From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search


Arbitration enforcement action appeal by Jiujitsuguy[edit]

Appeal is declined at this time. Jiujitsuguy may file another appeal following further positive editing in no less than three months. Seraphimblade Talk to me 14:15, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Procedural notes: The rules governing arbitration enforcement appeals are found here. According to the procedures, a "clear, substantial, and active consensus of uninvolved editors" is required to overturn an arbitration enforcement action.

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

Appealing user 
Jiujitsuguy (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
Sanction being appealed
Administrator imposing the sanction 
T. Canens.
Notification of that administrator 

Statement by Jiujitsuguy[edit]

Per the advice and constructive criticism offered by Stifle[1] and concurrence of Cailil [2] I am resubmitting my appeal. In the break between my last appeal and the instant one, I have created articles and added content on a variety of subjects including archeology, orthopedics, military history and weapon systems[3]. I have edited constructively, in a collegial, collaborative and non-confrontational manner. I understand now that my previous editing pattern was abrasive and tendentious. In addition, rather than seeking to reconcile differences with a colleague with whom I was having a dispute, I moved too quickly to AE, which was entirely inappropriate. AE should never be used as a tool to silence anyone and should be avoided when possible. I will try hard not to repeat the past mistakes that have led me to the instant topic ban, now in its 14th month.

I also wish to offer my sincerest apologies to T. Canens for misconstruing his disciplinary actions and acting with haste in making groundless accusations against him. I blame my lack of maturity for the tasteless outburst and I am embarrassed by it.

I sincerely hope that in light of my constructive editing, the fact that I've expressed contrition and recognize my mistakes, the fact that I’ve embraced the suggestions of the aforementioned syops rather than arguing with them, the fact that I’ve already been banned for a year and two months and the fact that I have zealously adhered to the provisions of the topic ban, that the ban be lifted. Whichever way you decide, I thank you for taking the time to consider my appeal and will of course respect your decision. I do however, hope that you will look favorably upon it. Thank you.

  • Stifle had suggested that I submit an appeal in 2 months after productive editing (I would be minded to consider a further appeal in no less than two months' time). I believed that Cailil offered concurrence. I did what I was told and followed the prescribed course of action. Sandstien was concerned that my previous appeal had not addressed the reasons for the ban and that I did not understand what I did wrong. This appeal does address the reason for the ban and expresses sincere contrition. Yes I had been T-banned before (and not 6 times as had been suggested) but this is the longest T-ban that I’ve been required to serve. I’ve shown evidence of reformation and productive editing, have expressed sincere contrition and acknowledged wrong-doing. The length of the instant ban and the fact that I’ve zealously adhered to the ban’s restrictions should also serve to militate in my favor. I hope you look favorably on this request. Thank you.
  • I Note further that both TDA and RolandR have commented under "uninvolved." That is a bit disingenuous as a brief review of their editing history will show that they are involved up to their necks and their motivations for excluding me should be regarded as suspect. RolandR's mention of the August 2010 ban is also disingenuous because he very well knows that the syop who imposed the sanction undid his action almost immediately following ArbCom involvement and that the ancient matter had been resolved in my favor. I also find it disconcerting that only TDA and RolandR are cited by some commenting syops but editors who expressed support for my position have been ignored. I think that, considering the current length of the T-ban, another year of a T-ban on top of the fourteen months already served, is draconian. You have my word that if you lift the T-ban and following that, I get out of line or revert to tendentiousness, you can ban me infinitely and I won't issue any protest. That's how sincere this request is and that's how confident I am in my belief that I will not engage in any editing that will result in a sanction.
  • As further evidence of the sincerity of my request, should the ban be lifted, I will take it upon myself to voluntarily refrain from editing the topic area for an additional three months and further, will will refrain from partaking in any AE action for a period of 1 year. The days of me locking horns and duking it out with fellow editors are over. I simply wish to edit peacefully and productively.
@Cailil I can appreciate your concerns and that is why I proposed the above criteria as an additional safeguard. The request is sincere (some might say groveling) and I have imposed on myself self-constraints. Like I said, if I engage in any purposeful transgression, you can easily ban my ass into oblivion without protest.
@Heimstern Läufer I am asking you to please not close this as declined. I am asking you to please consider my request as genuine and sincere. I am asking that in the event that you do decline to please allow me the opportunity to resubmit and considering the fact that the ban is already 14 months long, to please allow me to re-submit within 3 months commencing with August 19.
White flag. I give up.

Statement by Timotheus Canens[edit]

Discussion among uninvolved editors about the appeal by Jiujitsuguy[edit]

Statement by The Devil's Advocate[edit]

Jiujitsuguy had appealed the topic ban just two months ago and has only made 113 edits in the past month and made no edits in the month immediately following his appeal. This second appeal seems hasty, especially given the reason for his topic ban from ARPBIA areas. I think this appeal should be declined. Perhaps AE admins should consider giving JJG some strict bounds determining when he can appeal again. Not just a time limit, but strict editing criteria so that he will not be able to appeal until he has truly demonstrated editing that makes a future appeal worthy of some consideration.--The Devil's Advocate tlk. cntrb. 20:19, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

To be clear, I think the ARBPIA topic area is better served without JJG being able to edit there. I would not rule out the possibility that he could prove himself trustworthy regarding the topic, but a very high bar should be set for him. In the mere eight months I knew of JJG's participation in that topic he had tried to use a tour guide about a mountain ski resort to effectively claim the Golan Heights were Israeli territory, repeatedly added a Nazi flag to the Arab side of the belligerents section of the 1948 War because a handful of former Nazis participated in the conflict, and tried to get an opponent sanctioned for "misrepresenting sources" for attributing a statement to the citation following it when JJG was the one who actually put the statement before that citation in the first place. The levels of blatant bad faith he showed with regards to that topic area, while pushing an extremely obvious POV agenda, and his weak-willed efforts at proving his worth following the topic ban do nothing to inspire confidence.--The Devil's Advocate tlk. cntrb. 04:14, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

Statement by EatsShootsAndLeaves[edit]

100% in agreement with TDA's statement. Nothing in their actions show substantive changes which are required for appeals - mostly there's no changes because they've done nothing, and thus cannot prove anything ES&L 21:41, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

Statement by AgadaUrbanit[edit]

The ban is quite old, from July 2012. AE's aim is not to punish, but try to prevent further disruption. If editors follow guidance of administrators in good faith, the evidence is the constructive contributions, it is reasonable to assume that their ban to be lifted. I doubt that quantity is not sufficient, and clearly it is not a question of quantity, rather a question of quality. I reviewed JJG's latest contributions which beyond doubt improve this tree of knowledge we're growing here. Therefore I would not mind JJG's ban to be lifted. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 12:40, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

Statement by Marokwitz[edit]

Based on past activity, I believe that Jiujitsuguy can be a good and constructive editor. I believe his/her recent statements and edits are good evidence that the editor would conduct himself differently in the future. Therefore I recommend lifting the topic ban. The editor can always be topic banned again, if the need arises, so I see no risk in giving him another chance. Marokwitz (talk) 11:36, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

Statement by RolandR[edit]

Indeed, "the editor can always be topic banned again". As he has been several times already: indefinitely in August 2010[4], for three months in December 2010[5], six months in March 2011[6] extended for a further two months in July 2011[7], and indefinitely in both January 2012[8]and July 2012[9]. Therre seems very little evidence here of improvement or of learning from experience. RolandR (talk) 12:25, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

Result of the appeal by Jiujitsuguy[edit]

This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above.
  • Hmm, this is definitely an improvement on the last appeal, as there's been some editing that appears, at a glance, to have been productive and unproblematic. A month of good editing is good, but it's still only a month. I'm not convinced that's enough of a pattern for a successful appeal just yet, particlularly in an area as conflict-rife as I-P. I do think it's on the right path now (unless I've missed something in Jiujitsuguy's editing), but I'm not convinced it's gone on long enough. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 05:24, 26 September 2013 (UTC)
  • I'm pretty much on the same wavelength as Heimstern about this. Jiujitsuguy you're on the right track you just need to keep going like this for a few more months. As Heimstern mentions the I/P area is conflict ridden and a month's progress is not enough for us to make a judgement call on. Again keep up the positive editing and appeal again.
    To other sysops: I think TDA's point about giving Jiujitsuguy a target for another appeal is a good call I'd suggest: no less than 3 months more consecutive editing - that would mean if he keeps making progress late December 2013. Does any one else have any views on this?--Cailil talk 12:20, 26 September 2013 (UTC)
    • Three months is reasonable if we want to set a specific recommended time frame. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 08:56, 27 September 2013 (UTC)
      • Though with the rather long history here, as pointed out by RolandR, I now think that's too short. I don't think I'd be ready to consider an appeal without at least six months under these conditions. Even longer would be better. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 01:07, 28 September 2013 (UTC)
        • With cognizance of the comments above and below I'd agree. 1 year of consecutive editing without problems. Giving that this ban is the consequence of 5 escalating bans, long term good behaviour would be needed to be evidenced for any sysop to reverse this ban.
          So I'd suggest declining with a minimum length of 1 year (from August) before appealing again--Cailil talk 20:03, 28 September 2013 (UTC)
          • @Jiujitsuguy: - I agreed with User:Stifle that your last appeal be declined and I also stated clearly that "indef bans can't be waited out".
            You need to adjust your thinking here - this is not a matter of "I've not broken the ban for 14 months ... therefore lift it", it's a case of showing sustained productive editing outside the I/P area. There were a sum total of 16 name space edits between September 21st 2012 and August 19th 2013. After that you made c. 110 name space edits. This (126) is insufficient evidence of someone with a long track record of second chances as having got the message. While once again I commend your recent editing, I will advise you that it's going to take more of this good behaviour to overturn this ban. Strictly speaking quantity of edits is not the only criteria, consistency, calmness and willingness to focus on other topics is good - but we can only see a major change in attitude within the context of a large number of edits over a long period of time--Cailil talk 12:23, 29 September 2013 (UTC)
  • I would agree with Heimstern and Cailil. This is definitely the right track, and I commend Jiujitsuguy for taking it, but it's just not quite long enough yet. JJG, if you keep this up for a few months and come back to appeal then to have the restrictions lifted, that appeal would stand a very good chance of being granted. Seraphimblade Talk to me 19:39, 26 September 2013 (UTC)
  • RolandR points out that Jiujitsuguy has been topic-banned from this topic area no less than six times by five separate admins (including myself, apparently). That's ... impressive. On the basis of this history, I would decline the appeal and retain the topic ban infinitely. I'm all for second chances, but not so much for seventh chances.  Sandstein  13:30, 27 September 2013 (UTC)
    • "Infinite" is a really long time. I support declining, but oppose making it infinite (how would that be achieved, anyway? An indefinite restriction on appealing?) Heimstern Läufer (talk) 01:07, 28 September 2013 (UTC)
      • Sorry if I was unclear – I just meant we should keep declining any appeals. We shouldn't restrict appeals unless they are made repeatedly without any chance of success.  Sandstein  05:18, 28 September 2013 (UTC)
        • All right, then, at present at least, we are in agreement to close this as declined, and so are all the admins here. I think this thing is pretty much ready to close. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 00:48, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

Arbitration enforcement action appeal by GRuban[edit]

Appeal declined.  Sandstein  07:21, 6 October 2013 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Procedural notes: The rules governing arbitration enforcement appeals are found here. According to the procedures, a "clear, substantial, and active consensus of uninvolved editors" is required to overturn an arbitration enforcement action.

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

Appealing user 
GRuban (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)GRuban (talk) 15:06, 2 October 2013 (UTC)
Sanction being appealed 
Block and topic ban of User:KoshVorlon [10].
Administrator imposing the sanction 
Fluffernutter (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
Notification of that administrator 

Statement by GRuban[edit]

From this diff and this explanation it looks like KoshVorlon was blocked for insisting on retaining the justification for his !vote on Talk:Bradley Manning/October 2013 move request, specifically: "Bradley Manning is a guy". This is selective enforcement: Fluffernutter writes "The discussion guidelines made clear that comments about what gender you feel Manning is or is allowed to be are off-topic", however you will notice that the justifications "Chelsea Manning is a woman" by User:Georgia guy, "she is a woman", by User:Konveyor Belt, and "Chelsea Manning is a woman", by User:I JethroBT have been allowed to stand. This has been extensively discussed on the Fluffernutter's talk page, and on WP:ANI, where she requested any appeal be made at WP:AE. [12][13] So here it is. (FWIW, I haven't voiced an opinion in the move request itself.) --GRuban (talk) 15:06, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

Response to Fluffernutter: It's a heck of a guideline that's only going to be enforced on one side, because not enforcing it on the other doesn't cause ill will (?!?). "Boys shouldn't hit girls and girls shouldn't hit boys, but if girls still hit boys it's all right because the boys won't complain about it?" Trust me, it causes ill will. You see for example, me, right here, an editor, one who was not involved in the discussion itself, feeling ill will, from that very selective enforcement. I'm not going to speculate on your motivations, but I will outright object to the blatant bias evidenced by your actions. Yes, Kosh behaved badly after your initial action. But your initial action was downright wrong, as several people have pointed out to you. That makes all subsequent actions you took stemming from that, also wrong. --GRuban (talk) 15:50, 2 October 2013 (UTC)
Response to EdJohnston: As I linked to above, when a number of editors appealed to Fluffernutter, she wrote "Folks, I'll reiterate for you what I told Kosh a few lines up: if you want to contest the actions I took under Discretionary Sanctions policy today, you need to make that appeal either to Arbcom directly, or to the Arbitration Enforcement noticeboard." Is this, then, to be one of those bureaucratic runaround scenarios? "Sorry, you can't file this appeal here at office A. You must go to office B. And if they tell you to come back to me, and this leaves you with nowhere to appeal to, that is not my problem."?
And as to why I'm filing this instead of KV - well, because I'm outraged, and because meatball:DefendEachOther, and because he won't do it, and because, well, frankly ... no offense intended KV ... he's not a very good advocate for himself. If you follow the discussion at the pages I linked to, you'll see a number of people starting to argue for leniency, but then changing their minds based on Kosh's actions after the block. Floq, just below, is another example. So, frankly, I'm quite glad he's not involved. In this case, yes Kosh behaved badly after he had an injustice inflicted upon him. That doesn't make the initial injustice right. --GRuban (talk) 19:35, 2 October 2013 (UTC)
Response to sche: I'm much obliged to Fluffernutter's attempting to keep a lid on the chaos. But defining "Bradley Manning is a guy" as a deletable and ultimately blockable statement, while leaving "Chelsea Manning is a woman" untouched is clear selective enforcement. I'm not asking that Fluffernutter be publicly flogged, I'm just asking for consistent enforcement of the clearly stated rules, not "I think I'm not going to enforce this one because one side won't cause as many problems". --GRuban (talk) 20:11, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

Statement by Fluffernutter[edit]

To excerpt the explanation I gave yesterday about why I redacted part (not all) of Kosh's comment in the RM: "I am attending to the RM solely in an administrative capacity, and my goal is to keep the conversation from running off the rails into BLP violations and personal attacks. In light of that, "[person who identifies as a woman] is a woman" is neither inflammatory (you'll notice that no one from any side of the dispute has objected to comments of that type prior to this) nor a potential BLP violation (a significant portion of the community feels that denying a transperson's gender identity is problematic on BLP grounds, but no one feels that affirming it or not addressing it is a BLP violation). So comments affirming Manning's gender identity may be contrary to the guidelines, but they are benign in comparison to comments refuting it, which have been shown to cause ill will and disruptive derails, and I am trying to use the lightest touch possible in adminning the RM. I took (and will take) the step of redacting someone's comment only in the case of things that are likely to cause serious issue." I will also note that I have removed similarly problematic commentary from the other "side" of the discussion. Again, my goal here is to not allow the discussion to slide into the type of personalized free-for-all that doomed the last one. Accusations that I am somehow "selectively censoring" users' opinions to sway the vote one way or another because I am somehow "involved" are both perplexing and, honestly, hurtful while I'm trying to do an utterly thankless job that every other admin was too wise to attempt.

As far as Kosh Vorlon's block, it was not because he held a particular opinion, but because he repeatedly reverted a discretionary sanctions action in what appeared to be the heat of anger. Despite my making multiple attempts to explain how discretionary sanctions work and how and where my action could be appealed (and, indeed, allowing that my actions could certainly be mistaken as I'm only one person, so he should feel free to appeal), Kosh instead chose to edit war his commentary back into the RM with comments like "censored by impartial admin because IDON'TLIKEIT works for admins", "Calling bullshit bullshit" (both at [14]), and "Revert me again fluffernutter and I'll revert right back. You have NO RIGHT to revert me per WP:TPO READ IT" ([15]). And indeed, all this reverting was done while Kosh was under a 0RR restriction.

@AutomaticStrikeout: I'm not sure how much clearer I can make it that I use "problematic" in the sense of "problematic to the ability of the community to have this discussion without bloodshed." I'm not somehow judging whether I think "s/he is a woman/man" is right or wrong; I'm reacting to the fact that we have recent past experience that has shown us that commentary like "He is NOT Chelsea, not legally, not biologically, not even reliably. Yes I know, he says he wants to change his gender, but he hasn't done so yet nor is he notable under the name Chelsea assuming he DOES decide to do this anyway ." is perceived by a significant portion of the community as a BLP violation that is potentially harmful to the subject, and that whether or not it is one, it will either way cause the conversation to go off the rails catastrophically.

@EdJohnston and Sandstein:: I don't see any provision in discretionary sanctions policy that disallows third-party appeals. I agree that they're suboptimal, especially when the sanctioned party can't or won't participate, and your judgment may say that one may not be appropriate for this case, but I don't see anything in current policy flatly prohibiting them (and I feel pretty crappy for having apparently provided wrong information to people on ANI about how DS appeals work). If "only the sanctioned party may appeal" is an AE or DS policy, it probably ought to be made clear in those written policies, neither of which specifies who is allowed to appeal, to prevent future instances of incorrect information being supplied to upset people. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 19:01, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

Statement by AutomaticStrikeout[edit]

This is a very clear case of selective enforcement, in my opinion. Furthermore, I would suggest that Fluffernutter's involvement in the dispute over Kosh's original comment was such that Fluffernutter should have felt comfortable issuing a block. Certainly, the topic ban was excessive and should be immediately repealed. AutomaticStrikeout () 15:40, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

@ Fluffernutter: If you think it is problematic to !vote on the basis that Manning is not a woman, but then you imply that is not problematic to !vote on the basis that Manning is a woman, haven't you shown that you are biased as to the outcome of the RfC? AutomaticStrikeout () 15:46, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

@ Fluffernutter: If it's not possible to state that Manning is not currently a woman without getting into trouble, what is the point of having the RfC? AutomaticStrikeout () 16:19, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

@ I JethroBT: "...implied disbelief that Manning would ever be a woman..." Kosh stated that Manning hasn't changed gender yet. I don't see how that implies that Kosh believes Manning will never change gender. AutomaticStrikeout () 16:19, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

@ EdJohnston: Kosh can't come here and make the appeal himself because he's blocked. AutomaticStrikeout () 17:48, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

@ Knowledgekid87: The block was for one week. AutomaticStrikeout () 14:18, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

It has become apparent that the fight against abusive misuse of admin powers is a losing cause. Shame on Wikipedia. AutomaticStrikeout () 14:40, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

Statement by I JethroBT[edit]

While I do not defend Kosh's reverts, I will mention that any instance of pronoun usage (i.e. he or she; his or her) is not substantially different than what I and others (including Kosh) have stated: it expresses an opinion about the gender of the individual, plain and simple. There are many such comments on both sides (and while it is technically possible to avoid pronouns altgoether, it's not exactly convenient given the nature of the discussion.) I do not believe it is fair to redact comments on that basis, whether editors plainly state Manning as a man or a woman. That said, Kosh's comments did not merely include such a declarative statement of gender, but implied disbelief that Manning would ever be a woman on whatever subjective terms Kosh deems sufficient. I believe fluffernutter's actions were appropriate given prior concern that these statements are needlessly inflammatory. I, JethroBT drop me a line 16:13, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

@AutomaticStrikeout: ...assuming he DOES decide to do this anyway (emphasis from original) is an unnecessary editorialization of intent from where I interpret this disbelief. I, JethroBT drop me a line 16:32, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

Statement by Floq[edit]

At the risk of muddying the waters, I should point out that the 0RR restriction that Fluffernutter mentions above was an informal agreement between Kosh and me, not something imposed on him by ArbCom or ANI or anything. It was voluntary in the sense that we agreed that if he followed those rules, the problems that were making me consider an RFC/U would go away. And they basically have, until now; those were the real problem areas. The reason I suggested the 0RR restriction was for cases just like this, where he tended to revert in the heat of the moment, seeing only his side of the argument. If he had stuck with the agreement, he wouldn't be blocked right now.

That said, I can't really argue with the block, and haven't got the time to investigate the overarching issue of even-handedness or fairness or what have you. I think the duration could be safely reduced to time served if he agreed to abide by those rules, except that the stupid, childish attack account he created on Meta gives me no reason to bother lobbying for it. --Floquenbeam (talk) 17:48, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, one more comment while I'm here: I think a third party request like this should be OK, particularity since the issue is not only the KV block, but also the claim (which I stress again, I am not making, just saying it's there) of selective enforcement. This seems like a reasonable thing for AE to look into. --Floquenbeam (talk) 17:54, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

Statement by TParis[edit]

Just noting, so it doesn't get lost in Fluffernutter's comments, that she has not been one-sided.--v/r - TP 18:07, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

Statement by -sche[edit]

Because admins took a hands-off approach to it, the previous Manning RM descended so deeply into a pit of ugly quarrelling about things unrelated to the policy question of "what should this article be titled?" that after nearly two million bytes of Arbitration case, the Arbitration Committee appears poised to topic-ban numerous editors from different sides of the dispute. Fluffernutter's largely thankless efforts to keep the current RM running more smoothly and on-track by redacting off-topic, inflammatory portions of several comments, including Kosh's comment and comments like this, are among the factors which have so far kept this RM from descending anywhere near as far back into the aforementioned pit. Fluffernutter has shown restraint and allowed many questionable comments, and the underlying !votes of partially redacted comments, to stand (whereas the first RM's closers said they discarded/ignored off-topic votes entirely in their close). In short, her redaction of Kosh's comment was appropriate, her block of Kosh after he edit-warred was an appropriate discretionary sanction, and the topic-ban she issued, while perhaps a bit long, is an appropriate measure (in light of Kosh's previous comments re Manning / the Manning article) to prevent recurrence of problematic behaviour. -sche (talk) 19:56, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

Statement by KoshVorlon as emailed to AutomaticStrikeout[edit]

I actually can't use the template on my page as I'm IP locked per Teles on (I'm locked untill Oct 8 2013 - and no, I don't want it removed. I did what he said I did and I'll take my medicine for it ).

You may want to check Fluffernutter's diffs (especially where she says I reverted her), you'll find I didn't revert her at all. I removed her text saying she's redacted part of my vote, but I didn't re-insert my vote the first time.

The sequenece of events is this:

1.) I posted my vote as on the Bradley Manning move page: here

Fluffernutter reverted me here

I began talking to her on her page. She was reverted by by MzMcbride here.

Consensus on her talk page became three to one , however, she insisted that she was right and that consensus didn't matter and she reverted against consensus here (she's now at 2rr). She placed a note at this time saying " Material redacted from this comment pursuant to discretionary sanctions. Do not restore except after following the appeal procedures listed there ".

I changed only her note, but did not resotore my original text here , (Admnittedly that wasn't smart, but, I didn't revert her )

Fluffernutter hit 3RR here

I remnoved my vote entireley, re-wrote the vote to have only policy reasons on it and yes, I did add text on the top stating that it had been censored by Fluffernutter and posted it. (this isn't a revert either, however. The definition of revert is:

Reverting means undoing the effects of one or more edits, which results in the page being restored to a previous version.

I hadn't done so,I didn't restore it to a previous version, I updated re-worded my comments, although my vote remained "Oppose".

Fluffernutter went over 3rr here

So, no, I didn't revert her at all, she, however, reverted against consensus (check her talk page and the ANI page ), violated 3RR, violated TPO, she also violated WP:LOCAL CONSENSUS.


The above was sent to me via email by Kosh, who gave me permission to post it here. AutomaticStrikeout () 01:37, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

Further remarks from KoshVorlon:

I read Sandstein's comments and am dissapoinated , as it seems (unless I mis-understand what he's saying ) that he's stating that's it's okay for Fluffernutter to break 3rr (which is a bright line rule), violate consensus (which is a cornerstone of Wikipedia), selectively enforce an (at this time ) uneforceable "discretionary" restriction.

I saw unenforceable because the version she's attempting to enforce is still a draft version and not an approved version, not because I don't believe in Arbcomm's ability to enforce the existing version of the sanction. The existing (and approved ) version of this sanction here.

This version , firstly, doesn't include anything related to the Manning article at all, second, it states that enforcemant can be taken if:

if, despite being warned, that editor repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behavior, or any normal editorial process. The sanctions imposed may include blocks of up to one year in length; bans from editing any page or set of pages within the area of conflict; bans on any editing related to a topic within the area of conflict or its closely related topics; restrictions on reverts or other specified behaviors; imposition of mandated external review; or any other measures which the imposing administrator believes are reasonably necessary to ensure the smooth functioning of the project.

Please note "expected standards of behaviro , or any normal editorial process". I added a vote (B), Fluffernutter reverted (R) , I discussed (D), this is normal editorial process. Normal behavior includes not violating 3RR, obeserving consensus (which Flufffnutter did not ) observing WP:TPO (which she did not ).

Also note at the top it states: Any uninvolved administrator

She is not uninvolved, therefore her restriction is moot.

Further there is nothing in the approved version of sanctions that pertains to WP:LOCAL CONSENSUS. (It exists on the draft version only - which has yet to be approved and it therefore not enforceable at this time )

I violated at best 1RR and only that.

I respectfully request the block be lifted and the ban be removed , I further request the right to revert Fluffernutter's revert

Comment by Knowledgekid87[edit]

I feel that Fluffernutter was justified in the block but not for the topic ban as that is a bit over the top. I would recommend the block be reduced to 1 week at the most and/or I would recommend after the week block is lifted that Kosh told not to edit on the Manning move request until the move is concluded. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 04:07, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

Edited 10/04/13 - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 21:15, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

Discussion among uninvolved editors about the appeal by GRuban[edit]

KoshVorlon's emailed comments have now been added here by AutomaticStrikeout. (It is unclear at this stage whether this request can be considered as a legitimate appeal.) The discussion guidelines on the RM page explicitly warned about avoiding discussion of gender and indicated that discretionary sanctions applied to the RM discussion. KoshVorlon ignored those guidelines at the time; appeared unwilling to recognize that fluffernutter was acting in an administrative capacity enforcing DS; and in reverting on the RM page left an inflammatory edit summary. The creation of an attack account on Meta confirms that he was acting in an unreasonable and aggressive manner. As others have pointed out, fluffernutter's redaction of Arkady Rose's comments shows that she was acting in an even-handed way. The account of events copied here from KoshVorlon's email does not seem particularly reliable. "Redaction" and "reversion" have been confused. In addition he still has not acknowledged that fluffernutter was acting as an administrator and, going one step further, appears to be accusing her of edit warring. Mathsci (talk) 03:30, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

Comment by Kyohyi[edit]

The question comes down to wether or not Fluffernutter's methods of facilitating the discussion can be construed as an administrative action, and wether or not they made them involved. Discretionary Sanctions allow an uninvolved administrator to sanction an editor in areas related to the sanctions. The question then comes to what is a sanction, is redacting an editors comments considered a sanction? Is redacting an editors comments an administrative action? If the answers to these questions are Yes, and Yes then Fluffernutter remained uninvolved and only acted in an administrative capacity, and those comments cannot be re-instated without coming to AE. If not, then Fluffernutter may have become involved while not intending to, and if involved, their block and ban of Kosh would be in violation of Discretionary Sanctions. --Kyohyi (talk) 14:04, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

Comment by NE Ent[edit]

Objection to close by non-involved admin [16].

Closing this request on technical grounds is not in the best interests of Wikipedia; editors in good standing and good faith have expressed legitimate concerns about application of discretionary sanctions. Per two of our five pillars, Editors should treat each other with respect and civility and Wikipedia does not have firm rules, more good will come out of reviewing Fluffernuffer's them -- and, I believe, eventually validating and explaining her actions -- than simply slapping a close tag on it. Such a closure would not necessarily end the dispute, as filing editors would have the option of direct appeal to the committee or opening a RFC/U, neither of which would be a productive use of wikitime. NE Ent 11:06, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

Result of the appeal by GRuban[edit]

This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above.
  • This is marked as 'arbitration enforcement appeal by GRuban'. But GRuban has not been sanctioned by anyone per the case. GRuban wants to appeal the block and topic ban of User:KoshVorlon. Though it might be harmless to have a bit of a discussion here, we don't normally take action on third-party appeals. EdJohnston (talk) 17:21, 2 October 2013 (UTC)
If User:KoshVorlon wants to appeal, he can fill in the template {{Arbitration enforcement appeal}} on his user talk. Someone will then copy it over for him. EdJohnston (talk) 17:55, 2 October 2013 (UTC)
  • I agree with EdJohnston. I would dismiss this appeal because the appellant has no standing: they are not the user whose block is contested. The draft revision of the discretionary sanctions procedure makes this clear: "Only an editor under sanction may appeal that sanction". This dismissal is without prejudice to any appeal by the blocked user themselves; I have not formed an opinion about whether the block was a justifiable exercise of the discretionary sanctions authority.  Sandstein  18:30, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
  • Any concerns about the abuse of discretionary sanctions authority (to the extent the allegations of "selective enforcement" constitute such concerns) should be submitted to the Arbitration Committee itself rather than to this board, which has no authority to discipline administrators. But that should only be undertaken in the case of serious concerns about "consistently ... questionable enforcement administrative actions", not because of concerns about individual actions. See the draft provision in the last paragraph of the section Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions/2013 review#Role of administrators. The contributors to this thread should keep in mind that it is disruptive to make allegations of serious misconduct, including against administrators, in fora that are not dedicated to the resolution of such concerns, or to misuse this board as a discussion forum about issues that are not within its scope. Without administrator objection, this thread should be closed soon.  Sandstein  18:44, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
  • I've read the message attributed to KoshVorlon above. It doesn't seem to be meant as an appeal, because while it criticizes the blocking admin's conduct (which is beside the point in a block appeal, see WP:NOTTHEM), it doesn't ask for the block to be lifted, or give reasons why it should be lifted. Also, if I understand this message correctly, KoshVorlon is under some sort of global block (?) until 8 October, that is, longer than the duration of the local block being discussed here. In that case, even in the case of an actual appeal, it's doubtful that it would be worthwhile to examine this block on the merits because even if this block were to be lifted it would have no effect on the longer global block. Because of this, I'm still of the opinion that this board has no basis on which to do anything and that this thread should be closed.  Sandstein  05:48, 4 October 2013 (UTC)
  • I've received a message by KoshVorlon that reads in pertinent part: "I would submit her [Fluffernutter's] conduct in, and of itself, is wrong, violated at least 1 cornerstone of Wikipedia (Consensus) and violated at least one "bright line rule" (3RR), and that because of that, her block and ban are invalid." That can be understood as an expression of intent to contest the sanctions, and we can process it as an appeal.

    However, the reasons submitted for the appeal are invalid. Any improper conduct by Fluffernutter cannot be the subject of an appeal against her sanctions, but would need to be addressed separately through the dispute resolution process (see again WP:NOTTHEM). The only question this board can review is whether the block and topic ban of KoshVorlon – because Fluffernutter determined that KoshVorlon's edits at [17] and [18] were disruptive – was a proper exercise of the authority granted in Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Sexology#Discretionary sanctions.

    Now, I can imagine several arguments against the appropriateness of this sanction, but none of them has been submitted here. Rather, all arguments against the sanctions have focused on so-called "selective enforcement", or on questions related to the underlying content dispute. As explained above, these are not issues that are subject to review by this board. Because no valid reasons for this appeal have been submitted, we ought not to process it further.

    Also, in a prima facie look at the editing history, I do not see an obvious reason why Fluffernutter's sanctions ought to be undone. Her actions appear to have been guided by the meritorious intent to prevent a heated and emotional debate from becoming too inflammatory, rather than by any prejudice or intent to abuse her authority. In addition, KoshVorlon's apparent creation of the attack account meta:User:Fluffernutter is a todger (as Mathsci points out) in reaction to the sanctions appears to confirm that KoshVorlon lacks the social skills required to participate in discussions about divisive social issues, and that sanctions preventing them from doing so are therefore required.

    For these reasons, I would decline the appeal.  Sandstein  11:52, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

  • User:KoshVorlon has made clear above that he won't be able to file an appeal in the usual way on his talk page. Though I don't know the details, he may be affected by a global IP block after a bit of unpleasantness at Meta. It is worth noting that Fluffernutter imposed a six-month topic ban, and when Kosh resolves his current IP difficulties he will still be able to to appeal that sanction if he chooses to do so. The statement by Kosh that was transmitted above does not exactly help his case. In a quick look at Fluffernutter's actions it is hard to see any obvious problems with her use of discretionary sanctions. As I noted in my original comment I don't perceive that GRuban has standing to appeal someone else's sanction. I agree with Sandstein that we should take no action on this request. EdJohnston (talk) 14:11, 4 October 2013 (UTC)
  • I would agree with Ed and Sandstein. This is both an appeal filed by one who was not sanctioned, and is in any case moot while KoshVorlon remains unable to edit whatsoever. Unless any uninvolved admin objects, I'll close this as non-actionable. If and when the global lock is removed, we can then consider an appeal through the normal process. If KoshVorlon remains locally blocked at that point, they may, as normal, prepare the appeal on their talk page and request that it be copied here. Unless any uninvolved admin objects, will close as such. Seraphimblade Talk to me 02:03, 5 October 2013 (UTC)
  • Looking at this discussion, there seems to be no chance of reaching a consensus to overturn Fluffernutter's sanctions, and therefore I'm closing this appeal as declined. I've taken note that several editors wish to discuss what they perceive as problems with this enforcement action, but they have not suggested any particular course of action to take, and it's not clear what this board could do about the perceived problems beyond overturning the enforcement action, which it seems quite clear we're not going to do. This is not an admin conduct discussion board, but a place in which to make decisions about imposing or lifting specific sanctions in specific situations. As noted above, any further discussions about the use of discretionary sanctions in this case would need to take place in other appropriate fora.  Sandstein  07:20, 6 October 2013 (UTC)


The request is being examined by the Arbitration Committee.  Sandstein  07:08, 6 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 Mathsci[edit]

User who is submitting this request for enforcement 
Cla68 (talk) 10:15, 4 October 2013 (UTC)
User against whom enforcement is requested 
Mathsci (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
Sanction or remedy to be enforced
Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Race and intelligence

Mathsci interaction ban

Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it 
  1. [19]
Additional comments by editor filing complaint 

On 17 September 2013, Mathsci was given an interaction ban between him and I. Soon after, Mathsci announced he was taking a break. The day he returned, he posted an image on his userpage and linked to two Wikipedia articles in the caption he placed with the image. The first wikilink is the name of my organization of employment. The second wikilink is to an article on the small community in which I reside. It has been there for two days. Someone brought it to my attention today.

As you should be aware, Mathsci has a history of escalating disputes like this with other editors. He has outed other editors on four separate occasions. He has pursued editors in which he was involved in a dispute to other noticeboards or Internet forums where they participate. Of all the threatening behavior I've ever witnessed in my seven years of Wikipedia participation, I have never seen one rise to this level.

I did not email ArbCom because Mathsci has made it clear in several recent comments that he has an inside connection with at least one, if not more ArbCom members [20]. Therefore, since I cannot trust that they will handle this correctly, I have no choice but to post it here publicly, at great risk of my privacy.

I ask that the administrators please make Mathsci stop. Once done, please oversight the image edit from his userpage, then oversight this enforcement request. Thank you. Cla68 (talk) 10:15, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

Addendum: Just to make it clear about what we're talking about here. I have never given my real name on Wikipedia. All I've ever said is that I'm American and live in Japan. As far as I know, my real name is not linked to my employer, which is a small organization, or place of employment anywhere on the Internet. Therefore, it appears that when Mathsci took his Wikibreak, he had to find out my real name, then somehow find out where I worked and who I worked for. I don't know how he did it, but it must have taken some hard work and effort, including perhaps calling people linked to my organization and asking them for information. So, it appears to go a little beyond simply Googling my WP username. Cla68 (talk) 23:08, 4 October 2013 (UTC)
Reply to Sandstein: One other thing about the image Mathsci placed on his userpage is that the person in the photo bears a striking resemblance to me. If someone were to find out my real name, then look at my photo on Facebook, I think they would notice the similarities between the two. Anyway, I have emailed ArbCom and offered to provide documentation of where I work and live. Barring their objection, I should have that completed later today. They have provided assurances below that Mathsci does not enjoy any special access privileges or status with the Committee and I will take their word for it in spite of Mathsci's continued name-dropping of arbitrator names in his statements. Thank you. Cla68 (talk) 22:47, 5 October 2013 (UTC)
I don't mind this enforcement action staying open until I have confirmed my identity with ArbCom. Once I have done that and action, if any, has been taken, then I have no problem with it being closed. If ArbCom is willing to say here that I have confirmed my statement above as true, I support Sandstein taking the actions he has highlighted below. Cla68 (talk) 04:08, 6 October 2013 (UTC)
By the way, I think Cardamon has a point. I don't think Mathsci was outing, he was threatening to out by letting me know on his userpage that he knew who I was. Googling my WP username does bring up my real name, although I have never linked the two in Wikipedia. However, going to further effort to find out someone's employer and place of residence, which as far as I know mine have never been linked to my name anywhere on the Internet, then letting that person know that you know it, is going a little further than just threatening to out someone. Cla68 (talk) 06:21, 6 October 2013 (UTC)
Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested 

Could someone please notify Mathsci? Cla68 (talk) 10:15, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

Done, though in my opinion such required notifications would not violate your own interaction ban.  Sandstein  10:21, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

Discussion concerning Mathsci[edit]

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

Statement by Mathsci[edit]

Apologies to Sandstein for the lateness of this response. Yesterday I was away from home and received an unexpected invitation to stay in Aubagne. I probably would have been away longer had it not been for equally unexpected thunderstorms.

I am perplexed by this enforcement request. It is the fourth time that Cla68 has suggested using arbcom processes in some way or other concerning me. The first was on 22 October 2012; the second on 5 December 2012; and the third on 4 July 2013.

This request concerns the fourth version of my user page, always an anodyne uninformative page which has never been watchlisted or viewed by more than a handful of wikipedia editors in any of its versions. The first image in this latest version was an engraving of John Knox admonishing Mary, Queen of Scots by the Scottish engraver John Burnet, after Sir William Allan. The second image had a reconciliation theme similar to content I added to an article on Korea at the end of 2012.[21] The information in the original caption of the second image was derived entirely from the file name, its description and what is contained on wikipedia, sometimes as redlinks. The image file was uploaded to Commons by BotMultichillT from an official US site. Neither the caption nor the file name contains even a vague reference to anything or anyone connected with the "behind the scenes" world of wikipedia.

Images on my user page in its previous versions have included various breeds of sheep, organ grinders' monkeys, an Ortolan bunting, biblical scenes, Grimm's fairy tales, scenes from Struwwelpeter, Max and Moritz, the French Revolution, the Guthrie center, monuments named after St Cuthbert, etc. All the images were chosen on a whim. The Ortolan bunting was posted after somebody told me how he had eaten Ortolan accompanied by armagnac with a napkin over his head. The images have never been intended to communicate anything to others, although, as with the Ortolan, they might have had some obscure quirky private meaning for me. Itsmejudith did once express an interest in the sheep; I also vaguely remember having an email discussion about Cuthbert with Anthony (AGK). My user talk page was recently protected by NuclearWarfare after Mikemikev posted the youtube video originally used to mock Steven Rubenstein's death last year. Anthony (AGK) changed the protection level on my user page a day or two later. Both responded to my private request in a kind and professional way.

Beyond the level of courtesy and helpfulness from arbitrators which is extended to everybody, I am not aware of any special relationship with arbitrators, oversighters, checkusers or administrators; nor of any edits I have made that would suggest any such relationship. 3 months ago arbitrators did change a decision of the oversight team in removing an external link to a page on a problematic external site. As far as images go, the same image will have different meanings for different viewers. I have posted a new image related to something I saw in the the Musée Ziem in Martigues yesterday.Mathsci (talk) 15:46, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

Cla68's first diff about a ban appeal was the main subject of an email sent to me by Captain Occam on 14 September and forwarded to arbcom-l. Mathsci (talk) 23:23, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

Statement by EatsShootsAndLeaves[edit]

As much as I think I'm on reasonable terms with Mathsci (I could be wrong, of course), but if there were such obvious attempts at outing (regardless of the IB), is there a reason why they are not indef-blocked right now? See User:Ecoleetage and others for precedent? ES&L 14:48, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

Statement by Demiurge1000[edit]

The Wikipediocracy thread "Deconstructing Wikipedia User Mathsci" was edited by a user there "Cla68" at the following times:

  • Wed Jul 24, 2013 11:34 pm
  • Tue Sep 17, 2013 11:20 pm
  • Wed Sep 18, 2013 8:43 am
  • Sat Sep 21, 2013 3:44 pm
  • Fri Oct 04, 2013 10:02 pm

(screenshots available on request to anyone with oversight privs)

Now, it being off-wiki, Cla68 can say what he likes there of course, but it does hint that Cla68 did not choose to walk away from Mathsci after the interaction ban, but instead chose to provoke him off-site a little.

Cla68 is a "Global Moderator" on that website, and his fellow "Global Moderators" also commented on that same topic ("Deconstructing Wikipedia User Mathsci") at the following times after 17 September (I'm not listing all the ones before):

  • EricBarbour - Tue Sep 17, 2013 6:54 pm
  • EricBarbour - Wed Oct 02, 2013 7:57 pm
  • EricBarbour - Fri Oct 04, 2013 9:14 pm
  • Cedric - Wed Oct 02, 2013 8:02 pm

There are plenty more similar comments (and maybe some from "global moderators" that I missed) by some other enwiki-banned editors there.

I believe Mathsci is prevented from posting there (I could be wrong, and at least one trustee and one admin of the website are still able to post to English Wikipedia so can clarify that if necessary) thus unable to respond to deliberate provocations there.

Why is this relevant? Because it shows (in my opinion) there was no intention to step away from MathSci, but rather to continue provoking him. I think Cla68 should be asked his views on his fellow forum users who posted photos of people they believed were MathSci, with mocking comments about them. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 02:28, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

Oh, I must admit to a bias here. As part of an attempt to smear my name, that same forum "Wikipediocracy" also hosted images of a person they believed to be me, along with that person's home address, phone number, and personal email address.
No, not just their presumed employer and "small community"; their home address, phone number, and personal email address.
Perhaps "Cla68" can comment. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 02:33, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

@Collect - the important difference here is that, instead of MathSci making an edit saying "I know Cla68 lives in the space base on Pluto", or even "I know where Cla68 lives", what we instead have is Cla68 making a claim (in essence) "the photo/caption added to MathSci's userpage mentioned the town where I live, and because this can not be a coincidence, it must have been an attempt to intimidate me". So really it's not a claim of "outing" as such, but rather a claim of intimidation. Because of the nature of the claim, it is up to Cla68 to confirm that the picture or caption really do refer to something non-coincidentally related to him (and thus deliberate). It is Cla68 making the accusation, thus the burden of proof rests with him.

Imagine, if you like, that someone who has recently been in disagreements with you, came to arbitration enforcement tomorrow and said that they live in Huntington Beach, and therefore your use of a image and ALT text referencing Huntington Beach must be "outing" aimed at them. There are some significant differences (such as the image's widespread usage in a template), but even so, would you want AE people to just take the complainant's word for it? --Demiurge1000 (talk) 22:29, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

Note regarding Cla68's claim "I have never given my real name on Wikipedia"

The current revision of Cla68's user page contains the text "please check out Wikipediocracy", with the last word there being a link to the website of the same name. Cla68 is a "Global Moderator" of that website. For considerable periods of time during the timeframe in question, the front page of that website has included Cla68's full name. Thus, it's true that Cla68 has never included text equivalent to "my real name is John Smith" in an edit he made to Wikipedia; but it is totally true that Cla68 made an edit to Wikipedia "please see this website" and his website proudly displayed his full real name. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 23:05, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

Query from Collect[edit]

Is "attempted outing" (that is the posting of material relating to a location and place of employment) required to be proven accurate to be actionable, or is the apparent intent, whether accurate or not, actionable? I seem to recall discussions where it is the intent and not the accuracy which is at issue generally, and so it is improper to ask the outed party whether the information is accurate, or worse yet, to have to prove the accuracy. Am I in error on this? Collect (talk) 20:37, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

Comments by Cardamon[edit]

If user A claims that user B is person C, and user B has never connected himself to person C on-wiki, that is attempted outing and, under our rules, person A can be indeffed. If person A says that person B lives in town C, and works at organization D, and person C has never done anything on-wiki to connect himself with town C or organization D, that is also attempted outing.

But if person A wikilinks to town C and organization D, and then person B pops up and says “Hey, that’s me! He just outed me! Ban him!” then person A did not out person B, although person B may have outed himself.

If we were to establish a principle that any person A can be banned because some person B claims without proof that a couple of wikilinks refer to him (person B), all prolific Wikipedians would be at risk.

So Mathsci did not out Cla68. Whether Mathsci violated his interaction ban depends to a considerable extent on who Cla68 is. (Remember the Essjay case, in which a former arbitrator was found to have lied about who he was. It can be a mistake to take a Wikipedian’s unsupported word as to his identity.) However, Cla68’s identity should not be investigated in public.

So my suggestion is that Arbcom should take up this enforcement request privately (Sandstein already said something much like this), and that this request be deleted, as Cla68 asked. Cardamon (talk) 23:56, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

Just to be clear, I agree with Sandstein's discussion of the possibility that Mathsci harassed Cla68. As with the possibility that Mathsci violated the interaction ban, this depends on who Cla68 is, which should not be investigated in public. Cardamon (talk) 03:22, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

Notes from arbitrators[edit]

  • Several edits, including the original posting by Mathsci referred to in Cla68's statement, have been suppressed as they are reasonably interpreted to be attempted outing. To the best of my knowledge, Mathsci's emails to Arbcom are not treated any differently than those from other editors. Risker (talk) 14:32, 4 October 2013 (UTC)
  • To expand on what Risker has said, Mathsci has no special relationship with any arbitrator (and if he has contended that he does, he is wildly mistaken). This enforcement request should be treated like any other. AGK [•] 15:45, 4 October 2013 (UTC)
  • Additional note: The Arbitration Committee has now received Cla68's written request to review this. I will leave it to those who regularly patrol this page to determine if this request can be archived. Risker (talk) 23:10, 5 October 2013 (UTC)
  • Procedural note: the best/easiest way forward is probably to open a Clarifications request, formally referring this to ArbCom. ArbCom can then handle the public stuff publicly, any private stuff privately, and have, if necessary, a vote in public on any motion.  Roger Davies talk 07:01, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

Result concerning Mathsci[edit]

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

  • I have seen the edit in question before it was oversighted and am waiting on a statement by Mathsci, which should be made as promptly as possible. I note that several edits to the section containing this request, which I have not seen, were also oversighted. All who comment on this request are warned not to publish any potentially private information or they may be blocked or otherwise sanctioned. I advise other editors to comment only if they have evidence that can help us resolve this request, rather than just an opinion that they wish to express.  Sandstein  15:22, 4 October 2013 (UTC)
  • Mathsci has not edited since this request. I have now asked them: "Please add any statement you wish to make to that section within 24 hours, i.e., until 07:30, 6 October 2013 (UTC). If you choose not to make a statement within that time frame, the request may be acted upon regardless." They have not enabled their e-mail address, or I would have notified them that way also.  Sandstein  07:22, 5 October 2013 (UTC)
  • My appreciation of this request is as follows. The now oversighted edit at issue replaced Mathsci's userpage with an image and the accompanying caption from a public domain source. The caption contained two wikilinks to, respectively, a location and an organization, both of which are (as far as I recall) relatively small, that is, on the order of a few hundred or thousand people.

    If it is true that, as Cla68 contends, these links correspond to their residence and employer, then the edit at issue – made just after Mathsci was interaction-banned with respect to Cla68 – must be interpreted as an attempt at intimidation by Mathsci with respect to Cla68, carrying the message "I know where you live and who you work for". That would be a violation of the interaction ban, as well as harassment (if not outing in the technical sense, because it contained no overt link to Cla68). In that case also, Mathsci's defense (that the image was not meant to communicate anything related to Cla68) is not credible, because given the several million images available on Commons, it is exceedingly unlikely that Mathsci would have chosen just this one at this time to decorate their user page. If Mathsci's action does represent an attempt at intimidation, then, in my view, the appropriate response to it would be a one-month arbitration enforcement block (the maximum allowed for first blocks under the enforcement provision) for violating the interaction ban, and, concurrently, an indefinite block under normal administrator authority, as well as the initiation of a community ban procedure. If, on the other hand, Cla68's claim turns out to be false, then similar sanctions should be applied to them for similar reasons (that is, using the AE process to harass others).

    However, there is a procedural problem. Such sanctions would rely on private evidence – that is, the oversighted edit and further evidence (to be supplied by Cla68) that the links in the caption do in fact correspond to their residence and employer. This board is not set up to process or act upon private evidence, but the Arbitration Committee is. I therefore consider it appropriate to refer this request to the Committee, without regard to Cla68's (unproven and therefore, in my view, not credible) claims of bias against unspecified arbitrators. I would appreciate feedback by other administrators or arbitrators about this.

    As regards Demiurge1000's statement concerning Cla68's alleged contributions to an offwiki forum, the recent edits attributed to Cla68 in the thread at issue do not appear to me to be so problematic as to warrant any onwiki action on their own. However, participating in such privacy-breaching offwiki discussions is, in my view, thoroughly discreditable for any Wikipedian, and any privacy-breaching offwiki actions should be taken into account as aggravating circumstances if there are grounds for any onwiki sanctions.  Sandstein  18:04, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

  • Considering Risker's statement above that Cla68 has now seized the Arbitration Committee of this matter, that I'm of the view that it can't be processed in this forum because it requires evaluating private evidence, and that no other administrator has shown interest in addressing it, I'm closing this thread at least for the time being. The Committee, of course, is free to refer the request back to this forum if they deem it appropriate. Whether anything here ought to be oversighted is for the oversight team to determine, but I can't see any obvious reasons for it, given that it was Cla68 themselves who chose to make this request in a public forum.  Sandstein  07:06, 6 October 2013 (UTC)


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)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Request concerning Interfase[edit]

User who is submitting this request for enforcement 
Երևանցի talk 21:28, 5 October 2013 (UTC)
User against whom enforcement is requested 
Interfase (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit 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 (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 [22]
  • placed under restriction for 3 months because of disruptive editing in March 2010 [23]
  • blocked for 60 hours in September 2012 for edit warring [24]
Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested 

Discussion concerning Interfase[edit]

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

Statement by Interfase[edit]

Not only I reverted IP, but also user EuroCarGT [26][27]. 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)

Statement by Hablabar[edit]

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)

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)
... ok, I did. Hablabar (talk) 22:16, 6 October 2013 (UTC)
  1. Numbered list item

Result concerning Interfase[edit]

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)

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)
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)
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)
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)


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[edit]

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 · edit filter log · block user · block log)
Sanction or remedy to be enforced
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:[28]. They describe their trolling here: [29], link to wikipedia here: Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/OS_0_1_2.

Their talk page originally contained a message [30] 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[31] as well as another account which geolocates to the same place: [32] with approximately the same user page content, see the SPI for more details). [[33]] 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: [34], his highlight again: [35] (today), my request again: [36], his highlight again [37]. I presume he is doing all the highlighting here: [38] 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 

Discussion concerning Tumbleman[edit]

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

Statement by Tumbleman[edit]

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[edit]

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[edit]

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[edit]

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 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[edit]

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 [40]. 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" [41], the dangers of a "skeptical POV agenda" [42] and the agenda of "GSM editors" [43], [44], [45], [46]. Ironically, he professes his own neutrality and lack of bias while accusing other editors of bias and organized "GSM" conspiracy [47]. 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 [48] 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[edit]

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[edit]

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: [49].) 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 [50], he came on the talk page to complain.

What followed next was very bizarre behavior. The remainder of this paragraph will reference this snapshot: [51]. 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 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."[52]. 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: [53] [54] [55] [56] [57] [58] and saying that he is being hacked [59].

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): [60][61][62][63][64][65][66][67][68][69][70][71][72][73][74].

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" [75]
  • "language from editors clearly shows a bias on the page" [76]
  • "commenting from editors shows a biased POV" [77]
  • "the bias that they clearly have" [78]
  • "a lot of biased sources and opinions" [79]
  • "we have biased editors quoting opinions" [80]
  • "editor is not able to provide a decent source and expresses a clear bias" [81]
  • "those with negative bias here" [82]
  • "your voice sounds a little biased here" [83]

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"[84]) 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"[85]. 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[edit]

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[edit]

In the request above,[86] 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."[87]

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"[88]

Comments following temporary re-opening

I've expressed my displeasure at the conclusion of this process here.[89] 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[edit]


@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 [90]. IRWolfie- (talk) 07:24, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

Result concerning Tumbleman[edit]

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)


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[edit]

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 · edit 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. [91] 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

This user also adds biased material as seen in 2013 Moscow riots article.

  1. [92] Turkish people
  2. [93] 2013 Moscow riots
  3. [94] 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) 
  1. He have already been notified [95]] 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 

Discussion concerning Yerevanci[edit]

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

Statement by Yerevanci[edit]

Statement by Lothar von Richthofen[edit]

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)

Statement by (username)[edit]

Result concerning Yerevanci[edit]

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)[edit]

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[edit]

User who is submitting this request for enforcement 
vzaak (talk) 15:50, 20 October 2013 (UTC)
User against whom enforcement is requested 

Sanction or remedy to be enforced

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:

Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it 
  1. 23:25, 20 October 2013 continuing to war
  2. 09:44, 20 October 2013‎ editing Sheldrake article
  3. 10:15, 20 October 2013‎ editing Sheldrake article
  4. 10:35, 20 October 2013‎ editing Sheldrake article
  5. 23:11, 8 October 2013 editing Sheldrake talk page
  6. 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) 
  1. 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# (probably the wrong place).

User is an outright vandal as well [97].

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested 

[98] [99] [100]

Discussion concerning[edit]

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

Statement by[edit]

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:

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: (talk) 23:40, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

Statement by vzaak[edit]

Considering that, in addition to the recent violation, there was a previous violation with notifications given on all IPs [101] [102] [103], 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[edit]

Please semi-protect the Sheldrake article. -- Brangifer (talk) 04:28, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

Result concerning[edit]

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[edit]

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 
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 [104] and with a clarification of the meaning of “broadly construed” given here.
Administrator imposing the sanction 

The administrator has been notified of this appeal.

Statement by Dolovis[edit]

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[edit]

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)[edit]

Statement by (involved editor 2)[edit]

Discussion among uninvolved editors about the appeal by Dolovis[edit]

Result of the appeal by Dolovis[edit]

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


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[edit]

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 · edit 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[edit]

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

Statement by NovaSkola[edit]

  • 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 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[edit]

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[edit]

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 [106] (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[edit]

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)[edit]

Result concerning NovaSkola[edit]

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)

Josh Gorand[edit]

The edit made in violation of the ban has been reverted. No other action is necessary at this time. Seraphimblade Talk to me 06:44, 31 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 Josh Gorand[edit]

User who is submitting this request for enforcement 
v/r - TP 13:31, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
User against whom enforcement is requested 
Josh Gorand (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
Sanction or remedy to be enforced
Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Manning naming dispute
Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it 
  1. 28 Oct 2013 Makes a large rant on his talk page continuing the dispute
Diffs of notifications or of prior warnings against the conduct objected to (if required) 
  1. Warned on 15 Oct 13 by Rschen7754 (talk · contribs)
Additional comments by editor filing complaint 

Josh Gorand is indefinitely topic banned from transgender topics for his inflammatory conduct and personal attacks with regard to Chelsea Manning. He has continued the dispute on his user page in his very first edits since returning to editing. He continues to misconstrue the facts, alleging that the WMF had it's hand in his topic ban to 'punish' him for his open letter.

@Gatoclass: Per WP:POLEMIC, the rant should be removed.--v/r - TP 13:04, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
@Gatoclass, Seraphimblade, EdJohnston, and Spartaz: If you're familiar with the dispute, Josh has a history of skewing the facts. The rant itself is evidence of that, given that he claims the foundation levied this topic ban on him. He also claims that it was retaliation for his opening the successful move request which he rather rudely opened it after other editors spent a month preparing it and took credit for their work and for which the discussion of his topic ban started weeks ahead of time. He also makes several claims about Sue Gardner for which she specifically said she was not acting as the executive director. He is using this rant to slander Wikipedia. The rant should be removed at the least and he should be blocked.--v/r - TP 02:47, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
The comments have been removed. I dont care if this closes or not now.--v/r - TP 02:49, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested 

Discussion concerning Josh Gorand[edit]

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

Statement by Josh Gorand[edit]

Statement by (username)[edit]

Result concerning Josh Gorand[edit]

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

Given that Gorand's recent edits are apparently intended as a parting statement, it's not clear to me what additional sanctions could achieve. I guess if he returns to editing about the topic area again, we could consider a block. Gatoclass (talk) 07:36, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

  • Does a user's talk page count as a page relating to transgender broadly construed? The arbcom finding was for pages not topics. To my mind this isn't necessarily a violation. Spartaz Humbug! 13:12, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
@Spartaz: yes, user pages are also covered by discretiony sanctions (see the Littleolive oil request below as an example).
@TParis: I take your point, but if your only concern is with regard to WP:POLEMIC, I don't see the need to resort to AE for a remedy; surely you could just remove the offending material yourself? I must admit to a certain reluctance to do so myself as at first glance I don't find the material all that objectionable and I'm somewhat reluctant to do anything that might further alienate an obviously upset user. Gatoclass (talk) 13:54, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
  • I tend to agree with Gatoclass here. It is a violation, and topic bans apply to every page including userspace, but as it's essentially a parting statement and a commentary on the ArbCom proceedings, I don't see what purpose blocking would serve other than to further inflame the situation. If Josh returns to editing, he'll still be expected to abide by the ban, but any future problems can be addressed if and when they occur. Unless anyone objects, I'll close this as no action/warning. Seraphimblade Talk to me 19:35, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
  • The letter of the ban would allow anyone to remove Josh Gorand's parting statement from his user page. ("Anyone is free to revert any edits made in violation of a ban..") I am not planning to do so. But I agree that there is no need for a block at this moment. This complaint might as well be closed. EdJohnston (talk) 00:06, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
  • Briefly, in case it got missed, there is a section on Josh Gorand's talk page where some editors (including me) respond to what he said on his user page, pointing out errors (among other things). I suggested he correct those errors if he reads what is said there, but it is possible he has left and does not intend to return; certainly his user page at the time included the statement that he "will not be updating the account of the case here in the future". I say at the time, because it got blanked by NE Ent because it was ban evasion. Not sure there is much more to add. If this needs to be moved to the section above, please do so. Carcharoth (talk) 02:53, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
@TParis and @Carcharoth: You've pointed out that there are factual errors in Josh Gorand's parting statement, for example, declaring that his topic ban was imposed by the Wikimedia Foundation. If he were still active we could ask him to fix the errors. Since he seems to have left, it's reasonable for anyone to remove the post he left on his user page. It appears that User:NE Ent has already done that. EdJohnston (talk) 03:20, 31 October 2013 (UTC)


Cavann is topic-banned indefinitely from topics related to the Balkans, broadly construed. Seraphimblade Talk to me 16:44, 9 November 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 Cavann[edit]

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 · edit filter log · block user · block log)
Sanction or remedy to be enforced
Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it 


Some warnings given:


Incivil and uncooperative

Examples before the warning:

After the warning, it continues:

Personal attacks and labels

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

  • [125] (19 August)
  • [126] 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 ([127][128]), the user continued his personal attacks of other editors:

Battlefield - separating users on the basis of ethnicity

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

Tendentious editing

  • On 28 September, I stated that the Turkish people article lacked any content about Turkification and on 30 September, I proposed its addition. Due to the contentiousness of the article, when it had already gone through its second page protection, I waited for any objections to my proposal until 20 October, when I added it 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 "Falsification of sources again". This source was 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 earlier. Additional sources were then added by Yerevanci (talk · contribs) which provided additional verification of the claim. 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." Cavann then warned Alexikoua and threatened to send Yerevanci to AE. 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.

To summarize:

  • 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: ([160][161][162][163]).
  • 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 there. 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 ([164][165]). 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.
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 


@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)
I have dramatically reduced the size. It is more than half of what it used to be. As for the response to Cavanns' accusations, I will wait until (or if) he will amend its size and diffs. Proudbolsahye (talk) 22:33, 26 October 2013 (UTC)
I believe EdJohnstons proposal could be taken into consideration only if the issue was limited to the problems posed at Turkish people. Unfortunately, this is not the case. Me and other users have already mentioned that the problem is the POV pushing of just one user in "multiple sections of multiple articles, over the opposition of multiple users". Therefore, I believe this issue won't be solved simply by taking a break or with another page protection in just one of these articles. Nevertheless, if the article requires page protection, it can fulfill that requirement on its own, as we have seen in the past. To impose such a page protection seems superfluous in that regard, especially when the article has already gone through two page protections which merely accelerated and incited the issue ultimately leading me here. Proudbolsahye (talk) 21:01, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
@Sandstein: I am still waiting for Cavann to shorten his response. I still do not feel that I should reply to such accusations especially when the user has not shown any signs of cooperation in the AE process. He has brushed aside any sort of attempt to shorten his statement ([170]). He has not been cooperative with any admin throughout the procedure even when implied to do so ([171]). He apparently refuses to shorten his massive statement alongside three AE reports as a way of counterbalancing the massive claims against him. Better yet, he has used the AE as another opportunity to lash out against his "opponents" while continuing to assume bad faith on the talk pages of relevant articles ([172]). His response includes diffs from 2008 that have nothing to do with conflicts concerning ARBMAC or AA2, let alone the issues at hand ([173]). He continues to accuse editors of issues that are by no ways and means actionable under ARBMAC or AA2. Accusations of creating "Turkey-negative" articles are baseless and of bad faith (I encourage users to see all articles I have created [174]). I can go on and on...
I would like to ask, if this user ignores even the simplest of suggestions by admins, such as shortening a statement in the AE, how does anyone expect him to cooperate with any other user over the various topics he disagrees with in the future especially when he hasn't done so in the past? Proudbolsahye (talk) 05:38, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

Discussion concerning Cavann[edit]

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

Statement by Cavann[edit]

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[edit]

First of all, let me begin by acknowledging that I should have been more civil. I have admitted this before [178] 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 [179] 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" [180], "By being insane of course", [181]).
"I guess English is not your first language." [182] 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) [183]
I reject accusations of "ethnic baiting." This [184] in response to this [185] is not ethnic baiting. Even Athenean modifies his proposal [186]
  • 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. [187]
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 [188]. 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[edit]
  • 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 [189]
  • 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,”[190] that political views were “nationalism,”[191]. Also had a list of bunch of far-right parties in Europe, with their vote percentages.[192]
Yerevanci was previously topic-banned [193]
  • 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 [194]
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)" [195])
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" [196], even though the sources did not support it (see explanation here, with a quote from the source [197])
Keeps insisting on adding a definition unsupported from the source [198], removes page number where the term is specifically defined to preserve his definition unsupported by the source [199]
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 [200]
Relevant full threads: [201], User_talk:Proudbolsahye#Falsification_of_sources_again, User_talk:Athenean#Falsification_of_sources)
Behaviour of Athenean[edit]
  • 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).[203]
Has been sanctioned under ARBMAC 5 times [204] [205] [206] [207] [208]
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)" [209]
    • 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
Comment by another editor [213]
Few examples:
[214] 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 [215] based on frivolous reasons such as coming up with blatantly incorrect definitions of Western Anatolia [216] or applying a geographic standard that is not applied to other parts of the article [217] (my response [218]) to disassociate relevant events to present his own POV in the article.
Behaviour of Alexikoua[edit]
  • 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). [219]
Has been sanctioned under ARBMAC 1 time [220]
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: [221] (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 [222]
Adds dubious warning,[223] even though source strongly supports what it is being cited for (quote from the source: [224]) 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"[225], 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 [226], even though source is clear [227] and quote is provided in the talk page [228]. 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[edit]
  • 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: [229])
  • 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 [230], Proudbolsahye quickly reverts me [231], even though he had never edited that article before [232]
Various Arbitration enforcement cases filed by any editor involves the other editors. Eg: Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive137#DragonTiger23

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 [233];User:E4024, who is from Turkey and ran into problems with Athenean, Proudbolsahye, etc thought I was from "South (Greek) Cyprus" [234]).

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[edit]
  • @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)
I don't mind a 2 month break, as I'm getting busier with school anyway. After everyone cools down, the issue can -hopefully- be resolved during formal mediation. Cavann (talk) 20:09, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
Brief response to comments by Dr.K.: I had reliable sources too (Talk:Istanbul#Toponymy_and_Lead), and I brought the issue to Dispute Resolution. Given the comments from uninvolved people (my question [235], response [236]), I also dropped the issue. I only have 2 reverts with respect to that event ([237], [238]; one other revert, I self reverted that). I think that and convo in Miletus (Talk:Miletus#Miletus_is_referred_to_as_a_Greek_city_by_reliable_sources_and_not_a_Luwian_city.) shows that I do not edit-war, given input from uninvolved editors, and/or when shown reliable sources. The issue with Turkish people page is, however, a group of editors reverting in tag teams to delete sourced relevant material. Especially this sorta behaviour from Athenean and Alexikou goes way back (all the way back to 2010; see above diff), and involves articles about all of Greece's neighbours (eg: Albania, Macedonia, Turkey related pages).Cavann (talk) 04:58, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
I do not advance material that is UNDUE or not reliably sourced. Your accusations of POV-pushing are baseless, the most recent example being the Miletos talk page, which you -yourself- brought up. The chart at Great Fire of Smyrna was OR (Talk:Izmir#Pie_Chart_on_Great_Fire_of_Smyrna_and_Izmir_Pages), and was eventually deleted. Removing OR material is not pushing a POV. As for incivility, you are right, I should have been more civil. I hope you can extend the same civility to me (e.g., "I can only say that you look completely over the top and out of control. Seeing your condition, I don't need to defend anything. I just wish you a speedy recovery." (also, "I just wish you a speedy recovery" in the edit history again) [239]). Cavann (talk) 22:49, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
Response to Athenean: Athenean says I make "wild allegations." It's enough to look at his first example to see all of his rebuttal is nonsensical. Athenean said '"Athenean has been sanctioned 5 times", which is not true,': the diffs above, for arbitration sanctions, show 5 different dates: 14:32, 22 August 2009; 06:55, 2 May 2010; 14:52, 6 May 2010; 10:49, 30 September 2010 (Athenean "is admonished for treating Wikipedia as a battleground. He is warned that further infractions may lead to a topic ban" by the admin Timotheus Canens [240]); 15:27, 22 March 2011 (see above, Behaviour of Athenean, 1st point). That is clearly 5.
As for Anatolianist POV-pushing accusations, as I said to Dr. K., I do not advance material that is UNDUE or not reliably sourced. I bring the disputes to dispute resolution processes such as RFC or DRN, and I sometimes drop the issue, given comments from uninvolved people (such as Istanbul example, as outlined above).
As for 2010 diff, it clearly shows Athenean's behaviour of reverting in tag-teams goes back a LONG LONG time. Whereas Athenean, Alexikoua, and Proudbolsahye cooperate in Turkey-related articles, Athenean and Alexikoua revert in tag-teams in articles related to all of Greece's neighbours (few eg's: Albanians, [241], [242], [243]; Illyrians, [244] [245] [246]) In the Illyrians example, they change the wording of Britannica source, even though it is cited as a reference. Their weasel wording ("Albanian might have descended from a southern Illyrian dialect") seems to have fixed in latest version "... the Albanian language is traditionally seen as a descendant of Illyrian dialects that survived in remote areas of the Balkans during the Middle Ages." Cavann (talk) 20:45, 3 November 2013 (UTC)
Just a quick reminder that diffs from Albanians are from 2011, and diffs from Illyrians are from 2012. And this behaviour extends into 2013 with Turkish people and List of massacres in Turkey. So, problematic behaviour going all the way back to 2010 is still ongoing. I have tried to both address accusations about my behaviour, and bring the problematic behaviour of others to attention. Athenean seems not used to this, even though Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement is his third most-edited page (with 259 edits WikiChecker link) and he brought so many editors here ([247]) Cavann (talk) 05:11, 4 November 2013 (UTC)
  • @Sandstein: I have tried to shorten my response [248], but could not, given that I could not fully answer the accusations against me without explaining the long-term BATTLE behaviour of other editors. Long-term BATTLE behaviour is -indeed- relevant to ARBMAC (and/or ARBAA2 with respect to Proudbolsahye, and his falsification of sources along with his almost exclusively "Turkey-negative" edit history). Cavann (talk) 05:58, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

Statement by Athenean[edit]

  • Cavann is tendentious. Cavann is consistently pushing what appears to be an Anatolianist POV, is incivil towards those that disagree with him, and willing to edit war to have his way [249] [250]. 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 [251], the "History" section [252], the infobox [253], as well the "Genetics" section. This exchange [254] is good example. 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. It is clear he wants the statement that the modern Turkish population are the direct descendants of the Ancient Anatolians repeated throughout the article as much and as prominently as possible, and this I find tendentious.
  • Several months ago it was the same thing at Istanbul: He wants a minor Neolithic settlement mentioned as much as possible, in the infobox [263], the lede [264], the history section [265] and the "Toponymy" section [266]. The additions to the lede and Toponymy sections I find particularly tendentious. This is accompanied by edit-warring (diffs not shown for brevity), and several rounds of tediously long discussions where a very strong consensus had formed against him. Several months later he restarts the same debate with undiminished intensity [267] [268] [269]. Another, virtually identical talkpage thread follows [270]. The way he reignited the controversy (after there was a clear consensus against him) several months later I find particularly disruptive.
  • Same thing at Turkey: [271] 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. Yet another tediously long discussion follows where a strong consensus forms against him.
  • Other recent examples of Anatolianist POV-pushing [272], [273] (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), [274], [275] [276], [277]. Note how "ancient Greek" he puts in parentheses, while "Roman" he does not.
  • Cavann is belligerent towards users he disagrees with. He uses a combination of edit-warring, incivility and intimidation to subdue his opponents (in addition to Proudbolsahye's diffs, stuff like this [278], false accusations of racism [279], frivolous warnings and templating of regular editors, loaded with bad faith assumptions: [280] [281] [282] [283] [284]). Within minutes of me making a relatively minor edit, he reverts with a hostile edit summary [285] and resorts to threats unprovoked [286]. When I point out that he is assuming bad faith and his behavior is disruptive his reply is loaded with innuendos [287], then resumes the bad faith assumptions [288].
  • WP:OWN as regards to Turkish people, particularly comments such as this [289]. Here he reverts another user [290], only to make a very similar edit a couple of months later [291] (restored "Anatolian civilizations" in the same sentence). At least one other user has expressed WP:OWN concerns [292].

I will refrain from responding to Cavann's accusations for the moment (depending on whether he shortens his response), but would like to point out that his response typifies the belligerent behavior I mention above. I will only point out that his defense that he added "Turkic" to the article is misleading, since here he edit-warred to remove "Turkic" using different excuses each time [293] [294]. Athenean (talk) 21:19, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

Response to EdJohnston's proposal

As I show in my statement, the problem isn't simply limited to edit-warring on Turkish people. The edit-warring is a symptom of Cavann's tendentious editing, Anatolianist POV-pushing across wikipedia, as well as his constant bad-faith assuming [295]. Even if we go ahead with the proposal, that wouldn't address the core issues outlined in this report, rather, it would merely divert them to other articles. Athenean (talk) 21:01, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

Brief comment on Cavann's behavior during these proceedings.

I'd be happy to refute Cavann's allegations against me one by one, but that is not the subject of this report, the subject of this report is Cavann's own behavior, and I note Cavann has failed to refute the allegations against him (particularly the charges of Anatolianist POV-pushing and grossly incivil behavior), and instead has chosen to go on the offensive (WP:NOTTHEM). He makes wild allegations that he doesn't back up with evidence ("Athenean has a very very very very long history of disruption", when in fact my record has been spotless for almost 3 years now, "Athenean has been sanctioned 5 times", which is not true, "Athenean engages in personal attacks", but not a single diff he provides backs that claim, "Proudbolsahye falsified sources", a charge which does not stand up to scrutiny, "Proudbolsahye engages in long-term plagiarizing", another extremely serious charge that is completely baseless, "Athenean deletes source material with frivolous reasons", something which does not stand up to scrutiny, the diffs he presents are out of context, and there is a good reason behind every single one of them). He digs up very old diffs from 2010 in the hopes that something will stick. He has pointedly refused to shorten his statement [296], when every other participant has shortened theirs. The fact that he thinks in terms of "Turkey-negative" articles shows he has a POV problem. His response consists of essentially 3 retaliatory AE reports, one against a user who hasn't even participated at this proceedings. He consistently assumes bad faith on an ethnic basis, unprovokedly accusing any users of a Greek or Armenian background of "far-right" political views, an extremely severe and insulting allegation. He refuses to acknowledge that he has edit-warred, insisting it's about how he's right because he has sources, as if that makes it ok. In summary, his response here is the best evidence of his belligerent, uncompromising behavior that is outlined in this report and that is such a problem across Turkey-related topics. Athenean (talk) 05:08, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

Last reply to Cavann's latest

Cavann once again tries to deflect the issue of his own behavior by going on the offensive, this time with yet another truckload of stale, out-of-context diffs. I'm obviously not going to get into a detailed rebuttal of these, just point out that Alexikoua and I have very different editing interests [297] [298] that occasionally overlap (e.g. Illyrians, Souliotes). But whenever we both happen to revert Cavann, it's "tag-teaming". In fact in most of the disputes I have been involved in, including a particularly sharp one with Cavann at African admixture in Europe [299], Alexikoua is nowhere to be seen. Just like whenever an editor from a Greek or Armenian background disagrees with him, it's "far-right POV-pushing". This is just the type of permanent bad-faith-assuming behavior that makes it impossible to collaborate with this user. It's all bad faith assumptions, all the time. Athenean (talk) 04:34, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

Statement by Dr.K.[edit]

I would like to add a brief statement regarding the unjustified base insults I have received from Cavann for reverting him occasionally as a means to demonstrate that he tenaciously, methodically and habitually supports his strong POV with base insults coupled with relentless and diachronic edit-warring. For example at Istanbul after long discusions and after he got rebuffed by wide consensus on the talkpage, he returns months later to yet again add his POV trying to deprecate the Byzantine origins of the onomatology of the city in favour of earlier settlements, despite the available reliable sources which call Byzantium the founding city. After I reverted him he links to Golden Dawn (political party) through his piped link in his edit-summary accusing me of ultra-rightist POV, never mind that soon after he got rebuffed for the nth time by other editors at Talk:Istanbul. At the talkpage of Drmies he went to accuse me and Athenean of original research. After I responded to his accusations, he implies that I am a troll by using the phrase "I will deny recognition": I will deny recognition to Dr. K. again.. In my last encounter at talk:Miletus, his opening statement was Please, not this nationalistic POV-pushing again.: [300]. Never mind that he was pushing his POV that Miletus was actually an ancient Luwian city which only later became Greek, in utter defiance of all available reliable sources: [301]. There are many more incidents involving the rampant incivility of this editor and its synergistic relation to his POV-pushing but for the sake of brevity I will end them here. Δρ.Κ. λόγοςπράξις 04:43, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

Reply to Cavann

Your reply completely ignores the fact that you are using gross personal attacks as a means to subdue your opposition and promote your POV. For example at talk:Istanbul other editors opposed you on exactly the same points, such as Tariqabjotu and Alessandro57, yet you did not attack them with claims of far-rightist POV and links to neo-nazi parties. You reserved that unjust, unjustified, unjustifiable and gross insult for me. Similarly your opening statement at Miletus attacked me with claims of nationalistic POV-pushing without justification, indeed you later agreed with me, again establishing your use of nationality-based attacks to promote your POV. You also gratuitously insinuated I was a troll at Drmies's talkpage when I went there to defend myself from your false accusations. This is the reason why this AE request must stop that. Δρ.Κ. λόγοςπράξις 15:44, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

  • I think the facts speak for themselves. So I will let the admins do the talking going forward. Δρ.Κ. λόγοςπράξις 23:04, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

Result concerning Cavann[edit]

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)
I agree.  Sandstein  21:30, 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)
  • I agree that the statements should be shortened or they may not be taken into account in their entirety. Statements should focus on the most salient issues and diffs, and very concisely explain what the problem is.  Sandstein  21:30, 26 October 2013 (UTC)
  • I've made a study of the editing at Turkish people since September 1, where a series of edit wars have occurred. During that time the article has been fully protected twice, the last time for a week. The constant reverting by people who evidently don't have consensus is the main problem. Here are my stats on who has reverted the most. This covers Sept 1 through October 25, excluding a few items where I thought some justification might exist. I found a total of 47 edits that appeared to be reverts:
  • 15 reverts by Cavann
  • 9 reverts by Alexikoua
  • 7 reverts by Athenean
  • 6 reverts by Proudbolsahye
  • 5 reverts by Yalens
  • 3 reverts by Yerevanci
  • 2 reverts by Jingiby
Suppose we close this AE with measures that are sufficient to stop the edit war at Turkish people. My first choice would be a voluntary agreement by the top four editors to take a two-month break from both the article and the talk page. That would be Cavann, Alexikoua, Athenean and Proudbolsahye. If that doesn't fly, then either bans of specific editors from the article or two months of full protection might be considered. EdJohnston (talk) 18:15, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
I've been thinking along somewhat similar lines, I might add a proposal of my own shortly. Gatoclass (talk) 06:03, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
Lost my internet connection last night, sorry. On reflection, I think I will want to take a closer look at some of the evidence before making any further comment. Gatoclass (talk) 03:56, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
  • Close this soon with full protection? If the admins believed everything in the original complaint and the responses, especially regarding WP:BATTLE editing, we would probably topic ban everybody. It might be useful for an admin to summarize all the complaints (leaving out the unconvincing parts) but that would lengthen this AE even more. If there are no further admin comments I'm considering two months of full protection of Turkish people, as in my proposal above. EdJohnston (talk) 15:58, 2 November 2013 (UTC)
I'd still like to take a closer look at some of the evidence first, I will try to do that later today. Gatoclass (talk) 01:55, 3 November 2013 (UTC)
I've taken a look through most of the provided diffs but I may also want to read through some talk page exchanges, unfortunately I have run out of time to do this today and I have a busy day tomorrow so it will probably be a day or two before I can follow up here, my apologies in advance for the delay. Gatoclass (talk) 13:52, 3 November 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for volunteering to look at this. I don't currently have the time to examine this amount of evidence. As to EdJohnston's suggestion, I'm of the view that it's almost always preferable to sanction the individuals responsible for misconduct rather than, by protecting a page, everybody else too. Even if that means we need to topic-ban everybody here, which may be a possibility if most of these allegations are true.  Sandstein  07:12, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

I don't want to spend too much more time on this, so I will try to keep this brief. In particular, I am not going to present too many diffs, firstly because there are so many of them one hardly knows when to start, and secondly because I do not want to overburden the other uninvolved admins with an excess of evidence.

Firstly then, having looked at Cavann's evidence regarding his opponents, I would describe it as all either ancient and already dealt with, or irrelevant or trivial; in short I see nothing actionable there.

That leaves the evidence against Cavann. Firstly, it is clear that Cavann is the common factor in all these content disputes, and seems to be fighting a lone hand in most of them against multiple other users, which alone is a pattern that rings alarm bells. Cavann's explanation for this seems to be that his opponents are "nationalist POV pushers", but his opponents have included highly experienced administrators including Fut Perf and Tariqabjotu as well as uninvolved editors.

Regarding Cavann's mainspace editing, I have looked through all the diffs supplied in evidence and agree that most if not all of them look WP:TENDENTIOUS to at least some degree, especially with respect to WP:UNDUE. Since the tendentiousness may not always be clear from many of these diffs without looking closely at the underlying disputes, I am going to provide a few examples which I hope will illustrate the point.

  • Cavann has been in dispute with multiple users at the Istanbul article since at least April, and has started at least one RFC (probably more) and two DRN's regarding this article. As Athenean noted in his evidence, Cavann wanted a minor Neolithic settlement mentioned as much as possible, in the infobox, the lede, the history section and the "Toponymy" section. Apart from the content spamming, Cavann's edits to the "Toponymy" section I find particularly troublesome,[[302][303][304][305] because the section is clearly about the toponymy (or names) of the city of Istanbul which is the article subject, it should be obvious that names of prior minor settlements scattered around the locality are not toponyms of Istanbul, any more than "Picadilly" is a toponym of "London", but this point seems lost on Cavann. I think this particular battle of Cavann's has probably been best summarized by the uninvolved editor Cabe6403 in his closing statement for the second DRN.[306]
  • After Istanbul, Cavann switched his attention to other cities, including the ancient Greek cities of Ephesus and Miletus. Now, Ephesus is famous for housing one of the seven wonders of the ancient world, the Greek Temple of Artemis, while Miletus is famous, according to sources quoted in the article, as "perhaps the very greatest and wealthiest city of the Greek world". But Cavann describes these cities as "Arzawian" and "Luwian" respectively - after early cultures about which practically nothing is known - while reducing their celebrated Greek periods to parentheses.[307][308][309][310][311][312] In the case of this series of edits, "tendentious" seems almost inadequate as a description.
  • At African admixture in Europe, Cavann suddenly turns up to an article he has never edited before to start reverting Athenean over a claim that Greeks are more closely related to Africans than any other Mediterranean people.[313][314][315] Cavann's edits are sourced to this researcher. It's hard to see these edits as anything other than provocative.

So much for mainspace. EdJohnston has already documented Cavann's propensity for edit warring (15 substantial reverts at Turkish people since early September). In several places (sorry don't have the diffs to hand) Cavann has justified his edit warring against consensus on the basis that only a consensus of "uninvolved" editors counts, but there is no support for this notion in the policy. Additionally, numerous editors have noted Cavann's propensity for WP:IDHT and incivility on talk pages; Proudbolsayhe has a done a fair job of documenting the latter in his evidence above. One of the more egregious examples is this edit summary[316] - IMO, it doesn't get much more offensive than implying - and without any apparent provocation - that one's opponents are neo-Nazis or fascists. (Some other examples[317][318]).

In short, there are a variety of offences on display here IMO, from WP:TENDENTIOUS to WP:IDHT to WP:CIV to WP:BATTLEGROUND. Regrettably, although I normally err on the side of leniency, in this case I see little option but for a substantial topic ban - I would suggest, six months at minimum, if only to give his opponents some respite. Gatoclass (talk) 14:59, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

Based on that analysis – thanks! – an indefinite topic ban for Cavann appears called for. This approach to editing is unlikely to change after six months, though if it does the ban can always be appealed.  Sandstein  18:47, 6 November 2013 (UTC)
Thanks to Gatoclass for his analysis. It now appears that a topic ban of Cavann would be appropriate. EdJohnston (talk) 21:47, 7 November 2013 (UTC)
Given the sustained and substantial nature of the issues, I would agree that an indefinite ban is the correct response. Indefinite doesn't have to mean forever, but we would need to see major improvements in editing practices and collaboration before a return to such a difficult area could be considered. Seraphimblade Talk to me 21:28, 8 November 2013 (UTC)