Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Sandstein (talk | contribs) at 10:24, 20 October 2013 (→‎Yerevanci: closed). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

    Arbitration enforcement archives
    1234567891011121314151617181920
    2122232425262728293031323334353637383940
    4142434445464748495051525354555657585960
    6162636465666768697071727374757677787980
    81828384858687888990919293949596979899100
    101102103104105106107108109110111112113114115116117118119120
    121122123124125126127128129130131132133134135136137138139140
    141142143144145146147148149150151152153154155156157158159160
    161162163164165166167168169170171172173174175176177178179180
    181182183184185186187188189190191192193194195196197198199200
    201202203204205206207208209210211212213214215216217218219220
    221222223224225226227228229230231232233234235236237238239240
    241242243244245246247248249250251252253254255256257258259260
    261262263264265266267268269270271272273274275276277278279280
    281282283284285286287288289290291292293294295296297298299300
    301302303304305306307308309310311312313314315316317318319320
    321322323324325326327328329330331

    Interfase

    User:Interfase is placed under an indefinite WP:1RR restriction regarding all edits related to the WP:ARBAA2 topic. EdJohnston (talk) 02:43, 16 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

    Request concerning Interfase

    User who is submitting this request for enforcement
    Երևանցի talk 21:28, 5 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    User against whom enforcement is requested
    Interfase (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
    1. Oct. 4
    2. Oct. 5
    3. Oct. 5
    4. Oct. 5
    5. Oct. 5
    6. Oct. 5
    7. Oct. 5
    8. Oct. 5
    9. Oct. 5
    10. Oct. 5
    11. Oct. 5
    12. Oct. 5
    13. Oct. 5
    14. Oct. 5
    Diffs of notifications or of prior warnings against the conduct objected to (if required)
    1. Warned on Oct 5 by Barek (talk · contribs)
    2. Warned on Oct 5 by Yerevanci (talk · contribs)
    Additional comments by editor filing complaint

    In the Gyumri article, Interfase added an old image of local Azerbaijanis. An IP 188.255.44.254 (talk · contribs) removed it, while Interfase (as you can see above) reverted the IP for 14 times! As a result, the article is protected for 10 days.

    Also, I'd like to point out Interfase's past troublesome behavior

    • blocked for 48 hours for edit warring in the topic area per an AE report in August 2009 [1]
    • placed under restriction for 3 months because of disruptive editing in March 2010 [2]
    • blocked for 60 hours in September 2012 for edit warring [3]
    Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

    Discussion concerning Interfase

    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 Interfase

    Not only I reverted IP 188.255.44.254, but also user EuroCarGT [5][6]. I still think that edits of this IP is just vandalism and an anti-Azerbaijani action. Reverts of the vandals is not edir warring. But, however, after warning by administrator, I'll not return my edit, because I already initiated a discussion on this issue on Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard. --Interfase (talk) 07:24, 6 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Statement by Hablabar

    The "Tatars from Alexandropol" is likely to be a Photoshop forgery. There were no "Tatars" in Alexandropol, ever. There were a small number of Turks, who lived in the so called "Turkish mailla." The photo is of unknown origin. It cannot be placed anywhere in WP without further investigation. Hablabar (talk) 20:43, 6 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    That's a different issue. You are welcome to raise your concerns in the talk page of Gyurmi, not here. --Երևանցի talk 20:49, 6 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    ... ok, I did. Hablabar (talk) 22:16, 6 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    1. Numbered list item

    Result concerning Interfase

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

    Interfase is wrong to characterise this content dispute as vandalism, see WP:NOTVANDALISM. They have engaged in forbidden edit-warring. Because of their recurring problems with edit-warring, I suggest a permanent WP:1RR restriction for them in the WP:ARBAA topic area, and an arbitration enforcement warning for the IP.  Sandstein  07:35, 6 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    The edit warring in AA2 deserves some kind of sanction, especially since Interfase's response doesn't show any understanding of the problem with his edits. We can't assume he will behave any differently in the future. I suggest either a 1RR or a topic ban for three months. Interfase was already warned of the AA2 sanctions in March, 2010 by User:PhilKnight which is a long time ago, well before the episode of revert warring that is reported here. EdJohnston (talk) 23:23, 6 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Of the two proposals from EdJohnston, I question whether a three month topic ban would actually necessarily achieve much, particularly in light of the 2010 warning he links to, which would make the 1RR proposed by Sandstein and apparently(?) considered reasonable by EdJohnston probably preferable. So, just for clarity, in this instance I would support Sandstein's indefinite 1RR proposal, although I would prefer "indefinite" over "permanent". John Carter (talk) 19:26, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Given John's view, I'll switch to supporting the indefinite WP:1RR restriction on User:Interfase. EdJohnston (talk) 00:29, 13 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    It seems unlikely we will get more comments, so this request is closed with an indefinite WP:1RR restriction of User:Interfase regarding all edits related to the WP:ARBAA2 topic. EdJohnston (talk) 02:39, 16 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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:[7]. They describe their trolling here: [8], link to wikipedia here: Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/OS_0_1_2.

    Their talk page originally contained a message [9] 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[10] as well as another account which geolocates to the same place: [11] with approximately the same user page content, see the SPI for more details). [[12]] 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: [13], his highlight again: [14] (today), my request again: [15], his highlight again [16]. I presume he is doing all the highlighting here: [17] 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)[reply]

    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)[reply]

    @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)[reply]


    Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

    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)[reply]

    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]

    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.[reply]

    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)[reply]

    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)[reply]

    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).

    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)[reply]

    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 [19]. 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" [20], the dangers of a "skeptical POV agenda" [21] and the agenda of "GSM editors" [22], [23], [24], [25]. Ironically, he professes his own neutrality and lack of bias while accusing other editors of bias and organized "GSM" conspiracy [26]. 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 [27] 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)[reply]

    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))[reply]

    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: [28].) 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 [29], he came on the talk page to complain.

    What followed next was very bizarre behavior. The remainder of this paragraph will reference this snapshot: [30]. 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."[31]. 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: [32] [33] [34] [35] [36] [37] and saying that he is being hacked [38].

    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): [39][40][41][42][43][44][45][46][47][48][49][50][51][52][53].

    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" [54]
    • "language from editors clearly shows a bias on the page" [55]
    • "commenting from editors shows a biased POV" [56]
    • "the bias that they clearly have" [57]
    • "a lot of biased sources and opinions" [58]
    • "we have biased editors quoting opinions" [59]
    • "editor is not able to provide a decent source and expresses a clear bias" [60]
    • "those with negative bias here" [61]
    • "your voice sounds a little biased here" [62]

    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"[63]) 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"[64]. Whether this is trolling, delusion, weirdness, or whatever, it doesn't belong on WP.

    vzaak (talk) 21:27, 16 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    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)[reply]

    Statement by iantresman

    In the request above,[65] I do not see:

    1. any diffs of inappropriate article editing
    2. any diff of an initial warning from an involved administrator (per WP:ARB/PS)
    3. I do see one link supporting sockpuppetry, (dealt with elsewhere)
    4. any more diffs suggestion the use of other dispute resolution options

    But I am concerned that this request

    1. 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.
    2. refers to "this subtle trolling", suggesting it is imperceptible, and probably not worth mentioning
    3. states that "The editor also refuses to stop highlighting my name". Doesn't come across as a hanging offence
    4. 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."[66]

    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"[67]

    Comments following temporary re-opening

    I've expressed my displeasure at the conclusion of this process here.[68] 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)[reply]

    Statement by TheRedPenOfDoom


    Statement by Askahrc

    I think it's irresponsible to ban Tumbleman (talk · contribs), especially indefinitely, especially while he's still under the effects of a separate ban (that's apparently already been dismissed) and can't defend himself. I've read every one of his postings on the Sheldrake page, and while he and I have disagreed profoundly on the direction the page should take, I've always found him to be struggling to build a consensus, not derail it. He has used poor etiquette at times on the talk page, but I've noted that he tends to apologize when this is pointed out and seems to just be trying to get his footing on Wikipedia. We've all been there, it shouldn't be an offense to be new at Wikipedia.

    Also, why exactly is he being banned? From what I can tell of the history, he hasn't engaged in any edit warring, he hasn't disrupted the article, he hasn't libeled anyone, he hasn't seriously and persistently violated any big policies... The biggest charge I see is that people disagree with him and are annoyed by his posts. Let's break this down:

    • 1) He's posted a lot on the talk page: Sure, and so has everyone else who obviously feels strongly about this topic. The real question is, have his postings been clearly and deliberately obstructive? They don't look that way to me.
    • 2) He's got a POV: Sure, he wants to justify Rupert Sheldrake's ideas on the man's bio page, that's hardly unusual or unreasonable. If he was casually or maliciously reverting every entry that disagreed with his view, that'd be an issue, but he hasn't. In fact, his biggest detractors have been the ones doing the majority of reverts to any edits of their version, even ones that are clearly not biased and have consensus.
    • 3) He's unpopular: This is particularly alarming to me. It seems like the biggest reason Tumbleman is being accused of any offense is because people are annoyed by him. Things like highlighting someones's name in posts and speaking in the 3rd person may be irritating to people, but it's not an offense. You don't have to like a fellow editor to respect them.
    • 4) He's a troll: This is the most dangerous accusation and, in my opinion, the most specious. Tumbleman has been persistent in his postings, but that persistence has been focused on trying to convince others that his ideas for the page were valid and justified. He hasn't posted malicious links, deliberately disrupted threads, gotten belligerent or edited the article inappropriately. If he's a troll, he's the worst one I've ever seen.

    Sorry to go on so long, but I was really surprised to see this action. Like I said, I personally disagree with Tumbleman and will continue to try and create what I feel to be a balanced article with or without his presence, but I respect his right to be here regardless. I'm a true believer in Wikipedia and find it alarming that someone could forever lose their ability to contribute to this great effort just because they made some poor choices in posting and presentation. His request [[69]] to retain his rights on his talk page seemed heartfelt and rational. I just feel that Wikipedia is an important enough site that there should be very clear evidence of deliberate violations before an indef ban is discussed, let alone summarily handed down. In this case we have no evidence, no defense, no harm done, and yet someone is losing their right to contribute to human knowledge. That seems like a greater offense that anything Tumbleman has done. The Cap'n (talk) 04:04, 18 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    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)[reply]

    • Tumbleman is still continuing to highlight me despite my insistence that he doesn't [70]. IRWolfie- (talk) 07:24, 17 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    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)[reply]

    • 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)[reply]
    • 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)[reply]
    • 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)[reply]
    • 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)[reply]
    • Result is indef block per WP:NOTHERE. Block applied, will close. Zad68 13:24, 17 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • 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)[reply]
        • 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)[reply]

    NovaSkola

    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 NovaSkola

    User who is submitting this request for enforcement
    Երևանցի talk 20:28, 19 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    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)

    1. Oct 1 Azerbaijani diaspora
    2. Oct 1 British Azerbaijanis
    3. Oct 8 Azerbaijanis in Russia
    4. Oct 12 Azerbaijan
    5. Oct 12 Ashiqs of Azerbaijan
    6. Oct 12 Meykhana
    7. Oct 12 Mugham
    8. Oct 12 created List of Azerbaijani inventions and discoveries
    Diffs of notifications or of prior warnings against the conduct objected to (if required)
    1. 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

    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)[reply]
      • 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)[reply]

    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)[reply]

    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.

    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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

    1. [72] 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.

    1. [73] Turkish people
    2. [74] 2013 Moscow riots
    3. [75] 1904 Sasun uprising

    --NovaSkola (talk) 02:58, 20 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Diffs of notifications or of prior warnings against the conduct objected to (if required)
    1. He have already been notified [76]] 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)[reply]
    Additional comments by editor filing complaint


    Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested


    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:

    1. 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.
    2. Changing the potentially-pejorative term "migrant" to the neutral-to-mildly-positive "citizen" doesn't qualify as pushing a POV, and neither does copyediting.
    3. 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)[reply]

    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)[reply]
    • 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)[reply]