Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement

"WP:AE" redirects here. For the automated editing program, see Wikipedia:AutoEd.

Click here to add a new enforcement request
For appeals: create a new section and use the template {{Arbitration enforcement appeal}}
See also: Logged AE sanctions

Tumbleman

User:Tumbleman was indef-blocked per WP:NOTHERE by User:Zad68. Note that this was not an AE block, but a normal administrative action block, and can be appealed in the usual ways. Reclosing. --Floquenbeam (talk) 20:46, 17 October 2013 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
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 Tumbleman User who is submitting this request for enforcement IRWolfie- (talk) 14:42, 16 October 2013 (UTC) User against whom enforcement is requested Tumbleman (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Sanction or remedy to be enforced Wikipedia:ARB/PS#Discretionary_sanctions Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it Editor is an internet troll with a past record of being blocked from other sites:[1]. They describe their trolling here: [2], link to wikipedia here: Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/OS_0_1_2. Their talk page originally contained a message [3] about how he is performing a "a case study in online wiki mediation". They have continued this subtle trolling here and been caught recently for sock puppets: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Tumbleman, where he claimed this was because he was working with a PR company and she created accounts and (presumably by chance agreed with him, and was also presumably a long time watcher of the Sheldrake page by coincidence[4] as well as another account which geolocates to the same place: [5] with approximately the same user page content, see the SPI for more details). [[6]] 14th October. The editor also refuses to stop highlighting my name on his userpage (which is, quite frankly, bloody annoying) seems part of this same trolling. My request for him to stop: [7], his highlight again: [8] (today), my request again: [9], his highlight again [10]. I presume he is doing all the highlighting here: [11] to try and increase the disruption by highlighting multiple individuals continuously. I request that their current block be extended to indefinitely blocked for trolling the talk page of Rupert Sheldrake (covered by WP:ARB/PS discretionary sanctions), and preferably with talk page access removed so he stops highlighting people, IRWolfie- (talk) 14:42, 16 October 2013 (UTC) Additional comments by editor filing complaint Note that a reading of Rupert Sheldrake also shows the subtle trolling, deliberate cluelessness and belligerence, but I think there is enough here to demonstrate the issue without trawling through ~500,000 bytes of material at Talk:Rupert Sheldrake. IRWolfie- (talk) 14:50, 16 October 2013 (UTC) @Liz, "... I don't think you will actually see this Tumbleman participating in these diffs...". You clearly have not looked at the links I presented to the off wiki trolling and the link to on-wiki. IRWolfie- (talk) 22:37, 16 October 2013 (UTC) Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested [12] Discussion concerning Tumbleman 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 Tumbleman Note that Tumbleman (talk · contribs) cannot edit this page because he was blocked for one week for socking. I suggest as a compromise, Tumbleman (talk · contribs) posts any comment to his talk page at user talk: Tumbleman and it can be copied here. Barney the barney barney (talk) 14:52, 16 October 2013 (UTC) Barney the barney barney, can you inform him of this opportunity on his Talk Page? I suggest that no action be taken until this questionable block is over and Tumbleman can fully participate here. I fully believe that Editors involved here will work to push this action forward and rush this through before the block is lifted. Liz Read! Talk! 16:16, 16 October 2013 (UTC) Do you have any grounds for that belief in bad faith on the part of other editors? JamesBWatson (talk) 17:03, 16 October 2013 (UTC) JamesBWatson, the actions involving Tumbleman (launching a SPI, setting up this complaint), happened within the past three days. There is a hurried aspect to this all. The heated discussion on the Sheldrake Talk Page has been going on for weeks now but after Tumbleman was reported, another Editor who disagreed with IRWolfie- got a threat diff that he/she might be taken to Arbitration. AC/DS shouldn't be a mallet. I am less worried about this rush as the Sheldrake page is fully protected now until the 19th. This break in editing and reverting might allow Editors on all sides of this BLP to catch their breath, calm down and talk to each other. Hopefully, the Editors (including Tumbleman) can collaborate and come up with a version of Sheldrake's page they can live with. But it shouldn't be that the winning viewpoint goes to the last person standing. Liz Read! Talk! 22:47, 16 October 2013 (UTC) Statement by Barney the barney barney Copy and paste this empty section below the most recent statement and replace Barney the barney barney (talk) 15:04, 16 October 2013 (UTC) with your username. I have no idea what Tumbleman (talk · contribs) is doing. At first he started on talk:Rupert Sheldrake telling everyone watching that he was going to form a "new consensus" and ignoring the already formed consensus regarding the applicability of WP:FRINGE. This went on for quite some time, in which he tried to argue that the article Rupert Sheldrake shouldn't be subject to WP:FRINGE because Sheldrake's writings fall under "alternative scientific theories". Despite the fact that numerous sources were provided to describe Sheldrake's work as pseudoscience by various well qualified scientists - and their reasons why they think it's pseudoscience, Tumbleman had selective eyesight when it came to such sources and decided to ignore them seemingly because they didn't fit in with his preconceived ideas. At this point, discussing the actual content of the page became difficult simply because any reasonable discussion wandered off topic with various ramblings by Tumbleman (talk · contribs). I think a topic ban would be helpful, or at least a request that he makes one statement and let that be that. I actually think he is a troll, trying to wind people up because he has remained largely calm throughout. While we're here, I am also concerned about other users including but not limited to Craig Weiler (talk · contribs) as well who has some information on his user page [his website] which reveal his biases and difficulty in understanding science or for that matter the basic nature of reality. Barney the barney barney (talk) 15:04, 16 October 2013 (UTC) Statement by Craig Weiler I have been following Tumbleman's statements as well. He has been unfailingly polite and courteous despite poor behavior from other editors. Barney's accusations are patently false and anyone who reads the Sheldrake talk page can see this. Accusing Tumbleman of rambling is simply ludicrous. Down below I see that Vzaak is piling on with cherry picked statements taken out of context. I'm new here. Is this how articles are edited on Wikipedia? First get on a page and use whatever sources you can find to support your point of view and ignore or dismiss everything you oppose as "biased." Then harass and try to ban editors you disagree with using trumped up charges and out of context quotes, never engage in meaningful dialog and avoid even the pretense of consensus all the while acting like you own the page by continuing to edit? Because from where I stand this is starting to look like a mighty successful strategy. Seriously, it has been repeatedly pointed out to Barney and other skeptical editors that many of their sources are shallow, almost entirely opinion and generally devoid of meaningful content. They ignore this and have instead decided to get together to stage an all out attack on the evil Tumbleman. Now Barney accuses me of bias and difficulty in understanding science based on . . . what exactly? My blog? That he hasn't read? Also, if Barney understands the basic nature of reality he should be rewarded for it. He has accomplished something that has eluded the rest of Mankind.Craig Weiler (talk) 16:14, 16 October 2013 (UTC) Statement by Liz I am a bystander, reading over the dispute at Rupert Sheldrake. The discussion on the Talk Page is polarized into the two familiar camps that any topic identified as "pseudoscience" draws out. Tumbleman is being labeled an "internet troll" based on some discussion board conversations involving a user with the same name from years ago. In fact, I don't think you will actually see this Tumbleman participating in these diffs, they are conversations about the user and I don't think these old off-wiki forum discussions are relevant evidence to the Sheldrake discussion. Since this discussion is clearly divided between those who are skeptical of and those who are sympathetic to Rupert Sheldrake and his work, it seems unfair to apply discretionary sanctions to just one party of this heated dispute (which also has a range of instant IP accounts jumping in at opportune moments). "Discretionary sanctions should be used with caution where the community is already dealing with the specific issue through dispute resolution processes." Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Procedures#Discretionary sanctions Rather than penalizing one side for not being sophisticated enough to be aware of wikiways, the previous ARBCOM case on pseudoscience and DS, I'd like to suggest that all parties head to Dispute Resolution. I'm believe that Tumbleman would be open to mediation and I don't think he/she should be penalized for his/her inexperience and stepping right into a long-standing conflict on Wikipedia. While Tumbleman registered his account in 2005, prior to his work on Sheldrake, he hadn't edited on WP since 2009 and has a total of 477 edits for the past 8 years. I can predict that I will be attacked for not providing "diffs" but I'd prefer to just link to the Sheldrake Talk Page and the Arbitrators reviewing this request can look over the conversation in toto rather than isolated statements from just one participant in the debate. Look over the Talk Page edit history and see how many different Editors have been a part of this dispute...is it really fair to pluck out one Editor from the dozens who have recently posted to this page and hold him/her responsible for a "disruption" which is actually a part of long-running conflict on Wikipedia? Liz Read! Talk! 16:56, 16 October 2013 (UTC) Statement by LuckyLouie Looks like the disturbance at Talk:Rupert Sheldrake has been ongoing for about a month and a half. I first learned of it from comments posted at WP:FTN. Tumbleman appears to be at the center of it, making a lot of noise about working "for the good of Wikipedia" to protect Wikipedia from "skeptics" and something he calls "GSM". His first direct Talk page comment to me claimed I was advancing a "GSM editors" agenda [13]. This prompted my further attention, and I noted a number of his Talk page arguments have included rants against the "groupthink ideological agenda of skeptics" [14], the dangers of a "skeptical POV agenda" [15] and the agenda of "GSM editors" [16], [17], [18], [19]. Ironically, he professes his own neutrality and lack of bias while accusing other editors of bias and organized "GSM" conspiracy [20]. Given his apparent commitment to righting a perceived great wrong, I wasn't surprised when his name showed up at SPI since I'd already noticed that User:Oh boy chicken again shared a bit too many behavioral traits with Tumbleman. Others have noted the relevance of Tumbleman's past efforts to develop and promote something he calls "OS 0 1 2" which seems to be some sort of Zen joke or performance art involving "studying" and participating in conflict. Someone who refers to themselves in the third person [21] strongly indicates their desire to be at "center stage" playing a character ("The Tumbleman" ) they admittedly invented for purposes of furthering "OS 0 1 2". So, is he here to protect Wikipedia from a conspiracy of "skeptics"? Or is he here to conduct more "OS 0 1 2" conflict experiments? I say it doesn't matter. He's clearly WP:NOTHERE, a potential new drama account, and a net zero for Wikipedia. - LuckyLouie (talk) 17:09, 16 October 2013 (UTC) Statement by Littleolive oil I have been watching this discussion from the sidelines and I'd concur with Liz's suggestion and excellent analysis of the situation, and would suggest that the best and possibly the only way to understand this complex situation, and to be able to arrive at a fair judgement is to read the threads on the article talk page. I hope admins will have the time and take the time to do so. I am concerned that standards are being set by sub groups editing Wikipedia, and that users especially new users who don't know the "rules" are being criticized and sometimes attacked for not knowing or understanding, and for not following these standards. (olive (talk) 18:21, 16 October 2013 (UTC)) Statement by vzaak I was the first person to make contact with Tumbleman. It began with this edit in which he removed a quote because he thought it was "an interpretation from a negative science writer". (Verify IP is him: [22].) Had Tumbleman taken a few seconds to look at the source, he would have found that it is a quote from Sheldrake himself. After ignoring my explanation of the quote [23], he came on the talk page to complain. What followed next was very bizarre behavior. The remainder of this paragraph will reference this snapshot: [24]. Strangely, he acknowledged the veracity of the quote while continuing to defend his removal of it. (There are technical reasons why the quote is necessary; it connects morphic resonance to telepathy while avoiding the word "paranormal" which Sheldrake eschews.) His writing was garbled and I had much difficulty trying to understand it. He ferociously argued that the TED blog http://blog.ted.com was a reliable secondary source and a reliable news organization! I was astonished. He repeatedly split my comments -- about 4 times -- after I repeatedly asked him to stop. In one place I said "don't split other people's comments" and his reply was to split the comment in which I said that. Throughout, he had been accusing me of "bias" despite my repeated requests for him to focus on content, not editors. Then came the revelation. I discovered his previous trolling activity under the name Tumbleman and Bubblefish, as noted above by others. At this point I was absolutely convinced this was a prank by someone that "employed a personality" that was "a bit obnoxious and over the top and playful. Tricks."[25]. I informed him that I figured it out, conceding that it took me longer than it should have. I expected him to say something like "lol gotcha". However he maintained that, contrary to his past and present behavior on the Internet, he was not just shaking things up for fun. Figuring there was nothing I could do about the situation, I haven't said a word to him since. He has contined sending me notifications and has left harrassing messages on my talk page which are really unhinged (backstory of that is here). Here is Tumbleman deleting people's comments: [26] [27] [28] [29] [30] [31] and saying that he is being hacked [32]. Tumbleman does not seem to possess enough basic knowledge about how science works, which is not so bad in itself, but he floods the talk page with comments stemming from this lack of competence. For instance here he is going on about falsifiability (copied from sockpuppet investigation): [33][34][35][36][37][38][39][40][41][42][43][44][45][46][47]. Tumbleman has never understood that editing Wikipedia is about focusing on content, not editors. I tried explaining this to him early on, but it wouldn't take. He doesn't understand that writing good NPOV articles is done by collaboration among biased people. He is obsessed with calling people biased (copied from sockpuppet report): "many editors here have a bias" [48] "language from editors clearly shows a bias on the page" [49] "commenting from editors shows a biased POV" [50] "the bias that they clearly have" [51] "a lot of biased sources and opinions" [52] "we have biased editors quoting opinions" [53] "editor is not able to provide a decent source and expresses a clear bias" [54] "those with negative bias here" [55] "your voice sounds a little biased here" [56] In focusing on editors instead of content, every one of those comments is basically trolling, or at best unconstructive. And that is just a sample (not all) from Talk:Rupert Sheldrake alone. You'll find these complaints on admin boards ("editors with a clear bias"[57]) and on talk pages as well. He does all this while priding himself on using Wikipedia as "a little field study into online resolution disputes" and as "a wonderful opportunity to show the value of pure unbiased, neutral, or objectivity"[58]. Whether this is trolling, delusion, weirdness, or whatever, it doesn't belong on WP. vzaak (talk) 21:27, 16 October 2013 (UTC) Statement by Oh Boy chicken again When I said I was dropping out, I meant it, so forgive my reappearance. I left in part because I had very quickly become disgusted by this “process,” and in part because I felt somewhat responsible for some of the heat being heaped on Tumbleman. I simply wanted to wash my hands of it all and quietly go back to Citizendium. But it occurred to me that I was mainly dropping out because an irrational faction was using false accusations as a weapon to drive me away. As far as I can tell, its reason for doing so was because I supported a proponent of a position that they found themselves opposed to (and, in my opinion, irrationally so). So I'm going to hang around and see how this plays out. I will chime in in support of Tumbleman when necessary, because nobody should suffer this kind of harassment without some sort of voice (particularly in the event he loses his own), and because I (nor anybody) should back away from a just cause because a small band internet jackals gets a little testy. Tumbleman has been accused of being a troll, and a gigantic deal has now been made over it. From where I sit and having checked the links and read the content, there is precisely zero evidence in support of this claim. But no matter, the damage has been done (as was the only point, I’m sure): Just like accusing an elementary school teacher of “inappropriate behavior” with a child, harassing Tumbleman with this “troll” stuff means “trolling” will always now be associated with Tumbleman. That is, unless we as a sane, rational community take a step back with cool heads and do what’s right: fix it for Tumbleman. I’m going to stick around until it’s fixed. Oh boy chicken again (talk) 07:05, 17 October 2013 (UTC) Statement by iantresman In the request above,[59] I do not see: any diffs of inappropriate article editing any diff of an initial warning from an involved administrator (per WP:ARB/PS) I do see one link supporting sockpuppetry, (dealt with elsewhere) any more diffs suggestion the use of other dispute resolution options But I am concerned that this request states that the "Editor is an internet troll", the kind of personal attack that leads to a toxic editing environment, per WP:NPA. Diffs of poor behaviour are self-evident. refers to "this subtle trolling", suggesting it is imperceptible, and probably not worth mentioning states that "The editor also refuses to stop highlighting my name". Doesn't come across as a hanging offence states "deliberate cluelessness". ? !!! In conclusion, I see no diffs suggesting disruptive editing or substandard behaviour, suggesting that there is no case to answer. Reading through Talk:Rupert Sheldrake, posts from Tumbleman appear to be civil, measured and reasoned. There is no requirement for one editor to agree with another. To quote The Cap'n: "That's not a banning offense, that's just persistence. He hasn't tried to vandalize the page, get users banned spuriously or otherwise behaved unethically. Unpopularity shouldn't get you banned from Wikipedia."[60] To quote Tom Butler (commenting on a specific post): "Tumbleman's suggestions and observations are well-reasoned. I suggest we use them as the standard for neutrality and test for edits"[61] Comments following temporary re-opening I've expressed my displeasure at the conclusion of this process here.[62] I am concerned that consensus among editors who are familiar with Tumbleman was 55% against sanactions. It seems to be a nonsense to invite comments, and not appear to take them into consideration. I see comparisons to the Community sanction noticeboard (CSN, that was closed because it was flawed. See CSN closure nomination. Now that I think of it, I see no difference. --Iantresman (talk) 20:28, 17 October 2013 (UTC) --Iantresman (talk) 09:57, 17 October 2013 (UTC) Statement by TheRedPenOfDoom WP:BURO, but as pointed out by iantresman above, I am not aware that Tumbleman (talk · contribs) actually received a specific warning about Discretionary Sanctions. Did I miss it? -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 11:50, 17 October 2013 (UTC) Discussion @Barney, it may be best not to side track the discussion and instead focus on the specific case in hand. WP:AE set up to handle single cases and primarily relies on diff based evidence (adding diffs of problematic behaviour would be extremely helpful). Thanks, IRWolfie- (talk) 15:19, 16 October 2013 (UTC) Tumbleman is still continuing to highlight me despite my insistence that he doesn't [63]. IRWolfie- (talk) 07:24, 17 October 2013 (UTC) Result concerning Tumbleman This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the section above. It's important to understand that technical findings from the checkuser tool need to be interpreted in the context of behavioral evidence, not in isolation. In this case, the combination of technical data from checkuser with behavioral evidence is more than sufficient to view this as a case of abusive sockpuppetry, and I agree with User:Mark Arsten's handling of the sockpuppet investigation. In my view, there is more than enough evidence here to impose discretionary sanctions on Tumbleman (talk · contribs). Leaving aside the abuse of multiple accounts (which is probably sufficient in and of itself), there's an issue here which could be described as WP:COMPETENCE (charitably) or intentional trolling (less charitably). The overall impact of Tumbleman and associated accounts on the topic area has clearly been disruptive. I would favor an indefinite topic ban from topics connected with pseudoscience/fringe science, broadly construed, to be reviewed at Tumbleman's request should he develop evidence of constructive editing in other topic areas. I would propose to hold off on imposing any sanction until Tumbleman's current sockpuppetry block expires and he is able to participate here. I'd also like to hear the views of other uninvolved admins, as a sanity check, before proceeding with any sort of sanction. MastCell Talk 18:46, 16 October 2013 (UTC) Sweet Jesus, what a time sink. The only reason I'm not blocking indef right now is because I'm only online for a little while tonight, and I can't guarantee being available to reply to people who disagree (I'm disappointed to see there isn't unanimity for blocking). But I'm all for pulling the plug on this now; This user is pure WP:SOUP, and I don't see any reason to wait a week and let them play silly buggers here on this page too, or find some other topic area to do the exact same thing on. I can't solve all the problems with that article talk page - I simply don't have the time - but I can spot low hanging fruit when I see it. This is low hanging fruit. --Floquenbeam (talk) 23:13, 16 October 2013 (UTC) I personally think this is likely just a troll. The email he sent me did nothing to help me decide whether this is socking or account sharing. The CU data is consistent with account sharing. However, it is also consistent with somebody knowingly evading IP blocks, and messing up once. I'd also consider blocking the other, though technically  Unlikely, sock if he is indefinitely blocked, since it is from a similar location and the behavior is a perfect match. Reaper Eternal (talk) 02:34, 17 October 2013 (UTC) I'd support an indefinite block of Tumbleman per WP:SOUP, as argued by User:Floquenbeam. The editor seems not to be here to help the encyclopedia. Even when a person holds non-mainstream views you would expect to see some flashes of sincerity and a genuine point that they are trying to express. But Tumbleman seems happy to keep the discussion going in circles. EdJohnston (talk) 04:34, 17 October 2013 (UTC) This is a thoroughly disruptive editor, and either a troll or else someone with serious WP:COMPETENCE issues, as well as a WP:BATTLEGROUND approach to other editors, and god knows how many other problems. I personally think that TROLL is more likely than COMPETENCE, but it really doesn't matter which it is, as the end result is the same: an editor who gives no benefit to the project, and wastes a lot of people's time that could be spent more constructively. The question is when, not whether, he eventually gets indefinitely blocked, and the longer we delay the more time is wasted. The only reason given in this section for not indef-blocking immediately is MastCell's suggestion of waiting for the present block to expire, to give him a chance to respond here. However, I invited him to post responses on his talk page, together with a request for them to be copied here, and he has chosen not to do so. (He has posted stuff on his talk page relating to this case, but not asked for it to be copied here. If I though that this was a misunderstanding i would copy it here anyway, but I don't think it is. I think it is all part of the SOUP stuff, and to a large extent a ploy to enable him to say "I can't defend myself at WP:AE because I'm blocked, so please unblock me," which he has said. In any case, anyone assessing this case is perfectly free to read it on his talk page, and take it into account.) With that reason for delay out of the way, it seems to me that there is a clear admin consensus here for an immediate indef-block. The only reason I am not doing that myself is that I already have some involvement with him in relation to blocks, having both declined an unblock request and removed talk page access, and I would prefer another admin to make the final decision. JamesBWatson (talk) 13:12, 17 October 2013 (UTC) Result is indef block per WP:NOTHERE. Block applied, will close. Zad68 13:24, 17 October 2013 (UTC) I apologize for my own mistake here. I had erroneously closed this as an WP:AE action, and that was not correct. I have applied an indef WP:NOTHERE block to Tumbleman as an individual administrator action, based on my assessment of the consensus above. I have re-opened this AE request to allow any further discussion, and will leave it to another to close. Zad68 19:10, 17 October 2013 (UTC) I don't see a lot to add here. You have an consensus among the commenting admins for an indefinite block. It makes sense to clarify that the indef block is a routine admin action rather than an AE action, since that distinction is relevant to Tumbleman's options for appeal. Beyond that, I'd suggest re-closing. The block can be appealed or discussed in the usual venues, including via the {{unblock}} template or on WP:AN. MastCell Talk 20:28, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

NovaSkola

Two month AE block. Indefinitely banned from everything related to Armenia and Azerbaijan, but with a sports exemption. EdJohnston (talk) 15:31, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Request concerning NovaSkola User who is submitting this request for enforcement Երևանցի talk 20:28, 19 October 2013 (UTC) User against whom enforcement is requested NovaSkola (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Sanction or remedy to be enforced Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Armenia-Azerbaijan_2#Amended_Remedies_and_Enforcement Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it NovaSkola edited articles that are in violation of his 6-month topic ban from everything related to Armenia or Azerbaijan (2 June 2013) Oct 1 Azerbaijani diaspora Oct 1 British Azerbaijanis Oct 8 Azerbaijanis in Russia Oct 12 Azerbaijan Oct 12 Ashiqs of Azerbaijan Oct 12 Meykhana Oct 12 Mugham Oct 12 created List of Azerbaijani inventions and discoveries Diffs of notifications or of prior warnings against the conduct objected to (if required) Warned on 31 Dec 2012 by Toddst1 (talk · contribs) Additional comments by editor filing complaint Despite being under a 6-month topic ban, NovaSkola edited an Azerbaijani football article, for which he/she got blocked for 48 hours on 3 June 2013 On 2 Oct 2013, NovaSkola wrote on Sandstein's talk page about the Khojaly Massacre: "I want to ask is someone can remove normal reference by just saying fake? Due I've noticed in here, perfect reference has been removed without constructive discussion." A few days ago, when I asked User:EdJohnston about NovaSkola's recent edits, NovaSkola (still under a topic ban) wrote on EdJohnston's talk page about the same thing: "I wrote to Sandstein but he didn't reply." Is this not WP:CANVASS? Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested [64] Discussion concerning NovaSkola 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 NovaSkola I'm sick and tired of Yerevanci following me and trying to do everything so I get eternal ban, especially when I didn't violate any Karabakh related topic. I urge admins to check my edits and find any relation to Karabakh related discussion. Furthermore, I urge admins to warn Yerevanci for constantly bullying me.--NovaSkola (talk) 00:14, 20 October 2013 (UTC) As for User:EdJohnston, I didn't know that u didn't allowed to discuss even on talk page. But as you see, I didn't break the law after EdJohnston's explanation.--NovaSkola (talk) 02:40, 20 October 2013 (UTC) I'm not surprised by double standards in Wikipedia. Especially, your bans regarding Azerbaijani users. You didn't even question where this random user https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Lothar_von_Richthofen from nowhere appeared and accusing me of something, despite I've never seen him before. It doesn't take a lot of logic to know it is clone of Yerevanci and Sandstein is pro-armenian admin that loves to ban Azerbaijani users due his biased view.--NovaSkola (talk) 17:41, 20 October 2013 (UTC) Statement by Lothar von Richthofen While it's true that NS was granted a specific exception, it was for sports and sports alone. None of these diffs have anything to do with sports, so the exception does not apply here. Given the fact that he's already been slapped with a monthlong block for violating the ban in spite of those clearly defined "parole conditions", he doesn't have much WP:ROPE left here, and the diffs provided clearly demonstrate a continuing pattern of NS continually gaming the limits of his topic ban. On their own, one or two of these edits might be grounds for an admonishment. But viewed together and in broader context, it's clear that NS is simply trying to find and exploit weak spots in his ban. NS of course comes back with the same lame excuse that he tried to make in July that "it wasn't about war or politics so it's ok!!!" No, it isn't. There is no way at this point that NS is not completely aware that he is banned from "everything related to Armenia or Azerbaijan for six months", save for sports. Indeed, the fact that he sought fit to even bring his exception up in the thread below shows he's well aware of the conditions. But in my eyes, the posts re: trying to edit at Khojaly Massacre are probably the most egregious. These are unambiguously edits about war and politics. While he stopped short of editing the article itself, it's clear from that he was really itching to get back into it. Forumshopping on the admin talkpages to try to get back into one of the most bitter aspects of the banned topic is like trying to buy drugs from known cops while wearing an obvious ankle monitor. To top it all off, NS went and shot himself in both feet by filing the WP:BATTLEGROUND countercomplaint below. It's clear that NS has no intentions of dropping the AA WP:STICK and respecting the conditions of his topic ban in spite of past sanctions against him. Admonishments, warnings, and exceptions are clearly insufficient at this point. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 05:30, 20 October 2013 (UTC) Hm, so I'm a "clone of Yerevanci"? As in a sockpuppet? Given that I've been around for over 4-1/2 years and have well over 17,000 contributions under my belt (few of which overlap significantly with Yerevanci's), that's a fairly serious accusation. As is accusing Sandstein of a partisan bias, especially considering that he himself sanctioned Yerevanci earlier this year. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 20:56, 20 October 2013 (UTC) Statement My very best wishes This is obvious and multiple topic ban violation. I agree with Lothar von Richthofen and suggestion by Sandstein below. My very best wishes (talk) 01:50, 22 October 2013 (UTC) I think suggestion by Sandstein is better because editing of sports by NS looks POVish and nationalistic to me [65] (removal of sourced text without edit summary), however I only checked a few his most recent edits.My very best wishes (talk) 19:51, 22 October 2013 (UTC) On a second thought, I am not so sure if any additional sanctions are warranted. All violations are cosmetic edits related to Azerbaijan. This request looks to me as excessive and an example of WP:BATTLE (all these edits by NS should be allowed per WP:IAR). P.S. What usually happens in such cases are two ethnic "teams" getting disengaged, each keeping their own "turf", i.e. Azerbaijan and Armenia-related subjects, respectively. Not in this request.My very best wishes (talk) 17:15, 23 October 2013 (UTC) Statement by EatsShootsAndLeaves Moved here by an administrator; the comment refers to EdJohnston's comment of 16:27, 20 October 2013, below.  Sandstein  08:49, 23 October 2013 (UTC) I concur ES&L 08:42, 23 October 2013 (UTC) Statement by (username) Result concerning NovaSkola This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the section above. The request is actionable. NovaSkola is subject to a topic ban from everything related to Armenia or Azerbaijan until 2 December 2013, with an exception relating to sports. The edits at issue violate this topic ban, as does NovaSkola's vexatious request for sanctions against Yerevanci, below. NovaSkola has already been blocked twice for violating the topic ban, for 48 hours and one month respectively. Considering their continued and wilful noncompliance with their editing restriction, I consider that it would be appropriate to extend the topic ban's duration to indefinite, remove the sports exemption and block NovaSkola for two months (doubling the last block's duration as usual).  Sandstein  10:31, 20 October 2013 (UTC) I agree with another block, and with making the topic ban indefinite. However I don't see the need for such a wide ban, and I'd be OK with a simple ban from edits regarding the AA conflict on all pages of Wikipedia. NovaSkola's routine edits on general Azerbaijan matters although technically against his existing ban were not troublesome. I'd also prefer to keep his sports exemption. EdJohnston (talk) 16:27, 20 October 2013 (UTC) Considering NovaSkola's history of topic ban violations (which shows that they are not able or willing to comply with even simple restrictions) and their history of very extensive, often querulous wiki-litigation about details of their topic ban, I am of the view that only a broadly circumscribed topic ban is practical. If not, I anticipate very long and tiring discussions about whether any given edit about, say, the population or history of Azerbaijan is related to the conflict. For this reason, I am not in agreement with reducing the scope of the topic ban.  Sandstein  17:56, 20 October 2013 (UTC) It's possible that nobody will make further comments. Two admins have proposed different responses. I would wait a day and see if Sandstein will close this per his preference. If it's left to me I would go ahead with the two-month block and the indefinite topic ban from both Armenia and Azerbaijan but keep the sports exception. EdJohnston (talk) 15:39, 22 October 2013 (UTC) OK, I suppose we can always revisit that issue if there are problematic sports edits.  Sandstein  08:38, 23 October 2013 (UTC) Closing. NovaSkola is blocked two months. He is indefinitely banned from everything related to Armenia and Azerbaijan but with a sports exemption. EdJohnston (talk) 15:28, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

Yerevanci

This request is vexatious and not actionable. Sanctions against the requesting editor, NovaSkola, are discussed in the section about the request concerning them above.  Sandstein  10:24, 20 October 2013 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
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 Yerevanci User who is submitting this request for enforcement --NovaSkola (talk) 02:54, 20 October 2013 (UTC) User against whom enforcement is requested Yerevanci (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Sanction or remedy to be enforced Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Armenia-Azerbaijan_2#Amended_Remedies_and_Enforcement Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it Yerevanci, removed perfect referenced images, and references and places without having constructive argument. Furthermore, user always breaches laws by directly attacking me, which I believe breaches Wikipedia:WikiBullying]'s Making "no-edit" orders contrary to policy as seem here [66] Turkish people My evidence also backed by breach of WP:NPOV due this user breaches neutrality and constantly attacks other user, which is me in this case. Moreover, Yerevanci tried to convince user Edjohnston in here to ban me on wrong topics such as sports, even though user Sandstein allowed me to write on topics as seen here https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:EdJohnston&diff=577729225&oldid=577728146 This user also adds biased material as seen in 2013 Moscow riots article. [67] Turkish people [68] 2013 Moscow riots [69] 1904 Sasun uprising --NovaSkola (talk) 02:58, 20 October 2013 (UTC) Diffs of notifications or of prior warnings against the conduct objected to (if required) He have already been notified [70]] and topic banned for month previously about the possibility of discretionary sanctions under the authority of the Committee's decision at WP:ARBAA2. By seeking to add this sort of content to Wikipedia, and with your arguments in this thread, you are misusing Wikipedia to argue in favor of your views regarding the political conflict between Armenia and Azerbaijan. --NovaSkola (talk) 02:58, 20 October 2013 (UTC) Additional comments by editor filing complaint Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested [71] Discussion concerning Yerevanci 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 Yerevanci Statement by Lothar von Richthofen My, how the worm turns. I find it kind of funny that one of the clique of editors who immediately began nastily biting Yerevanci when he first started out here now has the nerve to—falsely, as demonstrated below—complain about being "bullied" by him. NS claims "direct attacks", but none of his diffs support that. In fact, it doesn't seem as though they support really anything actionable at all: Disputes about ethnoinfoboxes are rarely a good thing to get involved in, but in this case Yerevanci was simply reverting an undiscussed and potentially contentious addition by a single-edit IP. A one-off revert—not even light edit-warring. Maybe the only "questionable" edit here, but it's quite mild. Changing the potentially-pejorative term "migrant" to the neutral-to-mildly-positive "citizen" doesn't qualify as pushing a POV, and neither does copyediting. Removing external links to a foreign-language site isn't POV-pushing either. Additionally, while NS is gleefully jumping up and down about Ed referring the matter here, I'd like to point out that A) nowhere does he say that NS is off the hook and B) nothing is said there about Sandstein's exceptions to the TBan. All it does is show that Ed (understandably) would prefer not to take unilateral action in a contentious topic area. Having looked at the most up-to-date diff of Ed's talkpage rather than the older one that NS oddly chose to post, it seems that Ed directed Yerevanci to Sandstein for further clarification. Yerevanci did just that, and Sandstein, finding it potentially actionable, recommended it be taken here. So: seeing a potential violation, Yerevanci didn't run screaming for the 'boards, but presented it to two knowledgable admins—a reasonable course of action. What's more, the last two edits are precisely the opposite of what someone would expect an "Armenian POV-pusher" to make in this topic area. Asserting that Azeris are not just criminal "migrants" and removing links to a Genocide awareness site? If anything, it shows a conscious effort to control his own POV, which is to be applauded. Really, it seems to me that NS's core issue with these edits is that he doesn't like that an Armenian gets to edit in Turco-Azeri topic areas while he—an Azeri—doesn't get to do the same. This is a deeply problematic mentality in such a topic area. Put simply, this is a meritless tit-for-tat complaint—sloppily lodged by NS to try to one-up Yerevanci in classic WP:BATTLEGROUND fashion. This should be viewed in context of the serial violations listed in the above complaint and closed with prejudice. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 04:15, 20 October 2013 (UTC) Statement by (username) Result concerning Yerevanci This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the section above. When you are topic-banned from an area you can't file complaints about someone else's edits in that topic area. See WP:TBAN. NovaSkola's filing of this report looks sanctionable to me. Complaining about someone else doesn't fit under WP:BAN#Exceptions to limited bans. EdJohnston (talk) 05:38, 20 October 2013 (UTC) Agreed. This request violates NovaSkola's topic ban. It is also manifestly frivolous, as none of the reported edits appear, at least as far as I can tell, to violate any conduct rule; they seem to reflect simple content disputes. I am closing this as not actionable. What to do about NovaSkola can be discussed in the section about the request concerning them, above.  Sandstein  10:21, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

198.189.184.243

The IPs are blocked for violating the topic ban, and the article Rupert Sheldrake is indefinitely semiprotected.  Sandstein  06:57, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
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 198.189.184.243 User who is submitting this request for enforcement vzaak (talk) 15:50, 20 October 2013 (UTC) User against whom enforcement is requested 198.189.184.243 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 71.202.210.61 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 24.130.19.195 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Sanction or remedy to be enforced User_talk:198.189.184.243#Topic_ban_from_fringe_science The three IPs listed are the same person per Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive811#Persistent_disruptions_from_an_editor_with_multiple_IPs. Sanctions warning was given for warring at Rupert Sheldrake User_talk:198.189.184.243#Articles_of_interest_to_you_are_covered_by_discretionary_sanctions_under_WP:ARBPS Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it 23:25, 20 October 2013 continuing to war 09:44, 20 October 2013‎ editing Sheldrake article 10:15, 20 October 2013‎ editing Sheldrake article 10:35, 20 October 2013‎ editing Sheldrake article 23:11, 8 October 2013 editing Sheldrake talk page 20:12, 7 October 2013 This and other mass postings at Talk:Séralini_affair#Seralini_validated_by_new_EFSA_guidelines_on_long-term_GMO_experiments Diffs of notifications or of prior warnings against the conduct objected to (if required) Warned on 23:05, 24 September 2013 by EdJohnston (talk · contribs) Additional comments by editor filing complaint I had previously filed a complaint at ANI but no action was taken Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive814#198.189.184.243_violating_topic_ban (probably the wrong place). User is an outright vandal as well [72]. Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested [73] [74] [75] Discussion concerning 198.189.184.243 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 198.189.184.243 Seralini affair is not under the category "fringe science", so there is no reason for action in that sense. Furthermore, I did not edit that article, but put my concerns I do not recognize the legitimacy of the initial topic ban, since I was merely trying to get the article to reflect WP:MEDRS compliant reviews, and editors made original research to attempt to nullify the reviews - and when I controverted them on the relevant talk page, my refutation of their argument was removed. Editors were violating the provisions of WP:DEM in misrepresenting perfectly legitimate sources, and I noted on the talk page of the editor that he was violating a provision of WP:RGW which allows alternative views to be reflected if solid sources support them: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:EdJohnston/Archive_31#POV_push I maintain that administrators may act against me for this, but there actions do not have a legitimate basis and are akin to the political corruption in Maoist or Soviet systems where influence and adherence to the party line are what give the editor power. Regarding Sheldrake - Sheldrake has called the wikipedia article on him "defamatory", so my action was actually helping wikipedia avoid a possible libel suit. For one, Sheldrake does not specifically advocate over-unity devices, but suggests a prize, similar to the JREF one million dollar challenge (though as Will Storr's 'The Heretics' shows, Randi is not intellectually honest). In other cases, legitimate sources like the JCS C were omitted, or rebuttals to Wiseman in the same journal he published in were omitted, and I added that in so as to avoid the article making claims that are one sided and border on falsehood. The latest version of my edit is here - ti would be good for editors to use it as a foundation: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Rupert_Sheldrake&diff=578041997&oldid=57803114771.202.210.61 (talk) 23:40, 20 October 2013 (UTC) Statement by vzaak Considering that, in addition to the recent violation, there was a previous violation with notifications given on all IPs [76] [77] [78], it doesn't appear that the user respects the ban. I doubt that a 1-month block will do much (these violations are already somewhat far apart), but that's just my hunch. vzaak (talk) 18:29, 20 October 2013 (UTC) Added new diff; user continues to war. vzaak (talk) 23:33, 20 October 2013 (UTC) Statement by BullRangifer Please semi-protect the Sheldrake article. -- Brangifer (talk) 04:28, 21 October 2013 (UTC) Result concerning 198.189.184.243 This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the section above. This seems actionable, and a one-month block of these IPs appears appropriate. Possibly a soft block, since the main IP is registered to a school. That's probably also the explanation for the instance of routine schoolboy vandalism cited in the report; it seems unlikely that it was made by the person whose actions are at issue here. Sandstein  17:58, 20 October 2013 (UTC) Closing. The IPs are blocked for violating the topic ban, and the article Rupert Sheldrake (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) is indefinitely semiprotected.  Sandstein  06:56, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

Arbitration enforcement action appeal by Dolovis

Wrong place. Appeal of a community ban should go to WP:AN. EdJohnston (talk) 05:27, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Appealing user Dolovis Sanction being appealed Topic ban from from “moving, redirecting/making diacritic related redirects, or otherwise changing titles of articles that have diacritics in the titles', broadly construed”, imposed at [79] and with a clarification of the meaning of “broadly construed” given here. Administrator imposing the sanction :28bytes The administrator has been notified of this appeal. Statement by Dolovis I am requesting that the topic ban imposed upon me on January 5, 2012 be lifted. I am an experienced editor, and a review of my edit history will demonstrate that a topic ban is not required. This topic ban is preventing me from legitimately contesting controversial moves per WP:BRD such as this one, or from even taking part in move discussions such as this one. I thank you for your consideration. Dolovis (talk) 21:16, 21 October 2013 (UTC) Statement by 28bytes Dolovis notified me about this appeal, but I should note that the topic ban being discussed was not enacted as an arbitration enforcement action. Rather, I closed a community discussion at AN/I as an uninvolved administrator. I have no particular opinion on whether the topic ban should be lifted, but I believe the correct venue for deciding that would be another community discussion (e.g. at WP:AN) or perhaps an appeal to ArbCom. 28bytes (talk) 21:40, 21 October 2013 (UTC) Statement by (involved editor 1) Statement by (involved editor 2) Discussion among uninvolved editors about the appeal by Dolovis Result of the appeal by Dolovis This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above. As stated above by User:28bytes, Dolovis is trying to appeal a topic ban issued by the community per an ANI discussion, in January 2012. Since the ban was not issued under discretionary sanctions AE does not have any jurisdiction. Most likely you should be appealing at WP:AN. EdJohnston (talk) 22:06, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

Cavann

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 Cavann

User who is submitting this request for enforcement

Proudbolsahye (talk) 07:54, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

User against whom enforcement is requested

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

Sanction or remedy to be enforced

WP:ARBMAC

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

Edit-warring

Cavann has a long history of edit-warring. He has been warned numerous times over this throughout his/her relatively short career as a Wikipedia editor. Warnings given:

• [80] (23 March 2013)
• [81] (24 April 2013)
• [82] (23 May 2013)
• [83] (2 September 2013)
• [84] (28 September 2013)
• [85] (20 October 2013)
• [86] (20 October 2013)

Even after such warnings, the user continued edit-warring without resorting to the talk page of the article for discussion, even when told by other editors to do so. I think this best exemplifies his WP:OWN behavior in the articles, especially in article he heavily edits in. Some examples:

• [87][88][89] (20 October 2013) (told to go to talk: [90])
• [91][92] (this lead to the GAR assessment)
• [93][94][95]

As shown here, there's no doubt the user reverts more than anyone else. At times, pages have been subjugated to page protection as a result of edit-warring s/he was heavily involved in:

• [96][97]

Incivil and uncooperative

Some examples before the warning:

• [98][99] (19 August 2013)

After the warning, it continues:

• [100] (7 September 2013)
• [101] added more to the same comment...[102] (25 September 2013)
• [103] (28 September 2013)
• [104] (22 October 2013)
• [105] (22 October 2013)
• [106] (22 October 2013)
• [107] (20 October 2013)

Personal attacks and labels

Some prior to his/her ARBMAC warning on 26 August:

• "Rv. Not this far-right Greek crap again" (19 August 2013)
• I have very little tolerance for nonsensical edits. I note that you have ARBCOM topic bans, I will go directly to there if you attempt to disrupt this article. This one is quite disturbing. Yerevanci made a harmless edit, yet Cavann bullies on his talk page under the header entitled: "Potential disruption of Turkish people".

Even after the ARBMAC warning issued on 26 August and along with two other warnings ([108][109]), the user continued his personal attacks of other editors:

• [110] (29 August 2013)
• [111] (7 September 2013)
• [112] (23 September 2013)
• Has been threatening the same users of ARB sanctions for two months now with often unnecessary warnings: [113][114][115][116][117][118][119][120][121][122]

Battlefield - separating users on the basis of ethnicity

• [123] (26 September 2013)

Baseless and unnecessary remarks stating that some users are non-native English speakers:

• [124][125][126][127][128]

Tendentious editing

• On 28 September 2013, I opened a discussion on the concern that the Turkish people article lacked any content about Turkification. On 30 September, I made a note saying "this information must be expanded once the protection is over." Due to the contentiousness of the article at the time, when it had already gone through its second page protection, I waited for any objections to my proposal until 20 October, when I finally made the addition to the article. Once I made the edit, it was entirely reverted under the pretext that I "falsified" sources. I agreed to conform the wording with another edit. That edit too was reverted under the pretext of "Rv. Falsification of sources again. Akçam (2012) says Turkification was assimilation (which failed with Armenians), not genocide. Will warn Proudbolsahye.)". This source happened to be an entirely different one. Immediately after this revert, Cavann unhesitatingly gave me an ARBMAC warning for "falisfying" sources, even though I showed that I'm willing to comply with the wording of the sentence from my previous edit. Additional sources were then added by Yerevanci (talk · contribs) which provided additional verification of the claim that Turkification was indeed one of the policies implemented during the campaigns of ethnic cleansing and expulsion of Greeks and the Armenian Genocide. Cavann reverted the entire edit once more under the pretext, "Rv. Source falsification. 2 editors (Proudbolsahye and Alexikoua) warned. Despite newer sources, sources such as Akcam 2012 still misrepresented." By this time, Cavann warned Alexikoua (who had reverted earlier) and threatened to send Yerevanci to AE on Sandstein (talk · contribs)'s talkpage. His recent edit, makes a deliberate attempt of concealing any sort of mention of Turkification in relation to ethnic cleansing and expulsion of Greeks and Armenians when in fact, all 5 sources support the claim.

This has been an important development, so I am compelled to summarize and elaborate some additional points a bit further:

• Cavann accused four users of source falsification in a dozen or so edits in a matter of a day: ([129][130][131][132][133][134][135][136][137][138][139][140])

• The user has not once referred to the talk page of the article to dispute the content even when me and other users told him to do so several times: ([141][142][143][144]).

• The user returns to my talk page even after I transcluded the content dispute from my talk page to the talk page of the Turkish people article in view of the fact that he was not willing to dispute the content on the TP of the article. After I made my case regarding the contextual basis of the source by removing the page number in the citation, he warns me for "falsification of sources" on my talk page once more and threatens to send me to ARBCOM again. In the warning, he claims that I "deleted" the content on my talk page when in fact, I have made it evidently clear that I transcluded the discussion to the appropriate talk page in the edit-summaries ([145][146]). Meanwhile, he accuses Yerevanci and Alexikoua on their talk pages for source falsification once again, even though they have not made one edit to the article and were uninvolved with the dispute since his initial warnings he had given them. The warnings given to the users were completely unnecessary and of bad faith.

• I have provided my reasons as to why I believe there are no falsification of sources on the talk page of Turkish people. In fact, the entire contextual basis of Akcam's book attests to the fact that one of the main reasons behind the Armenian Genocide is to Turkify or homogenize non-Turkish elements in the Empire. Even if there is some sort of misrepresentation, the user insists to use that source since its terminology is his best bet of concealing Turkification by swapping the term with homogenization. Though there are 5 sources that support the claim, he evidently refuses to use the terminology of the other sources which specifically use the word Turkification since it apparently sounds more direct. Above all, I find no plausible reason to remove the addition entirely just because he believes some of the wording is "different", especially when many argue that they are similar, if not identical in terms of connotation.

• Even after Antidiskriminator (talk · contribs) points out the problematic behavior on his talk page ([147]), Cavann replied, "I can not take this seriously." Thereafter, Cavann continued accusing users of "falsifying sources" ([148]) on their talk pages. In addition to this, in the same article, Alexikoua added a QN tag to Turkish people [149]. Cavann unhesitatingly went to Alexikoua's talk page and started a new section entitled "False tag" even after a second warning was issued by another user.

Diffs of notifications or of prior warnings against the conduct objected to (if required)

1. Warned on 26 August 2013 by Athenean (talk · contribs)

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

[150]

@Sandstein: To make the job easier for you, or any other admin for that matter, I can safely say that Cavanns' accusations towards me aren't actionable since I was given my first ARBCOM warning from Cavann himself less than a week ago on 20 October. All accusations laid forth by Cavann point to dates before 20 October. Proudbolsahye (talk) 15:17, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

Discussion concerning Cavann

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 Cavann

• Additional editors being reported: Alexikoua (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (diff of notification: [151])
• Diffs of notifications or of prior warnings against the conduct objected to for Alexikoua: Many. Last one: [152]
• Additional sanction or remedy to be enforced: WP:ARBAA2
• Relevant policies: (WP:BATTLE, WP:SOAP, Wikipedia:Disruptive editing, Wikipedia:Tendentious editing)
• Original response [153]

First of all, let me apologize for the excessive length of this response. In order to explain my behaviour, I have to explain the long-term problems I have encountered with 3 editors, Athenean, Alexikoua, and Proudbolsahye. These editors revert in tag-teams and seem to WP:GAME in addition to other problematic behaviour.

Responses to Proudbolsahye and Athenean

First of all, let me begin by acknowledging that I should have been more civil. I have admitted this before [154] and have tried to be more civil since then. I believe I have improved since then and will continue to improve with respect to this. Some specific answers:

• 1) I encourage administrators evaluating this case to read all the diffs and consider the context

For example, this edit of mine [155] sounds really bad when only this part is quoted "LOL, you learn to read first before throwing around words." However, I also address the issue ("Various sources start with prehistory, Hittites, etc, (books, US Library of Congress country profile, etc) when they are starting history of Turkey."). Moreover, it should also be considered in the context of what the other editor has said to me ("This is like an asylum taken over by a madman" [156], "By being insane of course", [157]).

"I guess English is not your first language." [158] also sounds like an attack, but read the rest of it "That is not what the quote says. It says the cultural shifts occured in middle ages."

• 2) Some accusations are misleading

eg: "Cavann has displayed a pattern of disruptive editing in topics related to Greeks and Turkey"

I have -not once- edited an article solely related to Greeks or Greece. I have edited articles that involve bilateral issues such as Great Fire of Smyrna

• 3) Some accusations are factually incorrect

I reject accusations of "Anatolianist POV." My POV is whatever the sources say, with DUE weight. If I had an Anatolianist POV, I would not be making edits such as this (ie: adding Turkic people) [159]

I reject accusations of "ethnic baiting." This [160] in response to this [161] is not ethnic baiting. Even Athenean modifies his proposal [162]

• 4) Accusations of edit-warring and tendentious editing.

The diffs against me are artificially inflated, as I have been running into problems with the same group of editors over and over, mainly the 3 editors that will be presented in this report. For example, Proudbolsahye provided 7 diffs of warnings for edit-warring. Among these warnings, only 1 warning was related to an issue that does not involve Athenean, Alexikoua, or Proudbolsahye. [163]

I have been the one that is quoting sources mostly in Talk:Turkish_people, whereas Athenean, Alexikoua, or Proudbolsahye usually provides opinions, rather than reliable sources.

I have tried to use dispute resolution processes such as requesting dispute resolution [164]. Given the backlog at DRN, the request was archived without volunteer attention. I was planning to move to formal mediation.

Sometimes reverting was the only way to get attention at the talk page, as editors such as Athenean only engaged in reverts with minimal talk page discussion (see Behaviour of Athenean, 2nd point)

Behaviour of Proudbolsahye

• 1) Proudbolsahye almost elusively edits "Turkey-negative" articles. This is not a problem in itself, but becomes questionable given the totality of his behaviour.

See edit analysis from wikicheker.com: [165]

• 2) Proudbolsahye works closely with User:Yerevanci, who was previously sanctioned by ARBCOM and seems to be a far-right nationalist editor.

Yerevanci’s sandbox pages are among the most edited pages of Proudbolsahye; both editors cooperate on a large number articles; lots of messages in each others’ talk pages.

User:Yerevanci had written in his user page that he supported creation "Greater Germany’esque" United Armenia, which “can be earned by force,”[166] that political views were “nationalism,”[167]. Also had a list of bunch of far-right parties in Europe, with their vote percentages.[168]

Yerevanci was previously topic-banned [169]

• 3) Proudbolsahye engages in long-term plagiarism and close paraphrasing.

As early as 2008, Proudbolsahye was being warned about close paraphrasing and plagiarism by bots [170]

This behaviour seems to have continued. As noted by another editor: "I'm trying to fix your long pattern of disruptive editing with chronic close paraphrasing and plagiarism (and keep my cool while doing so)" [171])

It seems to be taking days for other editors to fix it in one of the articles. See the giant thread: Talk:Confiscated_Armenian_properties_in_Turkey#Close_paraphrasing

• 4) Proudbolsahye did falsify sources. This is especially problematic given his Turkey-negative edit history.

Adds "the genocidal campaigns against both minorities" [172], even though the sources did not support it (see explanation here, with a quote from the source [173])

Keeps insisting on adding a definition unsupported from the source [174], removes page number where the term is specifically defined to preserve his definition unsupported by the source [175]

This was especially problematic, because by defining "Turkification" as forced assimilation and/or ethnic cleansing, genocide etc, in the body of the article, this part in the lead "However, it was the arrival of Seljuk Turks which also brought the Turkish language and Islam into Anatolia in the 11th century, which started the process of Turkification of various peoples in the region" became obvious POV-pushing. Turkification was added into the lead by Proudbolsahye [176]

Relevant full threads: [177], User_talk:Proudbolsahye#Falsification_of_sources_again, User_talk:Athenean#Falsification_of_sources)

• 5) Proudbolsahye did edit war in Turkish people, and then removed the GA status unilaterally even though he was involved in a content dispute. This was criticized in the ANI thread he filed (Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive814#GA_reassessment_on_Turkish_people). He claimed to be working for betterment of Wikipedia, even when his own article, Confiscated Armenian properties in Turkey -which passed GAR-, was found to contain "extensive close paraphrasing", as pointed by another editor here [178] (and that text was written by himself).

Behaviour of Athenean

• 1) Athenean has a very very very very long history of disruptive editing.

Has been blocked 3 times before edit-warring about Greek-nationalistic issues (i.e., issues related to Greece's neighbours).[179]

Has been sanctioned under ARBMAC 5 times [180] [181] [182] [183] [184]

Last sanction was in 2011, because Athenean WP:GAMEs the system now.

• 2) Athenean's very very very very long history of disruptive editing continues
  • A very old sanction: "To me, this seems like the only option to get you to engage strictly in talk page discussion rather than edit warring. Nishkid64 (Make articles, not wikidrama) 18:32, 22 August 2009 (UTC)" [185]
  • Although Athenean is too experienced to simply violate 3RR, he edit-wars by tag-teaming and gaming system. He also engages in long-term edit wars and tendentious editing such as this not participating in talk page discussion, unless right before or right after a revert.
  • Eg: Pattern of slow edit warring, while ignoring discussion at talk page: 29 August 2013, 2 September 2013, 02:04, 3 September 2013‎ (Athenean ignores the discussion, except his posts right after the revert. Without any response for 2 days, I make changes; barely an hour later, Athenean reverts), 17:31, 5 September 2013 (extensive talk page discussions that Athenean ignores. After more than 2 weeks of waiting, I make changes. Despite being absent from the page for so long Athenean reverts barely 30 minutes after my edit), 17:18, 22 September 2013

• • May be involved in Wikipedia:Sock puppetry and WP:edit warring: 00:59, 26 September 2013 by Athenean,02:23, 26 September 2013 by Athenean, 11:08, 26 September 2013 by IP 108.5.45.96, 11:37, 26 September 2013 by IP 108.5.45.96
• 3) Engages in personal attacks and tries to derail my attempts at getting community input through RFC's [186] [187] [188] (I definitely did not file 7 RFC's is less than two weeks).
• 4) Deletes sourced material with frivolous reasons (violation of WP:NPOV)

Comment by another editor [189]

Few examples:

[190] His stated reason was "deeper rv, to last decent version", but deleted the part about Ottoman causalities and ethnic cleansing of Circassians, even though they were reliably sourced.

deletion [191] based on frivolous reasons such as coming up with blatantly incorrect definitions of Western Anatolia [192] or applying a geographic standard that is not applied to other parts of the article [193] (my response [194]) to disassociate relevant events to present his own POV in the article.

Behaviour of Alexikoua

• 1. Alexikoua has a very very very very long history of disruptive editing

Has been blocked 6 times before edit-warring about Greek-nationalistic issues (i.e., issues related to Greece's neighbours; in face, he edit warred in articles about ALL of Greece's neighbours). [195]

Has been sanctioned under ARBMAC 1 time [196]

Last block is recent (15 May 2013) and was due to edit-warring in Yalova Peninsula Massacres (1920–21).

• 2.Similar to Athenean, deletes sourced information with frivolous reasons (violation of WP:NPOV)

Comment from another editor: [197] (similar to Athenean, deletes sourced information saying "rv stable version")

• 3. Alexikoua adds tags disruptively

Asks page numbers from journal articles (one of them 5 pages long), even though they have full citation [198]

Adds dubious warning,[199] even though source strongly supports what it is being cited for (quote from the source: [200]) If he has no access to these journal articles, he should bring his concerns to talk page, before adding frivolous tags.

Adds a tag, saying "Most Ancient Anatolian tribes moved to Anatolia during the Bronze Age, like the Hittites"[201], even though the text specifically says "including various Ancient Anatolian civilizations during the neolithic period." FYI: Ancient Anatolians cover the period of 10,200 BC to 334 BC. Neolithic covers 10,200 BC to 2,000 BC.

• 4. Refuses to acknowledge what the sources say

Refuses to acknowledge Phrygians are Thracian [202], even though source is clear [203] and quote is provided in the talk page [204]. This goes on and on in Talk:Turkish_people#Thracians and in Talk:Turkish_people in general.

Athenean, Alexikoua, and Proudbolsahye tag-teams to revert other editors, and WP:GAME the system to edit war and advance their POVs

• 1) As early as 2010 Athenean and Alexikoua were reverting other editors in tag-teams.

"Nevertheless, Athenean (talk · contribs), Alexikoua (talk · contribs) and Megistias [22][23][24] revert him in tag-team four or five times, in what is apparently a kind of automated knee-jerk reaction for them." comment by Future Perfect at Sunrise in a previous ARBCOM case (ARBCOM case was this: [205])

• 2) Athenean and Alexikoua continue this reverting in tag-team behaviour. Their team now includes Proudbolsahye.

Whenever one of them reverts something, the other 2 seems to follow. Few examples:

Recent examples of this behaviour are in articles: Turkish people List of massacres in Turkey

I undo an edit of Alexikoua in Prehistory of Anatolia [206], Proudbolsahye quickly reverts me [207], even though he had never edited that article before [208]

Various Arbitration enforcement cases filed by any editor involves the other editors. Eg: Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive137#DragonTiger23

Conclusion

I really did not want to get into petty nationalistic issues of the region. Given my interest in prehistory, I have noticed the severe lack of certain perspectives in Turkey-related articles. Because of this, I have gotten into problems with nationalists from all sides (on Turkish side, that would be Turanists as helpfully pointed out by Yalens here [209];User:E4024, who is from Turkey and ran into problems with Athenean, Proudbolsahye, etc thought I was from "South (Greek) Cyprus" [210]).

I have been uncivil at times, but it is very frustrating to see the my hard work, research, and identifying reliable sources being rejected by what I perceive to be POV-pushing. Moreover, my problems with these 3 editors go back months, and I have been encountering the same tag-teaming behaviour. My messages at their talk pages were my attempts to fix the issues, although they also reflected my frustration, when I said things like "Any future attempts at falsifying sources will be referred to ARBCOM."

In the future I will try to be more civil, and will continue to refer issues to the wider community, like I have been doing with RFC's and dispute resolution requests. Now that the Mediation policy has changed, and they let cases without the requirement of DRN (which is backlogged), this should be easier.

One last time, despite the length of this response (my apologies for the length), this response is incomplete. Please do not hesitate to ask for more details.

Additional Brief Comments

• @Gatoclass: & @EdJohnston: I know what seems like genetics-based edit warring looks really bad, but before me the page contained Turanist propaganda (the same ideology of Young Turks who committed genocide), I tried to correct nationalistic creation myths with what science is actually saying. That is why I ran into problems with nationalistic editors from both sides, including Turkish nationalistic editors. Also, while administrators here seems to have handled Greco-Turkish disputes in the past, the previous cases did not look into the tag-team reverting behaviour, even though these editors have brought multiple cases with multiple editors banned. At least not since this 2010 comment by Future Perfect at Sunrise in a previous ARBCOM case with respect to Athenean and Alexikoua. As for the excessive length, I apologize once again, but I could not answer accusations against myself without addressing the long-term tag-team reverting behaviour of 3 editors. If I had ran into problems with only one editor, my response would have been shorter. Cavann ^(talk) 18:10, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

Statement by Athenean

I too have had great difficulty interacting with Cavann, and have several serious concerns regarding his behavior in this topic area.

• I find Cavann is tendentious. Cavann is consistently pushing what appears to be an Anatolianist POV on articles related to Turkey. In Turkish people, he insists on strong wording regarding the descent of the modern Turkish population from the Ancient Anatolians, and wants this mentioned several times throughout the article: in the lede [211], the "History" section [212], the infobox (diff unavailable because infobox used to be separate template that was deleted and merged in the article), as well the "Genetics" section. His interpretation of sources is questionable (particularly regarding the descent of the Turkish people from the ancient Anatolians). He is willing to edit-war to have his way [213] [214]. What I find particularly tendentious is his insistence on repeating the same material throughout the article (for effect), for example mentioning the genetics in the history section. This exchange [215] is a perfect example of how hard it can be to reason with this user. Even though he himself says "Genetics for the the genetics section, history for the history section" he insists on including a long sentence on genetics in the History section, his argument being that it's only a sentence and not an entire paragraph. He wants the statement that the modern Turkish population are the direct descendants of the Ancient Anatolians repeated throughout the article as much as possible and as prominently as possible (4 places at the last count: Lede, Infobox, History section, Genetics section).

• Another good recent example: Here he slow-edit-wars over relatively off-topic archeological material regarding the ancient Anatolians for almost an entire month [216] [217] [218] [219] [220] [221] [222] [223].

• Several months ago it was the same thing at Istanbul: He wants a minor Neolithic settlement mentioned as much as possible, in the infobox [224], the lede [225], the history section [226] and the "Toponymy" section just for good measure [227]. The additions to the lede and Toponymy sections I find particularly tendentious. This is accompanied by edit-warring (diffs not shown because too old, but can be provided upon request), and several rounds of long discussions [228] [229] [230] [231]. Even though a very strong, representative consensus had formed against him, he insisted regardless, starting one talkpage thread after another. Several months later he restarts the same debate with undiminished intensity [232] [233] [234]. Another, virtually identical talkpage thread follows [235], and when an uninvolved editor weighs in against him, this is his response [236]. I find the way he reignited the controversy (after there was a clear consensus against him) several months later particularly disruptive.

• A bit before that, same thing at Turkey: Although numerous modern genetic studies have indicated that the historical Anatolian groups are the primary source of the present-day Turkish population right in the lede of the article, never mind the fact that 1) the article is about Turkey, not the Turkish people, and 2) there are large non-Turkish minorities in Turkey. Again several long rounds of discussion ensure before he backs down, though it is not even clear he actually has [237] [238] [239]. THe net effect of all these long discussions is a signifcant drain on the community, as they typically involve a large number of users.

• Other recent examples of Anatolianist POV-pushing [240], [241] (note highly sarcastic edit summary regarding the Franchthi cave: No one mentioned this, he is exaggerating for effect, implying Alexikoua will eventually claim the Franchthi cave people founded Ephesus), [242], [243] [244], [245]. Note how in the case of Ephesus, even though the city is overwhelmingly referred to as an ancient Greek city in the literature, "ancient Greek" he puts in parentheses, while "Roman" he does not.

• I find Cavann is belligerent towards users he disagrees with. He uses a combination of edit-warring, incivility and intimidation (as documented by Proudbolsahye, and stuff like this If the paragraph is not restored I am reporting this at ANI) to subdue his opponents. Within minutes of me making this relatively minor edit [246], he reverts with a hostile edit summary [247] and it's Falsification of sources and threats to report me. Never mind that all the sources quoted use the word "Turkification". When I point out that he is assuming bad faith and his behavior is disruptive [248], his reply is loaded with innuendos [249] (and he throws in a diff to a non-actionable 3RR report he filed against me about something completely different for good measure), then resumes the bad faith assumptions Are you editing without reading the sources, or does falsifying sources come so easily to you?. The two threads in their entirety are also illuminating regarding how tedious arguing with this user can be. In this one, he insists on the wording "violent Turkification through ethnic cleansing" [250], even though it is clear from the sentence in question that the process was violent and "ethnic cleansing" is already in the sentence [251]. Here [252], after I question his removal of a wikilink to Greek genocide [253], he first states that there already is a link to "Greek genocide" (while patronizing me to read WP:Tutorial even I have been editing since 2007), then he changes his excuse to the fact that the source doesn't explicitly say "Greek genocide", even though the words "Greek genocide" would not in any case appear in the text and it is the article where the expulsions and ethnic cleansing of Greek in Anatolia is discussed.

• False accusation of racism [254]

• Frivoulous warnings and templating of regular editors: [255] [256] [257] [258] [259]

• WP:OWN as regards to Turkish people, particularly comment such as this Leave it. I'm getting sick of everyone trying to push their POV in this article.. Here he reverts another user [260], only to make a very similar edit a couple of months later [261] (namely, restored "Anatolian civilizations" in the same sentence. At least one other user has expressed WP:OWN concerns [262] (regarding Cavann's revert of this edit [263]).

Result concerning Cavann

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

• @Cavann: I've noted that you said you intend to respond by next Wednesday at the latest, a week after this report was filed. This is an unreasonably long delay, considering that you were editing very actively right up until this report was filed. I would deny your request to stay these proceedings until next Wednesday, and ask you to submit any response by 10:00, 26 October 2013 (UTC) at the latest.  Sandstein  20:00, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

• In reply to Cavann, that is the date after which I will consider acting on this report.  Sandstein  17:11, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
• I ask Athenean (talk · contribs), Alexikoua (talk · contribs) and Proudbolsahye (talk · contribs) to respond to the allegations made against them by Cavann by 19:00, 30 October 2013 (UTC). I ask them not to respond to Cavann's statement in their defense except to address any important factual errors, otherwise this case will become even more difficult to manage. In the meantime, I invite comment by other administrators as to how we should proceed. Should we:

1. examine the claims and counterclaims individually and in depth here (I don't think that I have the time for that), or
2. to simplify matters, just topic-ban everybody who we find to have engaged in repeated or serious misconduct, or
3. refer the case to the Arbitration Committee because it concerns alleged longterm misconduct by multiple veteran users and is too complicated to properly address in this forum?

Thanks for your opinions.  Sandstein  11:15, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

I don't know if I can find the time to look through all the diffs here either, but I'm not keen in principle on the notion of blanket topic bans for all involved parties. I did look through most of Athenean's diffs the other day and first impressions were that he makes a case for the charge that Cavann is POV-pushing. Certainly, when I see someone determined to add some arcane fact about genetics to multiple sections of multiple articles, over the opposition of multiple users, that starts to look very much like a pattern of disruption. Gatoclass (talk) 13:27, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

• The genetics-based edit warring looks to be the item easiest to come to grips with. When discussions take place with a nasty tone we are allowed to take action on that if it's an article subject to ARBMAC. So I would look both at reverts that are clearly without consensus (or at least, being done prior to any consensus) and harsh remarks on talk. Three statements are hugely overlong. I make Proudbolsahye's complaint to be 1898 words and 91 diffs; Cavann's response to be 2248 words and 66 diffs; Athenean's statement to be 1015 words and 57 diffs. It says in the header of this noticeboard that statements are limited to 500 words and 20 diffs. We could always tell the submitter that we will reject this AE request unless he can shorten his statement. We could tell the other participants that we will read only the first 500 words of their responses unless they take the time to condense them. Regarding Sandstein's option 3, sending this to Arbcom, I don't see it as necessary. Except for the length problem this resembles a number of Greco-Turkish disputes we have dealt with in the past. EdJohnston (talk) 15:25, 26 October 2013 (UTC)