User talk:TrevelyanL85A2: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
→‎Blocked: Decline unblock, appeal copied to AE.
Line 472: Line 472:


If this request is posted at AE, I also request that someone please notify Collect and Nyttend about it, as they were the other participants in the dispute at AN that led to my being reported.
If this request is posted at AE, I also request that someone please notify Collect and Nyttend about it, as they were the other participants in the dispute at AN that led to my being reported.

:Re to Mastcell: How do you justify using admin tools in a dispute where you're in private contact with one party, yet you don't allow the other party to even make a statement before you block? That's the main thing I want to see addressed, by arbcom if necessary. My problem is mostly with you, not Mathsci, though the fact that you're all parties to the dispute over Echigo Mole makes this more likely to require arbitration. When I'm questioning your use of the tools, responding with a threat to extend the block looks like an attempt to silence criticism of your actions. I don't think you're really trying to do that, but it comes across that way.


===Statement by {{admin|MastCell}}===
===Statement by {{admin|MastCell}}===

Revision as of 07:32, 9 June 2012

Hello!!!

Hi, this is Jobin, a new wikipedia user. I came to understand that you have an interest in Computer and related topics. I am working on a few articles related to Programming in C. Therefore, I kindly request you to help me on these topics

You may also drop your valuable suggestions on other related articles on my talk page. Jobin RV (talk • contribs)Jobin RV 14:34, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome

Hello, TrevelyanL85A2, and welcome to Wikipedia! I am Deepu Joseph. Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

Again, welcome! And if you have any questions, please do not hesitate to ask - Just click here to leave me a message.
thunderboltza.k.a.Deepu_Joseph |TALK

Userboxes

I believe you were refering to the userboxes (the ones that said "This user wastes too musch time on wikipedia" et al). You can get all the low down on userboxes right here, including instructions on how to add them to your user page. Enjoy! -- thunderboltza.k.a.Deepu Joseph |TALK05:06, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to the Military history WikiProject!

Hi, and welcome to the Military history WikiProject! As you may have guessed, we're a group of editors working to improve Wikipedia's coverage of topics related to military history.

A few features that you might find helpful:

If you have any questions, please don't hesitate to ask one of the project coordinators, or any experienced member of the project, and we'll be happy to help you. Again, welcome! We look forward to seeing you around! Kirill Lokshin 02:35, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter: Issue XI - January 2007

The January 2007 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.

This is an automated delivery by grafikbot 21:39, 23 January 2007 (UTC) [reply]

WP:MILHIST Coordinator Elections

The Military history WikiProject coordinator selection process is starting. We are looking to elect seven coordinators to serve for the next six months; if you are interested in running, please sign up here by February 11!

Delivered by grafikbot 11:43, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject Military History elections

The Military history WikiProject coordinator election has begun. We will be selecting seven coordinators to serve for the next six months from a pool of sixteen candidates. Please vote here by February 25!

Delivered by grafikbot 15:00, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter: Issue XII - February 2007

The February 2007 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.

Delivered by grafikbot 17:04, 1 March 2007 (UTC) [reply]

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter: Issue XIII - March 2007

The March 2007 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.

This is an automated delivery by grafikbot 20:23, 30 March 2007 (UTC) [reply]

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter: Issue XIV (April 2007)

The April 2007 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.

This is an automated delivery by grafikbot 15:01, 6 May 2007 (UTC) [reply]

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter: Issue XV (May 2007)

The May 2007 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.

This is an automated delivery by grafikbot 16:08, 9 June 2007 (UTC) [reply]

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter: Issue XVI (June 2007)

The June 2007 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.

This is an automated delivery by grafikbot 15:03, 8 July 2007 (UTC) [reply]

Military history WikiProject coordinator selection

The Military history WikiProject coordinator selection process is starting. We are looking to elect nine coordinators to serve for the next six months; if you are interested in running, please sign up here by August 14! Kyriakos 11:43, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Military history WikiProject coordinator election

The Military history WikiProject coordinator election has begun. We will be selecting nine coordinators from a pool of fourteen candidates to serve for the next six months. Please vote here by August 28! Wandalstouring 12:13, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XVIII (August 2007)

The August 2007 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.

Delivered by grafikbot 10:20, 5 September 2007 (UTC) [reply]

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XIX (September 2007)

The September 2007 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.

Delivered by grafikbot 10:38, 8 October 2007 (UTC) [reply]

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XX (October 2007)

The October 2007 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.

Delivered by grafikbot 15:06, 3 November 2007 (UTC) [reply]

Magick

Actually, this article is about a specific form of magic which is spelled with a terminal 'k'. Please don't remove the 'k' again. Now that you have been informed, that would have to be considered vandalism. GlassFET 16:43, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXII (December 2007)

The December 2007 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 23:51, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXIII (January 2008)

The January 2008 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 01:24, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Military history coordinator selection

The Military history WikiProject coordinator selection process is starting. We are aiming to elect nine coordinators to serve for the next six months; if you are interested in running, please sign up here by February 14! Woody (talk) 10:53, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXIV (February 2008)

The February 2008 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 08:19, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXV (March 2008)

The March 2008 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 02:59, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Collaboration of the Month for December

RIT was nominated for WikiProject Universities's Collaboration of the Month. Take a wander over to this page and vote for RIT! (Don't forget to update the Vote Counter manually) There have been several cries in the past for an RIT Wikiproject - now's your chance to prove that RIT is big enough! Mjf3719 (talk) 19:48, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Bugle: Issue LVI, October 2010

To stop receiving this newsletter, please list yourself in the appropriate section here. To assist with preparing the newsletter, please visit the newsroom. BrownBot (talk) 23:07, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Bugle: Issue LVII, November 2010

To stop receiving this newsletter, please list yourself in the appropriate section here. To assist with preparing the newsletter, please visit the newsroom. BrownBot (talk) 23:29, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Templates

You should just be able to add a {{-}} between each section heading to break it. As for my formatting, feel free to steal it! :) --Dan LeveilleTALK 10:32, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Bugle: Issue LVIII, December 2010



To assist with preparing the newsletter, please visit the newsroom. Past editions may be viewed here. BrownBot (talk) 21:52, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Bugle: Volume LVIX, January 2011

To stop receiving this newsletter, please list yourself in the appropriate section here. To assist with preparing the newsletter, please visit the newsroom. BrownBot (talk) 16:55, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Bugle: Issue LX, February 2011

To stop receiving this newsletter, please list yourself in the appropriate section here. To assist with preparing the newsletter, please visit the newsroom. BrownBot (talk) 22:55, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Bugle: Issue LXI, March 2011

To stop receiving this newsletter, please list yourself in the appropriate section here. To assist with preparing the newsletter, please visit the newsroom. BrownBot (talk) 04:55, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Bugle: Issue LXII, April 2011

To stop receiving this newsletter, please list yourself in the appropriate section here. To assist with preparing the newsletter, please visit the newsroom. BrownBot (talk) 23:53, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Bugle: Issue LXIII, May 2011

To begin or stop receiving this newsletter, please list yourself in the appropriate section here. To assist with preparing the newsletter, please visit the newsroom. BrownBot (talk) 23:41, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

WP:ARBR&I

Hi TrevlyanL85A2. ArbCom is aware that you are a real life friend of Ferahgo-the-Assassin. By editing in the area of the topic ban imposed on her and Captain Occam in the above case, your editing will probably be viewed as a means for them to bypass their ban through others. Another editor in the same situation is SightWatcher. In both cases, your real life identities are known by arbitrators. The simplest thing is for you to stop editing in that area. Appearing out of the blue with a campaign against a single editor [1] looks particularly bad. Thanks, Mathsci (talk) 02:37, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Bugle: Issue LXIV, June 2011

To receive this newsletter on your talk page, join the project or sign up here. If you are a member who does not want delivery, please go to this page. BrownBot (talk) 00:15, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Invite to WikiConference India 2011


Hi TrevelyanL85A2,

The First WikiConference India is being organized in Mumbai and will take place on 18-20 November 2011.
You can see our Official website, the Facebook event and our Scholarship form.

But the activities start now with the 100 day long WikiOutreach.

As you are part of WikiProject India community we invite you to be there for conference and share your experience. Thank you for your contributions.

We look forward to see you at Mumbai on 18-20 November 2011

The Bugle: Issue LXV, July 2011

To receive this newsletter on your talk page, join the project or sign up here. If you are a member who does not want delivery, please go to this page. BrownBot (talk) 23:19, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

WP:ARBR&I

I realize you're probably aware of this as you know editors who've been topic banned, but if you're interested in actively editing in the topic area, you might wish to review the WP:ARBR&I case, as well as the amendments to the discretionary sanctions: [2]. Constructive editing is always welcome. aprock (talk) 17:41, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the notification. I understand this is a contentious topic area and I hope to work constructively with you and others. --TrevelyanL85A2 (talk) 18:24, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You have left links on your user page which identify you unambiguously in real life. You are a real life friend of Ferahgo the Assassin (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), who is indefinitely topic banned under WP:ARBR&I. A former arbitrator, Shell Kinney, has already verified this a long while back. If you continue editing tendentiously in this topic area (for example, your refusal to use sources), it is highly likely, per WP:MEAT, that the same topic ban currently applied to Captain Occam and your real life friend Ferahgo the Assassin will be applied to you. More than that, in fact: you could possibly all be community banned for a long term campaign of willful deception. Thanks, Mathsci (talk) 22:08, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I was under the impression you were asked by Arbcom to drop this. --TrevelyanL85A2 (talk) 06:02, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Then you are mistaken. From what I was told by Shell Kinney, ArbCom decided that problems with your editing would be dropped, provided your account (and that of Sightwatcher) stayed clear of articles connected with the topic bans of Ferhago the Assassin and Captain Occam. That does not seem to be the case now. You are involved in blatant meatpuppetry. Mathsci (talk) 06:10, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nor is it a particularly good idea to bring your friend Ferahgo the Assassin into this, as you have just done. Your editing should simply stay completely outside the area of their topic ban. As you will see on WP:AE, it is now properly acknowledged that the issues of disruptive sockpuppetry and meatpuppetry are taken seriously in WP:ARBR&I. And it never seems to stop. For example Mikemikev just this week. His sockpuppet 스토킹 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is now indefinitely blocked. Why is your editing in this area any less problematic than that of Mikemikev? Mathsci (talk) 06:16, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
No, he is not mistaken.
[3] February, Roger Davies asked you to leave it to uninvolved editors to bring it up if someone's editing is a problem.
[4] April, Risker told you clearly to disengage.
[5] [6] September, Roger Davies and Cool Hand Luke both told you to disengage. [7] From my understanding, the only reason you weren't given an interaction ban is because the arbitrators were confident you would follow their advice.
[8] And finally, less than two weeks ago you were formally warned by Jclemens to stop bringing up off-wiki evidence against other editors. You are clearly disregarding all of this advice.
TrevelyanL85A2 didn't bring me into this; you did, as soon as you mentioned my name. I can't believe you're still bringing me up on Wikipedia after all this time. Over the past year or so I've put a lot of effort into contributing my skills and knowledge to other areas of Wikipedia, and in developing a history here that is separate and distinct from the topic that unfortunately caused us to cross paths. There is absolutely no reason for you to continue bringing up my name on Wikipedia, and treating other editors poorly because you associate them with me. This absolutely needs to stop.
Please, Mathsci. You need to make an effort to assume good faith here and just let it drop so we can all move on. I really don't want to, but if you aren't willing to agree to stop (or if you just ignore this request), I will be forced to take the matter back to an amendment and push for that interaction ban. If you can't voluntarily let this go, I doubt that anything short of an interaction ban will put a stop to this. Can you answer me simply: will you please leave this alone and stop mentioning me & Occam on Wikipedia? -Ferahgo the Assassin (talk) 07:56, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I received several emails from Shell Kinney, which you are not privy to, which confirmed the identification of TrevelyanL85A2. It does not seem like a very wise move for you to be lobbying for your confirmed friends to edit in the exact area of your topic ban. I can see no difference at all between the edits of Mikemikev and TrevelyanL85A2. Both accounts are breaking topic bans set by ArbCom. Captain Occam already has spent a considerable amount of time wikilawyering on WP:AE both when a topic ban was proposed for Miradre and later during the subsequent appeal. That was an immense waste of time. I cannot see where good faith enters here: in this particular case TrevelyanL85A2 self identifies as a friend of yours. Since the area covered by WP:ARBR&I is rife with meatpuppets and sockpuppets, I doubt very much that any administrators or arbitrators would be sympathetic with measures which you (and previously Captain Occam) seek to put in place, the only result of which would be to make it easier for sockpuppetry and meatpuppetry to go undetected. Before WP:ARBR&I, there was no history of serial sockpuppetry in the topic area (apart from the easily recognizable sockpuppets of Muntuwandi). Since the close of that case, things have been very different. Mathsci (talk) 09:25, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The possibility of a topic ban on R&I is being discussed in WP:AE#Ferahgo_the_Assassin. I am not sure if you were already aware of this. --Enric Naval (talk) 17:24, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Military Historian of the Year

Nominations for the "Military Historian of the Year" for 2011 are now open. If you would like to nominate an editor for this award, please do so here. Voting will open on 22 January and run for seven days. Thanks! On behalf of the coordinators, Nick-D (talk) and Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 00:43, 16 January 2012 (UTC) You were sent this message because you are a listed as a member of the Military history WikiProject.[reply]

The topic of Race and Intelligence is covered by discretionary sanctions

The Arbitration Committee has permitted administrators to impose discretionary sanctions (information on which is at Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions) on any editor who is active on pages broadly related to Race and intelligence. Discretionary sanctions can be used against an editor who repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behavior, or any normal editorial process. If you engage in further inappropriate behavior in this area, you may be placed under sanctions, which can include blocks, a revert limitation, or an article ban. The Committee's full decision can be read in the Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Race and intelligence#Final decision section of the decision page.

Please familiarise yourself with the information page at Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions, with the appropriate sections of Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Procedures, and with the case decision page.

If you wish, you can join the discussion at WP:AE#Ferahgo the Assassin, where your name has already been mentioned. I notice that you have not edited on the topic of race and intelligence since 3 January, which is why I have not proposed any sanctions. It is probably best if you avoid the topic area, since your acquaintance with Ferahgo would otherwise raise concerns. EdJohnston (talk) 22:35, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject India Tag & Assess 2012 Contest

Hello friends, we are a number of editors from WikiProject India have got together to assess the many thousands of articles under the stewardship of the project, and we'd love to have you, a fellow member, join us. These articles require assessment, that is, the addition of a WikiProject template to the talk page of an article, assessing it for quality and importance and adding a few extra parameters to it.

As of March 11, 2012, 07:00 UTC, WikiProject India has 95,998 articles under its stewardship. Of these 13,980 articles are completely unassessed (both for class and importance) and another 42,415 articles are unassessed for importance only. Accordingly, a Tag & Assess 2012 drive-cum-contest has begun from March 01, 2012 to last till May 31, 2012.

If you are new to assessment, you can learn the minimum about how to evaluate from Part One of the Assessment Guide. Part Two of the Guide will help you learn to employ the full functionality of the talk page template, should you choose to do so.

You can sign up on the Tag & Assess page. There are a number of awards to be given in recognition of your efforts. Come & join us to take part in this exciting new venture. You'll learn more about India in this way.

ssriram_mt (talk) & AshLin (talk) (Drive coordinators)

Delivered per request on Wikipedia:Bot requests. The Helpful Bot 01:43, 12 March 2012 (UTC) [reply]

R&I Review

This is to inform you that you have today been added as a party to the above arbitration case and that there are findings and remedies concerning you, to which you may wish to respond.  Roger Davies talk 23:39, 5 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Race and intelligence/Review Closed

The arbitration review of the Race and Intelligence case has now closed and the final decision is viewable at the link above.

The following remedies have been enacted:

  1. Mathsci (talk · contribs) is admonished for engaging in battlefield conduct
  2. Ferahgo the Assassin (talk · contribs) and Captain Occam (talk · contribs) are site-banned from Wikipedia for a period of no less than one year. After one year has elapsed, a request may be made for the ban to be lifted. Any such request must address all the circumstances which lead to this ban being imposed and demonstrate an understanding of and intention to refrain from similar actions in the future.
  3. SightWatcher (talk · contribs) is indefinitely banned from editing and/or discussing the topic of Race and Intelligence on any page of Wikipedia, including user talk pages, or from participating in any discussion concerning the conduct of editors who have worked in the topic. This editor may however within reason participate in dispute resolution and noticeboard discussions if their own conduct has been mentioned.
  4. TrevelyanL85A2 (talk · contribs) is indefinitely banned from editing and/or discussing the topic of Race and Intelligence on any page of Wikipedia, including user talk pages, or from participating in any discussion concerning the conduct of editors who have worked in the topic. This editor may however within reason participate in dispute resolution and noticeboard discussions if their own conduct has been mentioned.


For the Arbitration Committee,

--Guerillero | My Talk 02:09, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitration motion regarding Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Race and intelligence/Review

Resolved by motion at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment that:

FoF 2.5 in the Race and intelligence review be amended to read: Mathsci has engaged in borderline personal attacks and frequent battleground conduct.

For the Arbitration Committee,

-- Lord Roem (talk) 06:07, 26 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Enforcement

You have violated your topic ban. I have requested enforcement at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#TrevelyanL85A2. You may review and comment, as you may "within reason participate in dispute resolution and noticeboard discussions if their own conduct has been mentioned." Hipocrite (talk) 10:25, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#TrevelyanL85A2 Nobody Ent 21:47, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked

To enforce an arbitration decision, you have been blocked from editing for a period of 1 month. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you believe this block is unjustified, please read the guide to appealing arbitration enforcement blocks and follow the instructions there to appeal your block. MastCell Talk 22:10, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Notice to administrators: In a March 2010 decision, the Committee held that "Administrators are prohibited from reversing or overturning (explicitly or in substance) any action taken by another administrator pursuant to the terms of an active arbitration remedy, and explicitly noted as being taken to enforce said remedy, except: (a) with the written authorization of the Committee, or (b) following a clear, substantial, and active consensus of uninvolved editors at a community discussion noticeboard (such as WP:AN or WP:ANI). If consensus in such discussions is hard to judge or unclear, the parties should submit a request for clarification on the proper page. Any administrator that overturns an enforcement action outside of these circumstances shall be subject to appropriate sanctions, up to and including desysopping, at the discretion of the Committee."

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

TrevelyanL85A2 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Reason given below. This is an AE block, so I'd like my appeal to please be posted at AE for review. If possible, I'd like the two other editors involved in the dispute that led to my block (Nyttend and Collect) to also be notified. TrevelyanL85A2 (talk) 04:51, 9 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Procedural decline as this wasn't really an unblock request. Your appeal has been copied to WP:AE. Seraphimblade Talk to me 07:17, 9 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Arbitration enforcement action appeal by TrevelyanL85A2 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Procedural notes: The rules governing arbitration enforcement appeals are found here. According to the procedures, a "clear, substantial, and active consensus of uninvolved editors" is required to overturn an arbitration enforcement action.

To help determine any such consensus, involved editors may make brief statements in separate sections but should not edit the section for discussion among uninvolved editors. Editors are normally considered involved if they are in a current dispute with the sanctioning or sanctioned editor, or have taken part in disputes (if any) related to the contested enforcement action. Administrators having taken administrative actions are not normally considered involved for this reason alone (see WP:UNINVOLVED).

Appealing user
TrevelyanL85A2 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Sanction being appealed
One month block imposed at [10] and logged at [11]
Administrator imposing the sanction
MastCell (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
Notification of that administrator
The appealing editor is asked to notify the administrator who made the enforcement action of this appeal, and then to replace this text with a diff of that notification. The appeal may not be processed otherwise. If a block is appealed, the editor moving the appeal to this board should make the notification.

Statement by TrevelyanL85A2 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

I didn't know my comment for which I was blocked was a violation of my topic ban, as my comment had nothing to do with race and intelligence. I thought my topic ban meant I can't comment on the conduct of editors as it relates to R&I. I did not think it meant that whenever someone has formerly edited in the topic, after that I am permanently banned from commenting on their conduct on every part of the project. It didn't seem possible my ban could mean that, because I can't know every editor who's ever been involved in these articles, so this meaning of my ban would make it impossible for me to know all of whose conduct I'm not allowed to discuss.

What led to the current situation was Mathsci continuing to edit my user talk after I asked him to stop, and telling me I needed to bring this up with a member of arbcom. [12] When I followed his advice, he continued baiting me there. [13] Arbitrators have commented that their ruling about me does not allege recruitment or proxying ([14], [15]), so I consider Mathsci's continued claims that I'm just a mouthpiece for someone else, to be personal attacks. Is the opinion of AE that people who were previously involved in R&I are free to provoke me, and when they do my topic ban prohibits me from ever seeking any resolution? I don't understand how I'm supposed to handle these situations, so if I violated my topic ban it's because of that misunderstanding. Clarification would be helpful.

There is another issue here that concerns me. Mastcell blocked me less than an hour after Mathsci accused me of violating my topic ban here, and less than half an hour after I was reported at AE, before I or anyone else had time to comment. This is most troubling after Mastcell has performed other administrative tasks in response to private requests from Mathsci, as Mathsci mentioned here: "Irrespective of Jclemens' protection, the two pages were later deleted by MastCell following my request". I know said request was made privately because it wasn't anywhere public. It seems against the spirit of WP:INVOLVED for an admin to use their tools in a way favorable to an editor while privately in contact with that editor, especially when it involves overruling another admin or blocking someone.

I understand that perhaps AE can't resolve questions about admin involvement or problems caused by the wording of my topic ban. So the main reason I'd like to be unblocked is because if these issues can't be resolved here, I think I should raise them with arbcom. What needs resolution also includes the dispute between Mathsci, Nyttend, Collect, Future Perfect, Mastcell and Jclemens over when it is or isn't necessary to remove comments by Echigo Mole socks, especially in the user talk of people who don't want them removed. If AE isn't willing to lift my block completely, I'd like it to be lifted with the limitation that for the rest of its duration I can only edit pages related to requesting arbitration about these issues. If someone else requests arbitration and includes me as a party, I also would like to be unblocked so I can participate.

If this request is posted at AE, I also request that someone please notify Collect and Nyttend about it, as they were the other participants in the dispute at AN that led to my being reported.

Re to Mastcell: How do you justify using admin tools in a dispute where you're in private contact with one party, yet you don't allow the other party to even make a statement before you block? That's the main thing I want to see addressed, by arbcom if necessary. My problem is mostly with you, not Mathsci, though the fact that you're all parties to the dispute over Echigo Mole makes this more likely to require arbitration. When I'm questioning your use of the tools, responding with a threat to extend the block looks like an attempt to silence criticism of your actions. I don't think you're really trying to do that, but it comes across that way.

Statement by MastCell (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)

The wording of the ArbCom remedy is clear and unequivocal, and I don't see any credible way in which TrevelyanL85A2 could have misunderstood it. S/he seems eagerly intent on further litigation against Mathsci (which is exactly what the ArbCom remedy was intended to forestall), so I'm comfortable that a block was the right call, and am considering extending it. The closure of the WP:AE request was reviewed by at least two other admins beside myself, but I'm fine with more scrutiny, since I don't think this is a gray area in any way. MastCell Talk 06:13, 9 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by (involved editor 1)

Statement by (involved editor 2)

Discussion among uninvolved editors about the appeal by TrevelyanL85A2 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Result of the appeal by TrevelyanL85A2 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:TrevelyanL85A2&oldid=496715473"