying. Obviously we all have different perspectives. Intothatdarkness 17:39, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Result concerning Eric Corbett[edit]

This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above.

• (edit conflict) (commenting as an uninvolved admin, not as an arbcom member) I'm not certain that that comment is clearly related to the GGTF, it could be directed at LB and/or HIAB personally. However if that is the case, I'd say that was a breach of his prohibition against "shouting at, swearing at, insulting and/or belittling other editors." ("militant feminists" seems intended to be a disparaging and/or insulting epithet). All in all definitely not a well advised comment and I think at least a warning that anything else of this nature will be treated as a breach of the ban is deserved here. Thryduulf (talk) 19:46, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• I also think that this was, at best, an ill-advised comment. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 20:50, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• I have defended Eric in the past, however I cannot interpret characterizing another editor as a militant feminists as anything other than a violation of Eric Corbett agrees to a restriction prohibiting him from shouting at, swearing at, insulting and/or belittling other editors. I feel that Eric is intentionally testing the limits of their restrictions and I would say that the result of this test should be a block. Chillum 21:12, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Given this comment which I can only imagine is meant to intimidate us I would suggest that the block not be less than 1 week. Chillum 06:32, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• It appears to me that Eric was not prompted to participate in this discussion; he chose to do so on his own. That participation involved the characterization of an involved editor and unspecified others as "militant feminists." Eric could have made a concrete proposal, provide evidence, or offer something else constructive given his opinion, but did not in this situation. I agree that this behavior was not only ill-advised but is in violation of the ban as an attempt to belittle or insult other editors. I, JethroBT ^{drop me a line} 22:20, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Violation of sanctions. Perfectly skilled with prose and semantics, either Eric is testing the limits of his restrictions, per Chillum, or such unprovoked disparaging remarks have become a habit (or even a reflex) over the years. I believe it is highly probable that Eric will continue to test his topic ban(s) or comment before he realises what he is doing. Only incremental blocking per the AE is going to address the problem. The last block under the AE was 48 hours, the next block should be longer. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 23:09, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• This is a clear violation of his sanctions and he knows it. I suggest at least a 1 week block to deter future behavior like this. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 00:31, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Technically a violation? Who knows. I'd argue that mentioning someone's politics is not a violation of the sanction (which simply mentions gender disparity). Of course, if any uninvolved admin had the bollocks (or the female equivalent) to simply remove User:Lightbreather from the encyclopedia completely, neither this, nor multiple other wastes of everyone's fucking time would continue to appear. Black Kite (talk) 00:38, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yep, involved. Drmies (talk) 04:14, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Regardless of whether or not he was referring specifically to GGTF, saying it is time to "do something" about "militant feminists" is an indecorous way to talk about your editorial adversaries. This is an encyclopedia, not the pub. It is a collaborative encyclopedia; we are expected as a matter of principle and policy to treat each other respectfully. It is insulting and belittling to the volunteers who contribute to Wikipedia, and no Wikipedian editing the site on his or her free time should expect to put up with this kind of behavior. It is my opinion as an administrator that he has violated Sanction 3.3, "prohibiting him from shouting at, swearing at, insulting and/or belittling other editors"—it does not say the editors have to be GGTF-related. He has already been blocked for 48 hours for violating this sanction; the sanction recommends 72 hours for the first two infractions. I support a 72 hour block at minimum. Harej (talk) 05:07, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below.
Requests may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs (not counting required information), except by permission of a reviewing administrator.

Request concerning Joshua Jonathan[edit]

User who is submitting this request for enforcement

Bladesmulti (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 18:49, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested

Joshua Jonathan (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Search CT alerts: in user talk history • in system log

Sanction or remedy to be enforced

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/India-Pakistan

Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it

1. 09:36, 18 February 2015 - [23] copyright infringement, text copied [24]
2. 10:23, 18 February 2015 - [25] copyright infringement, text copied: [26]
3. 04:58, 14 February 2015 - [27] copyright infringement, text copied: [28]
4. 06:34, 14 February 2015 - [29] copyright infringement, text copied :[30]
5. 08:01, 5 February 2015 - [31] copyright infrigement, text copied:[32]

After reading some of those changes I have mentioned at #1 and #2, I had discussed about it with JJ [33],(his talk page as well) but his response seemed unhelpful. Recently, one of the page came up on my watchlist, which was recently altered by JJ, I read some of the text and searched it elsewhere, I found that the text violated copyrights. After that I have investigated some of his changes that are violating copyrights. I have listed a few here: User:Bladesmulti/Copyrights

Other than that, there is a pattern of making huge amount of undiscussed/controversial changes, JJ also seems to have misunderstood both references and information at times that I have described below. He continues to fill talk pages with long posts, one of the recent example is this page, after the page was protected on request, he started to make long posts,[34]-[35] and seemed to be advocating his changes rather than reading what others had said, even when other users had disagreed with his ideas.[36] There has been some edit warring, recent example is a page and a template where he made some changes and soon those changes got reverted by other user, JJ would revert two times or until other user would stop.[37]-[38]-[39]-[40]

Sometimes his changes are flawed, they include his own opinions or misinterpretations of references,(e.g. [41]-[42]-[43] [44]) he has been told to follow Wikipedia:BRD and to discuss the changes for avoiding these problems, even recently[45] however he rejects this idea as "that's not how BRD works. It's not a "rule" to lock a preferred version".[46]

If discretionary sanctions are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see WP:AC/DS#Awareness and alerts)

[47]

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

Drmies: If those books are not viewable to you then you should just click on the Google search bar that contains the text and it will show you the results. Why we have to quote copyrighted material when we can rephrase ourselves? I have seen that such changes are removed quickly and revisions are deleted.

Cailil: Are you actually saying that editors are allowed to copy from various book and websites as long as they have credited them in the citation(<ref></ref>)? Are you also saying that copying large sentences cannot be considered as the violation? I hope you seen [48], even if you think that they should be quoted, I still don't see that if it justifies the copyright infringement, as we know that inserting a quote in so many contributions is not allowed, quotes are usually valid for citing disputed or controversial things, not these these kinds of contributions. They must not be long. Bladesmulti (talk) 02:22, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Some of the below comments seems to be correct, it is becoming unhelpful to discuss issues with JJ mostly because he works on enforcing his changes as explicated in above diffs about edit warring and keeping the preferred version without reaching to any agreement. Also his usual behavior, he had recently termed one user as NOTHERE and SPA[49] though he wasn't, and JJ had termed one's argument as harassment, by inserting a subheading to users' post.[50] Bladesmulti (talk) 02:22, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

[51]

Discussion concerning Joshua Jonathan[edit]

Statements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator.
Administrators may remove or shorten noncompliant statements. Disruptive contributions may result in blocks.

Statement by Joshua Jonathan[edit]

That's a long list of complaints, and a very limited amount of words allowed to respond.

• Hindutva:

• To tackle the main problem diff: quotation marks would indeed have solved the problem, if there was a problem. My sentence in the lead said

"Hindutva, "Hinduness [...] refers to the idea that Hindus are vulnerable in comparison to other "Pan-isms" such as "Pan-Islamism," and need to consolidate and strenhten their Hindu identity",

whereas the source said

"His book rests on the assumption that Hindus are vulnerable in comparison to or vis-a-vis other 'Pan-isms' such as Pan-Islamism: ["]O Hindus consolidate and strenghten Hindu nationality."

So, what is "unhelpfull" about the suggestion to add quotation marks? Instead of simply adding those marks, or asking me to do so, Blades reverted all the edits I'd made, with the argument "we don't bring sfn style everywhere, these changes clearly require agreement".

• Regarding "long posts" at talk pages: Blades wrote " Also because they were major changes, I believe that you should be proposing them here first and reach to an agreement." Which I did, and now you're trying to use that against me?
• @ AP: regarding the comparison with Nazis: the comparison is of "children of the soil" with the Nazi "Blut und Boden" (blood and soil) ideology. Blades removed the whole paragraph, noting "nothing in that book, no mention of gowalkar" diff. The specific quote says (Witzel 2006 p.204):

"...stresses that the Hindus have always been the indigenous "children of the soil," terminology clearly reminiscent of contemporary fascism (Blut und Baden (sic), see below)."

Kautilya3 reinserted the text which was removed by Blades diff; Blades then removed the specific comparison with the Nazi's "Blood and soil" diff; I reinserted it again, since Blades' second removal didn't give an edit-summary.

So, the info in the article is not exactly correct, but it is in the source. I'll correct it.

• Regarding BRD and "edit-warring" at History of India: contrary to Blades' statement " without reaching to any agreement", I removed Michaels's periodisation, and I completely changed Template:Periodisation of Indian History from this old version to this new version, in response to Ghatus concerns raised at Talk:History of India; we seem to have reached a compromise here. I also agreed with the removal of the sentence in the lead "Muslim rule started in some parts of north India as early as the 8th century, but was firmly established in the 13th century", beacuse the same info is mentioned in the lead with this sentence: "The 7th-11th centuries saw the first conquests by Islamic forces."

Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 06:53, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

By the way: what sanction or remedy are you actually requesting? And what principle have I violated, according to you? Good faith, sockpuppets, soapbox, battleground, or disruptive editing? Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 10:48, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Cailil, MER-C, and Hut 8.5: in response to Blades' concerns, I've paraphrased and quote-marked Thapar's and Witzel's contributions diff diff diff diff. Jaffrelot's revealing comments have already been removed in toto by Blades. It was, as is probably clear for most editors around here, not my intention to conceal the authorship of these persons. On the contrary; their writings are valuable sources, and I sincerely hope that my usage of those sources invites some people to regard Wikipedia as an appetiser, and go to the real stuff. I'll take even more care to avoid misunderstandings concerning their, or others', authorship. I hope we can get back now to what we're doing here: "to make the world a better place by giving away a free encyclopedia" (WP:NOTSUICIDE). Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 06:19, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Hafspajen[edit]

Where exactly was this discussed before? Don't get it. Just look at this. User talk:Bladesmulti/Mentorship, Joshua was one of the editor that saved Bladesmulti from be banned... by taking on him as a mentor. This mentorship resulted from an extended discussion of a siteban for Bladesmulti. See [52]. Look also at Joshuas archives, plenty of friendly and constructive exchanges between them ... And this is the thank you? Where exactly did was made any attempt to discuss this with him? Also users like Delibzr and AmritasyaPutra ... and other Indian topic editors ... going behind people's back like this instead of trying open discussion, dispute resolution noticeboard, or even ANI - first... I am sincerely disappointed. (P.S. I had a bad day yesterday and I said that aloud many times during the day this is just not happening...) Hafspajen (talk) 20:49, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Drmies[edit]

I'm not sure how the arbs or I are to read this, for instance, as "his own opinion or misinterpretation of reference". I've looked at all the supposed copyvio examples I could (some aren't available to me online), and I suppose I would have told Joshua Jonathan to use quotation marks more wisely, but that's about it. Their talk page comments don't seem to be lengthier than others on those same pages. In short--this is a matter for arbitration why? Drmies (talk) 20:37, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Cailil, MER-C, and Hut 8.5, I thank you for your comments, and I agree with them--MER-C, I especially appreciate you weighing in. Clearly, Joshua, you need to be more careful. Now, I suppose I'm uninvolved and administrator enough to park my opinion in your section, but I started here so I will finish here, on my soapbox:

  I've seen Bladesmulti's work here and there and I agree with Sitush. But what we have here is an attempt to swat a mosquito with a pneumatic sledgehammer, and it seems pretty obvious to me that this is really an attempt to get to the supposed "pattern of ... huge amount of undiscussed/controversial changes" by way of a copyvio charge. It is also obvious that a whole bunch of editors are seizing this opportunity to settle a score ("to peel an apple") with Joshua Jonathan over content and other matters. You know who you are, but the responses here indicate that in that camp we find Delibzr (a new editor with 233 article edits, who accuses Joshua of poor English in a sentence containing a comma splice), Robert Walker (with a litany of all kinds of charges--Four Noble Truths, for instance, was a mess long before Joshua got to it, and I don't see the YouTube or Wikipedia in these edits), నిజానికి (another brand-new editor with more zeal than experience), Shrikanthv (who wants a topic ban also based on a diff from three years ago--and they still haven't learned the rules concerning PROD)... We seem to have yet another example of ArbCom being enlisted in a witch hunt. What really needs to be investigated (and I can't do that) is whether Kautilya3 charge has merit to it--and that is properly what DS is all about. And the other thing that needs to happen is a couple of trout slaps (but without the humor part) to the plaintiff and the named contributors. Drmies (talk) 15:57, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Bladesmulti, the examples that I looked at were mildly problematic at best. I've seen a lot of copyright violations, and I revdeleted plenty of material, but this just doesn't rise to that level. It's a matter of judgement, and different folks might judge differently (I know of one IP editor who doesn't want more than two words quoted), which is why I'm glad that MER-C commented here. Either way, though, copyvio is not a "topic" issue, so if the supposed copyvios are such a problem, this is simply the wrong forum. Drmies (talk) 19:22, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Kautilya3[edit]

The main complaint of Bladesmulti seems to be valid, viz., JJ has been taking rather too much text from his sources as is. He needs to be warned about this. However, all other issues raised are not substantial. JJ is a gentleman, always ready to talk if you engage with him. He is also a great editor that has made enormous improvements to a lot of pages. I have learnt a lot by reading what he has written over the last few months and reading the sources that he brought to the table. He has my genuine thanks. I don't believe any sanctions are warranted. Kautilya3 (talk) 21:17, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It is worth noting that the editors complaining about JJ were also the ones pushing the fringe theory of Indigenous Aryans. Now they seem unhappy that JJ is editing the Hindutva page, which they seem possessive about. But it is not clear if they understand that the page is in a poor shape, basically synthesizing OR from primary sources. Kautilya3 (talk) 12:15, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Delibzr[edit]

Looking at these examples and also the examples posted in his draft, I would say that these are blatant copyvios because no other mind in the world other than the author himself would come up with these long phrases that are often crossing over 20 or 30 exact words, it confirms that Joshua has completely taken from the books and failed to rewrite himself. Cailil should read WP:COPYVIO and know that even quoting is not an exemption from copyvio, in fact it would be same as saying that we can upload any copyrighted image after crediting the actual author but we cannot unless the actual owner has permitted. Furthermore the copyright violation seems to be massive in scale, considerably imitating the original.

I believe that the main issue is with competence, he cannot understand the English language. Whenever you will read his replies of Four Noble Truths and WikiProject Buddhism, you may find that he leaves over half of the issues unanswered. His bludgeoning usually stops editors from contributing or participating on any of the talk pages. I was about to post at of WikiProject Buddhism, but after seeing wall of texts[53][54][55] I felt that I am rather going to get badgered, thus I avoided this RfC. These types of convesations[56] would lead anyone to think whether Joshua tries to involve himself in constructive discussion or only out-lenght others comments.

Misleading edit summaries is the another reason that why I stopped reading most of the edits that he made on the articles where I have contributed. He would describe some of his edits as "ce"[57], though he happened to have added 800+ bytes of content and twice repeated the Tibetan term. Something he has not mentioned in his edit summary. Then again "ce",[58], he adds his opinion about Jung, removed the mention of W.Y. Evans-Wentz and replaces the sources. Back to "ce", Jung wasn't even mentioned in the article summary before. I don't see any discussion about these changes.

Edits also lack page numbers,[59] what he termed here as "correction", doesn't seem to be any correction, instead it seems to be marginalizing a commonly accepted thought and limiting it to 1-2 authors. You can also see in this particular edit that Joshua has not added any page numbers and he removes the page number after introducing a new information. He described this edit as "correction", but he has not mentioned any reason behind marginalizing a common thought and removing page numbers. Delibzr (talk) 00:10, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@ JimRenge: Joshua Jonathan is open for discussion? If you are terming bludgeoning as "discussion", I definitely agree. Though he is not open for discussing the actual edits. And if he is, then why he didn't responded to Talk:Four Noble Truths#What happened to lead? On the day when another editor came and reverted to an older version, Joshua made TLDR summaries at Talk:Four Noble Truths#Proposed large-scale restructuring. Delibzr (talk) 16:56, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@ Joshua: You still haven't rewritten the material. You have erased some part, have quoted a sentence and edited a little part other than the quoted one. The newer diff doesn't make sense.[60] For the part outside the quote, first of all, periodisation is uncountable, it's an abstract noun. Therefore, you can't use 'a' before periodisation. It is not correct to say 'a periodisation', simply 'periodisation' would do.
After so much struggle, this is what you have produced.. I am more confident in saying that you don't know English well enough to write a proper sentence. Delibzr (talk) 08:20, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Sitush[edit]

I am familiar with both Bladesmulti and Joshua Jonathan from my work in the Indic area of this project. They both do good stuff, they are both occasionally wrong, as also am I. This looks like a spat and one that should go away if it were not exacerbated by proceedings such as this.

Drmies has a point regarding attribution/quotes but in the context of problems Indic, including frequent and massive copyvios, this report seems very minor. I'd suggest a minnow to both: JJ for perhaps not doing as much as they could to clarify their text, Blades for getting het up about it to the point that causes this extremis. Both of you, go away and do what you are good at: sanctions for this would benefit no-one in particular and would be detrimental to the project as a whole. Believe me, if you think that the Indic-related talk page commentary is TLDR bludgeoning, you've not even touched the tip of the iceberg with this situation.

Next time, feel free to ask me to take a look (and then, hey ho, you will probably both be equally offended by the outcome). - Sitush (talk) 00:26, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by AmritasyaPutra[edit]

Cailil, I think copyvio does apply here. Giving reference does not make a copyvio go away, only that it is not plagiarism any longer but copying the creative wording too closely is the copyright violation. Pasting walls of text and creating a lot of sections in talk page for same topic does hurt discussion and Joshua has done so and shows no intent of stopping though he has been told so. --AmritasyaPutra^T 03:01, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Among the diffs mentioned, in this Joshua has used a derogatory term, Nazi but Witzel has not used it, is this not violation of BLP applied to him? And in this he makes a note, which is not a quote, by himself, about another author Kazanas. --AmritasyaPutra^T 06:40, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ok Joshua, reason was given by him, Discussion was also done. The correction happens after prolonged discussion still leaves some attribution to living people unreferenced. That content has been edited only by you and mentions Dayananda, when Witzel does not do so and Frawley, in the source goes with second group, the third is entirely different, where you put him. --AmritasyaPutra^T 10:18, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Robert Walker[edit]

These copyright issues such as [61] clearly have to be stopped and fixed. He was warned about this long ago, by Jpacobb in March 2013 [62]. Also he says he has a degree in theology - he should know that this is forbidden already.

He has also made articles that are pure WP:QUOTEFARM [63] and another Zen ranks and hierarchy which duplicates many sections of a page What does it take to become a full-fledged Soto-shu priest and is it really worth the whole deal? difftool: [64] from antaiji.org.

There are many other issues with his edits. He did a highly OR and inaccurate rewrite of the text, for the Four Noble Truths and the Noble Eightfold Path. These are as central to Buddhism as the Ten Commandments are to Judaism. Since his edit of 2nd Dec[65], it has been taken up by over a thousand web pages so far [66], including forum discussions, and a youtube video on the Buddha (as text to speech). These pages present JJ's OR text as the teachings of the Buddha, citing wikipedia.

He removes large amounts of previous cited material. In the most extreme case, he reduced Anatta to 21% of its mature state, in two days [67]. His given main justification was to remove edits of a recently blocked user [68]. This is not credible as it was a stable article with many editors and no recent additions of large amounts of text. His edit summaries are confusing and misleading to other editors, presenting large scale edits and rewrites as "shortened"[69] [70], or "added info"[71], "rephrasing" for fundamental change of meaning [72]. He presents his major rewrites on talk pages as "clean up" [73], [74], [75], [76] - you wouldn't know from those summaries that he rewrote the articles and removed many sections.

He used his own view on permitted citations in a tied RfC [77] to block a newbie Wikipedia editor User:ScientificQuest [78] attempting his first major edits. This editor says he is dong a masters thesis in Buddhist studies (states that here, para. 4 of his talk page comment [79]), so could reasonably consider himself expert. His edits cited from works used as text books in courses on Buddhist studies. He had every edit blocked from the article on Anatta by JJ and has now stopped editing wikipedia.

This is part of a general pattern. After talk page discussions with many views presented, JJ then edits articles and posts on talk pages as if the outcome was consensus in support of his approach.

Note that he treated my comment presenting my own views on Bikkhu Boddhi and other Buddhist sources a harassment, even removing a comment from the talk page in which I told ScientificQuest about the tied RfC [80], and on my talk page tells me to "Robert, stop your WP:HARASSMENT, and contribute to Wikipedia in a constructive way."[81] "Stop using Wikipedia as your personal playground." [82].

He also used BRDR instead of BRD and presents his new versions of mature articles as a fait accomplis Attempts at BRDR and request for rollback

I believe he wishes to improve the Buddhism topic area, but I'd say a strong case of WP:IDONTHEAR on an RfC, and talk page discussions and his edits breach guidelines for WP:OR, WP:NPOV, WP:BRD, and consensus based editing. [83]

In my view many of his edits in the Buddhism topic area from summer 2014 onwards are largely disruptive and damaging to wikipedia. Robert Walker (talk) 15:33, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment on the WP:COPYVIO issue. Others have suggested it is mainly one of "misplaced quotes" and that the violations have been fixed.

To clear up this point I have made a copy of Bladesmulti's table and I've added extra columns "Attributed", "Date added", and "Fixed".

Status so far: 9 examples, from 16 to 39 consecutive or near consecutive words, clear breaches of WP:COPYVIO. Author cited, but no indication at all that the text is extracted from the author's work. Of those, three subsequently fixed (two of those because the text was removed). I have over fifty more examples to check in User:Bladesmulti's list. (Will update this summary when I've done more).

See JJ Copyrights. It is clear already that it is an on going problem, new violations added all the time, and many are not fixed. Robert Walker (talk) 22:51, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by JimRenge[edit]

Yes, JJ could have used more quotation marks. However, Bladesmulti´s complaints about alledged copyright violations might be seen as a rather dubious attempt to influence content disputes (see another example: [84], [85],[86], ANI).

Bladesmulti´s allegation that JJ "(...) started to make long posts,[148]-[149] and seemed to be advocating his changes rather than reading what others had said, even when other users had disagreed with his ideas.[87]" is not appropriate ([88]). JJ is generally open to discussions, admits to mistakes quickly, and listens to reason. JimRenge (talk) 16:31, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by నిజానికి[edit]

After reading that what has happened around and many editors are having same complaints, it is easy to consider that there is no way to gain consensus from Joshua Jonathan for changing the massive edits that he had originally added without consensus. One should just view Hinduism and History of Hinduism and differentiate the pre-Joshua[89][90] articles with the present version. Prior versions were not biased or promoted narrow point of views as final word like they do now and today these 2 articles looks like fork of each other. How we are going to sort out these problems? We can but not at all with Joshua Jonathan. I would conclude that this is a detailed complaint and multiple editors have evidenced the disruption on multiple namespaces. నిజానికి (talk) 16:38, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• The latest comment of Robert walker[91] with regard to Joshua Jonathan's false accusations of harassment and other attempts to stop editor from contributing shows Joshua Jonathan's failure to assume good faith and battleground behavior. నిజానికి (talk) 04:34, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by John Carter[edit]

This may not be particularly relevant to this particular discussion, but I thought it worth mentioning on Joshua's user talk page and I think it might be worth repeating here. Some of you may have seen that I place a lot of emphasis on other reference works. This includes looking at reviews of them. One of the reviews of the most recently highly regarded reference books in the field of religion in general made the rather remarkable statement that the articles on Buddhism by Louis de La Vallée-Poussin in the old Hasting Encyclopedia of Religion and Ethics might be the best things ever written on those specific topics. That work is currently in the public domain and is even available over at commons. Other now PD reference works, like the Schaff-Herzog encyclopedia, are available at archive.org and elsewhere. It would certainly be possible, particularly with the Vallée-Poussin material, to use exact quotes with proper attribution in our own content, if more recent reference sources don't seem to disagree with it. The same would probably hold for some of the other PD reference sources out there, particularly those which are still thought of highly. John Carter (talk) 23:57, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by shrikanthv[edit]

Would suggest a topic ban related to religion and philosophy, I firmly agree with the nominator as there is huge copyright violation that can be also seen at Neo Advaita and since JJ is emotionally attached to Buddhism, he mostly edit wars without consent. Here 1 & 2 removing prod tag even though he was the page creator and was not allowed to.

Even in 2015, there are neutrality disputes, and many users tried to discuss, the agenda (the notion of truth according to JJ) was fixed and was not flexible to any change and often blaming contributors if any question raised. And the blame continues, like here and here, under talks at Neo Advaita, blaming so the called "supporters" and "devotees" for the issues with neutrality.

Since this kind of editing and behavior also violates WP:SOAPBOX, as Wikipedia should keep a neutral tone without supporting superiority of one religion over other, I would suggest a topic ban for JJ. Shrikanthv (talk) 14:07, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Dorje108[edit]

As I have stated here: "Jonathan’s method is to quickly re-write an entire article without warning or discussion. He leaves no opportunity for other editors who have worked on the article to explain or justify the current content or structure of the article." Jonathan's response to my statement is that "Extensive and detailed explanations have been given on the talkpages." That simply is not the case. His pattern is to put a brief "clean-up" summary after a massive rewrite; the summary is basically a list of arbitrary, non-specific statements. When challenged on his edits he becomes defensive and attempts to bully other editors. When editors challenge him on specific points, he frequently throws out "straw man" arguments, acting as if the other editors have made assertions which were not made, and then defending against that assertion. For example, in discussions on Jonathan's edits to the Four Noble Truths, Jonathan accused myself and other editors of being opposed to content from Western academic sources. This was never the case. I am opposed to Jonathan removing content based on "non-Western academic" sources. This just one example. There are many more problems with Jonathan's edits than simply copy right violations. Regards, Dorje108 (talk) 14:05, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by VictoriaGrayson[edit]

Joshua Jonathan has remedied the alleged copyright issues. Lets move on.VictoriaGrayson^Talk 15:47, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by (username)[edit]

Result concerning Joshua Jonathan[edit]

This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above.

• These are not copyright violations. Not even close. The material clearly links to its source and is not lifting chunks of text beyond what is normally cited. Joshua Jonathan should, as Drmies says, use more quotation marks, and IMHO should name check the sources explicitly. All that said I'm tempt to call WP:BOOMERANG here rather than close without action - this report looks like disruption to me--Cailil ^talk 22:29, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• I was requested to comment here by AmritasyaPutra. I would formally advise Joshua to paraphrase or use quotation marks more and a request to clean up previous edits and note this in the sanction log, but that's about it. MER-C 12:21, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• No object to that MER-C (talk · contribs) - if you want to go ahead with that I think we can close here, unless there are substantive objections from uninvolved sysops--Cailil ^talk 15:20, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• I was also asked to comment at the link above, and I haven't looked at any of the non-copyright issues raised. The diffs above are too close to the sources and I would definitely recommend that this editor paraphrase more. Quotation marks would also help, although articles consisting mostly of quotes from the sources aren't good either. I don't think there's any need for sanctions and would support MER-C's suggestion above. Hut 8.5 21:43, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below.
Requests may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs (not counting required information), except by permission of a reviewing administrator.

Request concerning Ghost Lourde[edit]

User who is submitting this request for enforcement

EvergreenFir (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 21:26, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested

Ghost Lourde (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Search CT alerts: in user talk history • in system log

Sanction or remedy to be enforced

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/GamerGate#Discretionary sanctions :

Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it

1. 23:42, 26 February 2015 (UTC) - Explicitly stated WP:BATTLEGROUND mentality regarding GamerGate
2. 19:34, 26 February 2015 (UTC) and 21:27, 26 February 2015 (UTC) - Extremely long, tendentious, unclear, and forum-like comments on Talk:Gamergate controversy
3. 22:44, 26 February 2015 (UTC) and 21:27, 26 February 2015 (UTC) - Posting and reposting (after removal by another user) Youtube link determined to be BLP violation by Dreadstar

• Repeatedly posting a link that multiple editors removed as BLP violations. It's unclear to me, personally, if this link is indeed a violation, but persistent reposting of link is an issue itself:

1. 22:55, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
2. 23:06, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
3. 23:18, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
4. 18:32, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
5. 21:14, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

• Acute case of WP:IDHT (examples below, but see entire section Talk:Gamergate_controversy#Soapboxing)

1. 19:45, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
2. 19:14, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
3. 20:36, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
4. 21:17, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
5. 21:25, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

1. 01:57, 2 February 2015 (UTC) Blocked by HJ Mitchell for BLP violations[reply]

If discretionary sanctions are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see WP:AC/DS#Awareness and alerts)

• Given an alert about discretionary sanctions in the area of conflict in the last twelve months, on 01:57, 2 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

My, you're quite the formidable opponent--in my estimation, anyhow. That's quite the education you've amassed there. What irony, then, that you appear to be just about the only person who said anything even vaguely positive about my suggestions. Considering your ideological predilections, that's quite surprising. I came here only to note that I am not so easily dissuaded from action, no matter how venerably educated my detractor(s) happens to be. Your opposition shall not go unchallenged.

Given the user's contributions in other areas of the project, it seems that they are only unable to productively edit on Gamergate topics, but are able to be a productive member elsewhere. Given their behavior these past 24 hours (and especially its resumption after a lull overnight) and given the explicit declaration of battleground mentality, I feel that their behavior has crossed the line to unacceptable and that this AE is warranted.

For note, a discussion regarding that link repeatedly added and removed was stated by EncyclopediaBob at Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#Gamergate_controversy_.282.29. My thanks to them for starting it. EvergreenFir (talk) Please ((re)) 21:26, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Edit: See Bosstopher's comments about WP:CANVASS below as well. EvergreenFir (talk) Please ((re)) 22:48, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

[92]

Discussion concerning Ghost Lourde[edit]

Statements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator.
Administrators may remove or shorten noncompliant statements. Disruptive contributions may result in blocks.

Statement by Ghost Lourde[edit]

I'm not at all pleased that we've decided to take issues to this magnitude--nor do I claim responsibility for having galvanized this.

Battleground mentality? Well, I suppose--if we're looking to be hyperbolic. I'm not exactly remiss in characterizing debates as involving proponents and opponents, am I? Were I to be substantially refuted, I would desist--you have my word. Perhaps such a declaration was unwarranted, however. If you will it, I shall redact it. Moreover, I have made honest efforts to stay any and all vehemence from escaping my lips--no small feat, considering the topic being discussed. A feat which, might I add, certain editor's apparently haven't felt the desire to reciprocate.

On the contrary, I believe the persistent deletion on patently unfounded grounds is the issue here. As you've stated, it's quite questionable if the article violates any guidelines at all. As such, all deletions should be stayed until the fact that violations have actually been perpetrated has been firmly cemented. I have requested that this be the case--a request which, quite impudently, has not been obliged, for the very same dubious reasons adduced above. To me, that is questionable behavior.

IDHT? We're discussing the merits of potential revision to the article. I have countered the arguments against this with perfectly valid ones of my own. Presently, this dispute remains unresolved. Further debate shall be necessary in order to achieve the desired clarity.

It seems I'm being treated quite maliciously for deigning to civilly extend my sentiments regarding the status quo of this article. Threats of blocking, arbitration enforcements, frivolous warnings--it's beginning to approach the end of the pale. Ghost Lourde (talk) 21:38, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Addendum: As I recall, I did not repost the link to that video--indeed, before this, I was unaware that it was even removed. That it violates BLP guidelines, I actually concur. I addressed this when I cited it, in fact: I was merely adducing it in order to demonstrate the more salient information that it contained. In any case, I do not consider the deletion to be objectionable--unlike some deletions that I can name.

Statement by Jorm[edit]

I was on my way here to open this issue myself and found that it was already open! Fortuitous. So I'll just paste what I'd already started writing.

Ghost Lourde's behavior on [Talk:Gamergate controversy], it has become apparent that the editor is clearly not here to create an encyclopedia. Several instances speak to battleground mentality and refusal to listen to other editors about the use of a "source" that Ghost Lourde is repeatedly re-inserting a link to a source which contains fairly significant BLP violations.

I don't think Ghost Lourde is here to help. They are here to push an agenda. I strongly believe we've spent enough person-hours on this editor and would like to see sanctions imposed.--Jorm (talk) 21:43, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by MarkBernstein[edit]

At first, I thought this account was a satire -- and I'm still not entirely certain it's not. But the editor in question is extremely prolific -- to the point that it has become difficult to answer their questions without multiple edit conflicts. Their writing is impenetrable, their arguments unconvincing. Their effect is literally disruptive, though I’m not sure they intend to disrupt. I think a time-out and a mentor might be helpful, perhaps along with an inscribed copy of Strunk & White. MarkBernstein (talk) 21:56, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Bosstopher[edit]

There's many reasons why Ghost Lourde should be topic banned, but since I dont feel like posting them all, here's the most obvious one. Ghost Lourde has readily admitted that he is orchestrating a pro-GG 'Operation Veracity.' As it says in the description ' Ultimately, the project is predicated upon the belief that doing so will benefit gamergate as a whole. ' He refuses to acknowledge that this 'operation' counts as POV pushing and canvassing. [93] Bosstopher (talk) 22:00, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Masem[edit]

I'm not discounting the other points made, but I will challenge the notion the link added in is a BLP violation on a talk page - it would fall within BLPTALK (barring other issues) The specific article linked has no BLP violations at all (it mentions one name as the article outlines an analysis, but makes zero claims about this person). However, it will likely never be usable as a link in mainspace due to it being hosted on a site that is otherwise a major BLP problem, in addition to the poor quality of the source. BLPTALK does not prevent people from posting links on talk pages that might contain BLP information, as long as the BLP factors are not being discussed. Other behavior is problematic here. --MASEM (t) 22:02, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

−

Statement by Ghost Lourde[edit]

Satire? If it is, I burnt it. Anyhow, my prolificness is purely circumstantial--I'm afraid that, in order to preclude my arguments from being buried beneath a mountain of rebuttals, I've had to respond in as swift a fashion as I possibly could. If your problem is with prolificness in general, I would advise that you voice that concern to more individuals than only I. Furthermore, that my arguments are 'unconvincing' is not only a personal opinion, but utterly impertinent to the matter at hand. If I had a nickel for every ineffectual argument made on this site, I'd be a billionaire. If I had a nickel for every time someone was sanctioned for doing so, I'd be destitute. Additionally, that you perceive my writing to be--let's break out the scare-quotes here--'impenetrable' is yet another immaterial personal opinion.

Furthermore, I have already addressed these allegations of possessing a 'battleground mentality'--see above.

I'm not here to contribute? I'm here to push an agenda? My, those are some weighty allegations. What luck, then, that they're also utterly frivolous.

I shall not deny that I am biased towards gamergate--I have stated my support for it frequently. However, that does not constitute an 'agenda'. Just because you, say, oppose anarcho-syndicalism, and Wikipedia has an article upon anarcho-syndicalism, does not mean that you have an agenda concerned with destroying that article. Once more, I'm afraid this is all quite circumstantial.

Furthermore, I am discussing the merits of the article, as well as simultaneously suggesting improvements. That *is* what you're supposed to do on 'talk' pages, yes? I don't exactly see what your complaint is predicated upon. Ghost Lourde (talk) 22:17, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@ Drseudo: Once more, I'm very dubious about these 'battleground mentality' allegations. I wouldn't call that canvassing--but hey, of course I wouldn't. Otherwise, I'm not exactly sure what the issue is here. Ghost Lourde (talk) 22:40, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@TheRedPenOfDoom: My, those are some very pejorative remarks that you've made, there. Once more, I maintain that your objections are superfluous. Moreover, in citing the guidelines, you've done my work for me. Ghost Lourde (talk) 23:41, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Dreadstar: For posterity, I state that your judgements have been both deleterious and misguided. Your rapport with me has diminished considerably, and I'm thoroughly dubious that it shall ever return to its original state. Ghost Lourde (talk) 23:45, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Newyorkbrad: ....I reluctantly concur, sadly. It appears I have no other choice. My eternal resentment towards this entire affair. Ghost Lourde (talk) 00:09, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Drseudo[edit]

Per Masem. I don't know enough about the current status of BLPTALK to agree that there's any specific violation with respect to the link that GL repeatedly posted to the talk page. However, the WP:BATTLE, WP:TE, and especially WP:CANVASS issues are enough to arrive at the correct decision on this one. drseudo (t) 22:37, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by TheRedPenOfDoom[edit]

Given this exchange it is obvious that the editor either lacks the competence to be editing in such a sensitive topic or is here merely to be disruptive. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 23:32, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by (username)[edit]

Result concerning Ghost Lourde[edit]

This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above.

• I've indefinitely topic banned Ghost Lourde per Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/GamerGate. Dreadstar ☥ 23:41, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• (edit conflict; this may be moot, but it should still be read) I will address this enforcement request unconventionally. I find Ghost Lourde's editing about GamerGate to be extremely problematic; it could warrant a topic-ban, although a warning or lesser restriction might be tried first. But—I have read Ghost Lourde's self-disclosure essay on his userpage. In it, he displays candor and self-knowledge: "The implications of [my] intellectual nascency [are] inexperience, parochialism, and untempered alacrity--which, I shall admit, describe me rather effectually." I need to be careful about what I say next, and I don't want to patronize this editor, or any editor: I too was once an intellectually nascent, inexperienced, parochial, overalacritous newcomer wherever I went, albeit in the pre-Internet age, and I resented anyone who suggested I was, in any context, pushing too hard and moving too fast, or not working and playing well with others. But it must be said: The GamerGate topic-area on Wikipedia has been an almost unparalleled miasma, into which many longtime editors and administrators understandably choose not to tread. And Talk:GamerGate may be the worst possible page on all of Wikipedia for an inexperienced editor to seek out his sea-legs, even given the best goodwill and the greatest interest, intelligence, and alacrity in the world. Ghost Lourde should not leave Wikipedia, but he should surely leave editing about GamerGate. I strongly urge him to voluntarily step away from editing on this topic, rather than have this thread continue and culminate in a sanction. Newyorkbrad (talk) 23:48, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below.
Requests may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs (not counting required information), except by permission of a reviewing administrator.

Request concerning Spudst3r[edit]

User who is submitting this request for enforcement

Sonicyouth86 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 15:18, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested

Spudst3r (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Search CT alerts: in user talk history • in system log

Sanction or remedy to be enforced

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/GamerGate#Discretionary sanctions: standard dscretionary sanctions authorized for all edits about and all pages related to any gender-related dispute or controversy

Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it

1. February 15: revert, restores original research (source doesn't discuss the MRM)
2. February 15: revert, restores original research again
3. February 15 and again: tendentious OTHERSTUFF arguments
4. February 15: baseless accusations ("small cadre of editors fighting against any sources content that portrays the "men's rights movement" in innocuous language")
5. February 15: synthesis, combined two sources to suggest that, since the author is considered a "men's rights leader" (first source), he wrote about the MRM in his book (second source) which he didn't
6. February 17: partial misquote of source ("believe female privilege and male degradation is system within society"), again original research (adds statement from a source that doesn't mention the MRM)
7. February 17: partial revert, restores misquote, adds synthesis by combining two sentences that aren't combined that way in the source
8. February 19: describes majority academic position as the opinion of "some feminist scholars" although the statement is sourced to academics (i.e., Maddison, Flood, Messner, Menzies, Dunphy, Mills, interview with Kimmel, Williams and two additional reliable sources.
9. February 19: again original research, sources the statement conservative men's rights activists consider the MRM to be a backlash or countermovement to feminism with a quote that doesn't mention men's rights activists or the men's rights movement
10. February 19: changes the lead without any prior discussion; again original research: Advocates describe the movement as bringing attention to... and One prominent leader within the movement described men's rights..." sourced to a book that doesn't discuss the MRM, its activists, or anything about the MRM; removed the source which contained nine academic citations for the statement that the MRM is considered a backlash

If discretionary sanctions are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see WP:AC/DS#Awareness and alerts)

Alert about discretionary sanctions in the men's rights topic area in the last twelve months, on February 13, 2015

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

Spudst3r is a long dormant SPA; two of his three edits in 2014 were to Masculism and Men's rights movement and the vast majority of his edits in 2015 have been to the same topic area. His sudden return in 2015 to the MRM article coincides with several off-site calls for meatpuppets (e.g., [94]) in this topic area.

In addition to the problem that he misleadingly summarizes sources, he reverts to his preferred version without waiting for the discussion to conclude. He either doesn't understand the original research and synthesis policies or he prefers to ignore them. In either case, the editor should be topic banned until he can demonstrate his ability to follow our content policies in the men's rights topic area.

His talk page edits are disruptive and circular, mostly consisting of arguments that the MRM page and women's rights movement page must be treated equally or repetitions of (as many as 13) guidelines and principles per comment. --Sonicyouth86 (talk) 15:18, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Thryduulf: Disputes and controversies involving the men's rights movement could be covered if they are gender related, e.g. a controversy about an MRM figure's allegations of bias against men would be within scope, but controversy about that figure's allegations of bias against Christians would not. The men's rights movement is a strand of the men's movement that's based on the idea that men are discriminated and oppressed. All secondary sources about the movement discuss men's rights activists' belief that men are discriminated and oppressed and all primary sources from within the movement argue that men are discriminated and oppressed relative to women. All disputes and controversies involving the MRM are inherently gender related. For example, one of the most favorite primary sources used by Spudst3r is a book (The Myth of Male Power) written by activist Warren Farrell who argues that male privilege is a myth and that men are the oppressed and disposable sex, and that secretaries oppress their male bosses with their "miniskirt power", and other stuff like that that's all clearly gender related. Btw, Farrell never actually mentions the MRM or its activists, yet Spudst3r attributes statements about the MRM and its activists to that book. The men's rights movement page is clearly a gender related page, everything mentioned on the MRM page is gender related. --Sonicyouth86 (talk) 15:53, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Bbb23: I took this to AE instead of ANI because if the MRM page isn't about a gender-related dispute or controversy, then what is? The MRM issues are basically a long list of gender-related disputes and controversies (MRAs say that domestic violence is gender symmetrical, that many rape reports are false, that men receive harsher prison sentences as Spudst3r conjectured, etc.) There's ideological overlap between GamerGate and men's rights activism [95], A Voice for Men and other MRM sites have taken up the GamerGate hashtag. And it's also not a coincidence that many of the editors who edit the GamerGate page also edit the MRM page. I believe that the MRM is within the jurisdiction of ARBGG, probably more so than most other gender-related pages. Moreover, WP:MRMPS mentions incivility and edit-warring and personal attacks as sanctionable behavior, but doesn't explicitly cover OR and Synth violations whereas discretionary sanctions do. ARBGG even has an "accuracy of sources" provision. Also, in my experience, it's useless to bring OR and Synth violations to ANI and expect ANI regulars to wade through the diffs and sources and the unbelievable original research. --Sonicyouth86 (talk) 21:43, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

[96]

Discussion concerning Spudst3r[edit]

Statements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator.
Administrators may remove or shorten noncompliant statements. Disruptive contributions may result in blocks.

Statement by Spudst3r[edit]

Opening Remarks

I hope that this arbitration is not administrated by editors who have a POV interest in gender-related subjects, since I believe I am being dogpiled by editors with a stake in those matters right now. I don't say that to cast aspersions: anyone can look at the history of the men's rights movement article and see a long history of nonstop reverting.

The men's rights movement article is currently under a Neutrality notice dispute right now Almost immediately after I started making edits to the men's rights movement page, I was accused of being a sockpuppet as a way to further limit my participation: I was thoroughly investigated and eventually exonerated only after an IP lookup and diff commits proved it would be near impossible for the allegations to have been true. Third, when the other user in this matter spoke up about another user spreading false sockpuppet accusations, the entire process was turned around into a vote on topic banning him. That's what I call a chilling effect.

I think accusations of tendentious editing, sockpupetry, and meatpuppetry reflect a seriously unhealthy attitude towards contributing to Wikipedia. New editors who make bold but good faith changes are now being quickly accused of all sorts of things - pick a WP:, any WP: -- to scare them away from participating. It bites newcomers, demonstrates Badfaith and does not promote civility.

A Few General comments:

• Being a SPA is not an offence. (Not that I think I am a SPA.)

• Disagreement over how to structure an article is not grounds for disciplinary sanction. Please judge me by the content of my edits and comments, not my opinions.

• Contributions do not have be perfect.

• Honest Good Faith disagreement =! tendentious. I may disagreement with Sonicyouth occassionally, but I do with a genuine concern for encyclopedic accuracy and a desire for consensus building.

• It is not against Wikipedia policy to be active. Am I am interested in the men's rights movement article? Yes. Have made a lot of activity over a very short period of time. Yes. May I be inconvenient for others showing elements of ownership over the men's rights movement article? Yes. Is it against the rules to be active? No.

• The current men's rights movement page is POV because it gives undue weight to a collection of sources and lacks balance due to pervasive insertions of expressions of doubt. I am not alone in thinking this:

• The tl:dr of the original research debate is: 1.Currently a collection of scholarly articles are describing the movement from one point of view, while sources established by scholarly sources to represent the movement describe it another. Most of my edits attempt to add an encyclopedic description of how supporters see the movement from their perspective using scholarly sources as citations. This is not OR.

• To explain my spike of new activity: I picked up Wikipedia editing activity last month due to having more free time now. Before the men's rights movement article, I started my editing back up by making contributions to the securitization (international relations) and ritual articles. This article is not what brought me back, though it's been on my to-do list since last year. bb23 (talk · contribs) my edits have tapered down to periodic fluctuations in my availability.

Response to Specific Accusations

I ignored examples before Feb. 15 in light of Cailli (talk · contribs)'s comment, Please instruct me if that interpretation is incorrect. Here we go:

Example 1 & 2:

• I made two reverts to preserve the contributions of a different editor. I justified both reverts in my comments and cited Wikipedia policy. During my 2nd revert I even noted "See Talk.", and immediately opened a talk section to seek consensus." My two reverts are not even close to a violation of 3RR. In fact, if we removed one of them, my reverts would actually be an archetypical example of Bold, Revert, Discuss.

Example 3 regarding my "tendentious" comments:

• WP:OTHERSTUFF is not official Wikipedia policy. But let's say it was official: The OTHERSTUFF article itself even notes that the rationale "may be valid in some contexts but not in others". The rationale I made in the talk page was that the women's rights movement and men's rights movement should strive for similar tone and structure, because they are so clearly related in character as articles and as concepts. I still believe that is a valid point that I back up with genuine examples.

Example 4:

• Baseless accusations? I made those comments in the appropriate notice board in response to BrantNewland (talk · contribs)'s remarks. I backed those comments up with evidence in that thread, pointing out how "consensus-seeking attempts to make the tone more neutral are getting reverted over and again by the same individuals."

Example 5:

• RE Warren Farrell quotes: I have devoted considerable time discussing with Sonicyouth why Warren Farrell should be sourced here -- my reasons justifying them are in the talk page there. In fact, other editors who self-evidently hold a different POV on this article from mine, such as EvergreenFir, also saw justification to including Warren Farrell citations when revising my edit. To seek consensus since making the original contribution I even improved my edits further in response to Sonicyouth86 disagreement with the use of "complement". In return for all of this? I get attacked for making "reverts before discussion has ended" and brought to arbitration...

Example 6 partial misquote of source ("believe female privilege and male degradation is system within society" and Example 7: restores misquote

• Am I seriously getting accused of misquoting a line that was already present before I edited this section?! I made a typo where I accidently wrote "system" instead of "systemic" in a quote, which I immediately fixed after I noticing. With all due respect to Sonicyouth, I think it's fair to characterize the first part of this accusation as spurious. In regards to the addition of Warren Farrell quotes? I added them to provide detail of why a male's rights advocate would deny male privilege from their perspective as they see it. I added them boldly to provide detail on why the MRM denies male privilege. (which it currently did explain why). (Afterall... isn't it curious that in a section about female privilege, nothing at all exists to actually discuss that concept?)

Example 6 / 7: Sonicyouth writes: "adds statement from a source that doesn't mention the MRM"

• Not true. I am accurately summarizing Clatterbaugh here in a section called "The Men's Rights Perspective" on Page 11. Here's part of the quote "This perspective concurs with the profeminist view that masculinity is damaging to men but with the gigantic difference of the belief that the principal harm in this role is directed against men rather than women." From this existing source in this section I wrote: "In contrast to feminist approaches to Masculinity, men's rights advocates see masculinity as primarily damaging to men more than women," I'll let you be the judge of whether that's actual WP:SYNTHESIS, or a simple WP:GOODFAITH summary citation of a reference. Either way, it's worth noting also how I also in this edit removed the Warren Farrell attributions as a consensus seeking measure. I fail to see how I've engaged in bad behaviour here.

Example 8 & 9 which Sonicyouth is literally now bringing to this arbitration after making zero attempts to discuss them in the talk page:

• I made these edits based on the discussion here on the movement's strands and this discussion putting to doubt that the "backlash" opinion is so definitive as to be valid as a factual assertion. So to fix this, I went about attributing POV as best I could. First: Since scholarly disagreement exists, I first clarified the statment as coming from "Some feminist scholars ..." since Lingard, Douglas, Clatterbaugh, and Coston/Kimmel all provide more nuance than calling the movement a backlash. In this respect I admit may have been a little too general with the description of feminist scholars in my attribution however, since there sociological scholars also appear. Sonicyouth brings up a valid point there, and I agree referring to "Some scholars" may be more appropriate. Either way, these concerns concerns have not been up anywhere else except in this arbitration talk page.

• Second, Sonicyouth accuses that I: sources the statement conservative men's rights activists consider the MRM to be a backlash or countermovement to feminism with a quote that doesn't mention men's rights activists or the men's rights movement No, the source citation is very clearly speaking about the men's rights movement. I'll let you be the judge of what Lingard and Douglas wrote on pg. 36 as it also informs the previous citation above: "While conservative elements of the men’s rights position overtly describe themselves as a ‘backlash’ to feminism, their more liberal counterpart’s self-proclaimed commitment to ‘the true equality of both sexes and to the liberation of both sexes from their traditional roles’ (Clatterbaugh 1997: 89) make it problematic to describe the men’s rights position in general as nothing more than a backlash against feminism.". Sounds like an accurate source citation to me.

Example 10: This is the first time concerns with these edits have been raised by Sonicyouth: changes the lead without any prior discussion; again original research ... sourced to a book that doesn't discuss the MRM, its activists, or anything about the MRM;:

• I changed the lede to make concrete progress on trying to find consensus within the lede after revert after revert after revert after revert shows no sign of NPOV issues getting addressed. In my comments I emphasize heavily that this is a "first attempt" at seeking consensus: updated lede: first attempt at reworking lede to achieve balance using existing article content. Content has been rearranged but NOT deleted, as to help consensus seeking for now. In that edit I did not remove any existing content from the lede, nor did I delete sources despite what Sonicyouth suggests. The additional content I added to the lede comes from existing sources within the article itself. Sonicyouth's disputes that this source "doesn't discuss MRM" again comes back to our disagreement in Example 5 on whether Warren Farrell's Myth of Male Power book is eligible for citation or not -- which other editors have indicated it is. You can again find our extensive discussion of that matter here.

Conclusion:

In my contributions I have made extensive (possibly excessive?) use of the talk page. I used citations extensively in my new additions, and edited articles to reflect concerns that are raised in discussions. Perfect or not, I believe my contributions demonstrate a good faith effort to making consensus seeking progress in areas that have otherwise been lacking. I have lots of activity in this article, yes, but not activity worthy of disciplinary sanction. I think my banning or blocking has the potential to have a real chilling effect on new contributors. Spudst3r (talk) 01:14, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• @Cailil (talk · contribs) - Hi Cailli Not sure if I'm allowed to reply to statements... but I just want to clarify that the paragraph above does not reflect my personal views on men's rights. Unfortunately with how I wrote it I look like an ideologue. That was not my intention - I was just trying to sum up the views of Warren Farrell and Clatterbaugh regarding how MRM supporters see men's rights issues. E.g. Clattebaugh who wrote "the movement divides into those who believe that men and women are equally harmed by sexism and those who think that female privilege and male degradation are systemic in society" I wrote that in the talk page to state my understanding from the sources what the movement thinks as a way of suss out what other views exist within the movement.

• RE OR / Synthesis revert issue: At the time my reverts were based in pretty strong policy (I wrote: Directly related sourced facts is WP:NOTOR, read: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:These_are_not_original_research#Compiling_facts_and_information. I admit the subsequent talk discussion I created in the talk page for the 2nd revert was instructive for clarifying how this source could be properly incorporated, however. So I admit my actions on that revert were not perfect, but I think in terms of conduct I acted reasonably: I cited policy I thought was appropriate in my revert comments, and limited my reverts by using the talk page to prevent an edit war.
• RE WP:ASPERSIONS: Diff 9 when read alone does look like I am casting aspersions with no evidence. But I was making that comment in relation to another comment in that same thread where I did provide evidence. Specifically I wrote: "consensus-seeking attempts to make the tone more neutral are getting reverted over and again by the same individuals." I also made those comments after receiving serious/false accusations of sockpuppetry/meatpuppetry right after my first contributions to the MRM page (where you suggested I be sanctioned with BrantNewland (talk · contribs)). I hope you can understand how that has contributed to a feeling of getting dogpiled (though I think we've had productive interactions on the MRM page since then.) Spudst3r (talk) 02:32, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• @ Tony Sidaway (talk · contribs) - Yeah, I really need to work on that. My apologies. I'm half convinced that I'm here due to the alacrity and verbosity of my comments than necessarily the contents of my edits...Spudst3r (talk) 10:29, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• @AGK (talk · contribs) & @HJ Mitchell (talk · contribs) Callanecc (talk · contribs) & @Bbb23 (talk · contribs) Thank you for your time looking at this -- I apologize for the length of my response. I trimmed my submissions a bit, but it's difficult to respond to so many allegations without being detailed. For the tl;dr: I had a burst of editing activity over a very short period of time that makes it very easy to look at my actions as problematic. I suspect most mods are judging Cailli's accusation of edit warring in Example 1 & 2 (which notably @Cailli did *not* recommend I receive a topic ban for), and Sonicyouth's discussion with me over the use of Warren Farrell as a source mentioned in Example 5. On Example 1 & 2 I concede I made a error in not properly recognizing the addition of OR. But was it edit warring? In this specific example I made two reverts total, and in my second revert I immediately opened the talk page to discuss it -- making a second revert was a little tenacious and I probably shouldn't have done it, but I don't believe this warrants a topic ban for edit warring. Since this complaint I have made three significant submissions: 1. A small edit to address a valid point made only here by Sonicyouth that I scoped a citation attribution too tightly -- I agree and I fixed it. 2. A scholarly citation to back up Warren Farrell as a non-OR source for quoting on MRM perspectives. ^[1] 3. A consensus-seeking edit to improve the lede using existing article content & sources that that I think (& correct me if you disagree) now represents one of the best efforts in years to improve the page's lede towards consensus. Discretionary GG-style topic bans should be meted out to unproductive trolls--not against editors who are making productive, consensus-seeking edits. Please contrast my actions with other editors focusing heavily on gender subjects who have made revert after revert after revert after revert after revert after revert to restore disputed POV wording many independent editors contributing at different times agree represent POV expressions of doubt. I have never reverted anything on this page as aggressively as this. Spudst3r (talk) 07:13, 1 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Cailil[edit]

Diffs 1-5 are not relevant to the case since the notification is post Feb 13. However, Diff 6 was a revert of original research I removed from the Men's rights movement article. The material a) had no connection to the subject b) it was being used in essay form to synthesize a point and c) it was a copy-paste of the majority of the linked article's abstract (probably a copyvio). Spudst3r then reverted its subsequent removal again diff 7. Diff 9 falls into the category of casting unfounded aspersions about other users. Here Spudst3r is parroting the r/mensrights reddit party line that feminists run wikipedia and the only way to solve "their article's" problem is to illuminate eliminate the "enemy" (see also this ani thread). I have little problem with Diffs 8 10 or 11. My only other issue is his use of POV-statement in an attempt to discredit scholarly opinions he seems not to like[97]. His defense of this action speaks volumes in terms of WP:ADVOCACY and WP:NOTADVOCATE

" I think it's accurate to say that most Men's rights advocates see issues of male inequality as ones that are systemic throughout most of recorded history and in need of changing society as we currently know it away from how it currently or previously existed to address them. Recent social advancements coming from the women's movement may be seen as making the situation for men's rights worse, but only because they see the movement as imposing additional obligations on to men and new social rights to women without providing commensurate changes to complement them in areas where men face systemic disadvantage."[98]

Even so I think a final warning and advice on how to fly right might be enough here--Cailil ^talk 20:18, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• @ HJM - My understanding of the wording of WP:ARBGG is that any gender controversy is covered - so controversial backlashes against Feminism, the USA bills/laws VWA & ERA, and other topics like Same sex marriage, as well as any future issues like the Chelsea Manning conflict etc etc are already preemptively covered. It is as I understand it a preventative measure so that nothing ever gets to the GG level of disruption on WP again. The Men's rights issue is highly controversial a) in RL and b) for the Men's rights online community's reaction to wikipedia's coverage (exactly like GG). Offsite interference has been an ongoing issue in the area since 2006 (and if you want to see a summary of the history which was made nearly 3 years ago see this)--Cailil ^talk 12:28, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• @Thydruff: Spudst3r's edit re: the POV templates was about how women's equality movement (in the eyes of mRAs) has effected men's rights for the worse. That is very clearly a gender conflict. His edit re: Warren Farrell is exactly what you describe - an allegation of bias against men, and the prison/WP:NOR issue is about bias in favour of women--Cailil ^talk 19:08, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Undid premature bot archival--Cailil ^talk 15:36, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Binksternet[edit]

After I saw just a few of Spudst3r's contributions to the article and talk page of the men's rights movement topic, I thought that he was WP:NOTHERE to build the encyclopedia. Rather, he is here to make the men's rights movement look good, to the best of his ability. Thankfully that motivation has not resulted in too much damage, since there are experienced and neutral page watchers keeping track of activists such as Spudst3r. I, too, was taken aback at Diff 9 with its display of battlefield attitude. Spudst3r is too deep into advocacy to see that this comparison is nonsensical, that the men's rights movement assertions of "male disadvantage" are overwhelmingly dismissed by sociology and anthropology scholars who should not have to remind us of the two-thousand-plus years of thoroughly established male advantage. In that same diff Spudst3r tries to argue against reliance on scholarly sources. Wikipedia does not need this kind of disruption. Binksternet (talk) 04:54, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by abhilashkrishn[edit]

When considering all the points mentioned by Sonicyouth86 and Spudst3r, I can't see anything wrong in Spudst3r's actions. The user is actively using the wikipedia for positive contributions and the sources are well acclaimed. -  abhilashkrishn ^talk 20:02, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Strongjam[edit]

No stance on this request, but I am surprised by how broad the wording on the GG sanctions is. Based on the wording I think this case would qualify, MRM is certainly controversial and there is some overlap between GG and MRM. Clarification from the arbitrators if they meant for it to be applied this broadly might be needed though, should there be at least some connection to the Gamergate controversy first? — Strongjam (talk) 20:11, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Tony Sidaway[edit]

Complaint aside, I think the admins might encourage this editor in the direction of terseness. --TS 06:35, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This is getting beyond a joke. Spudst3r has just added another 2000 characters of unreadable apologia, bringing his personal contribution to approximately 7% of the entire page in which several other cases are being discussed. I suggest we permanently block him as functionally incompetent for the most basic tasks of editing. I'm serious. Just block him for incompetence and move on before this page turns into an airport novel. --TS 09:01, 1 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by (username)[edit]

Result concerning Spudst3r[edit]

This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above.

• I'd like to hear from @Bbb23: who seems to be the resident uninvolved admin on this topic. I'd also note that the article is under community-based article probation. I'm not entirely sure that masculinity and the men's rights movement fall under the GamerGate discretionary sanctions, which are authorised for any gender-related dispute or controversy (emphasis mine); I'm not sure masculinity/MRM are disputes or controversies in their own right. Input on that from other admins would be appreciated.

  To the substance of the allegations, the complaint does appear to have some merit. Spudst3r clearly has an unhealthy interest in this topic and would be well-advised to broaden his editing interests. Cailil's comments were fairly conclusive in leading me to the opinion that Spudst3r's edits are problematic. The greatest cause for concern is the addition of op-ed style commentary to encyclopaedia articles, which appears to be based on novel synthesis of published material and reach conclusions that aren't fully supported by the literature; edit-warring to restore such content is also concerning, and a sign of a problem editor. I don't have a strong opinion on what the remedy should be if we decide this is in our scope. I'd like some more admins to weigh in first. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 19:59, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• (speaking in a personal capacity, not for the Committee as a whole) I don't think that the entire topic of the men's rights movement is within the intended scope of the Gamergate sanctions. Disputes and controversies involving the men's rights movement could be covered if they are gender related, e.g. a controversy about an MRM figure's allegations of bias against men would be within scope, but controversy about that figure's allegations of bias against Christians would not. I have not looked at the diffs and hold no opinion about the merits of this request. Thryduulf (talk) 11:15, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Could somebody please trim the complainant's submissions? It is too long and administrators are not expected to read all that. AGK [•] 13:37, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• The notice log at Talk:Men's rights movement/Article probation shows that Spudst3r was notified in March 2014 of the community probation on Men's Rights Movement. Not everything related to MRM may qualify as part of ARBGG's remit, but gender-related issues presumably do. All the diffs 1-10 listed at the head of this complaint are about gender-related issues and they all occurred since he was notified of ARBGG on 13 February. So in my opinion this is a valid complaint under ARBGG. EdJohnston (talk) 16:58, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• I'll leave the discussion of proper jurisdiction to others, as I am perfectly comfortable taking action on this topic under either ArbCom discretionary sanctions or under community general sanctions. And 'perfectly comfortable taking action' seems like an appropriate summation of my feelings as to this request. I agree with Cailil's excellent summation of the major issues (though I think I would quibble with the purported NPA violation – I don't think it is serious enough to fall under the 'casting aspersions' guideline; and with diff6 – I can't really see what's wrong with that one but perhaps I'm just missing something). The original research issues raised are serious and valid, as is the edit warring generally. At this time, I am leaning towards a short (<2 month) topic ban along with encouragement to seek out another topic area to get a better appreciation of Wikipedia's content and conduct policies. Thoughts on that course of action? Thanks, NW (Talk) 01:00, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Assuming that this is within the jurisdiction of ARBGG, Bbb23 any comments? Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 07:48, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• First, I don't recall ever receiving notification of HJ Mitchell's ping on the 19th, or I would have responded then. Second, it appears that Spudst3r stopped contributing to the project over a week ago, for what that's worth. Of course, he's never been a consistent contributor. Third, I fully endorse the editor's comment above that Spudst3r should take lessons in "terseness". Finally, with respect to the substance, I have trouble accepting Callanecc's assumption of jursidiction. At bottom, my view is that this is an attempt to shoehorn the very broad GG sanctions into the MRM area. It's not that I can't see how the two may intersect, but it still feels like an oblique attack. Therefore, I would suggest taking this to a community noticeboard, although any uninvolved administrator may act without community endorsement. A topic ban pursuant to the MRM sanctions would certainly not be unreasonable given Spudst3r's conduct.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:59, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• @Sonicyouth86: in the American legal system, there's a principle that the narrow trumps the broad. Although we may have jurisdiction pursuant to GG to sanction Spudst3r, I still think it makes more sense to do so pursuant to the probation sanctions. Those sanctions don't need to mention "explicitly" OR for them to apply. The list you refer to is preceded by "including but not limited to" and the comments later on clearly indicate that an administrator has significant discretion to sanction any disruptive editor, no matter what the specific kind of disruption is. I do tend to agree with you that ANI is not ideal for this kind of issue, but, as I stated, it doesn't have to be taken to ANI. It can handled by any uninvolved administrator who believes that sanctions are warranted. For example, NuclearWarfare stated that he felt a topic ban was in order and he didn't much care whether it was based on GG or community sanctions. At the same time, he appeared to want a consensus from others as to the precise sanction. FWIW, I would endorse a 3-month topic ban.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:22, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]