Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement: Difference between revisions

Important information Shortcuts WP:AE WP:ARE Please use this page only to: request administrative action against editors violating a remedy (not merely a principle) or an injunction in an Arbitration Committee decision, or a contentious topic restriction imposed by an administrator, request contentious topic restrictions against previously alerted editors who engage in misconduct in a topic area designated as a contentious topic, request page restrictions (e.g. revert restrictions) on pages that are being disrupted in topic areas designated as contentious topics, or appeal arbitration enforcement actions (including contentious topic restrictions) to uninvolved administrators. For all other problems, including content disagreements or the enforcement of community-imposed sanctions, please use the other fora described in the dispute resolution process. To appeal Arbitration Committee decisions, please use the clarification and amendment noticeboard. Only autoconfirmed users may file enforcement requests here; requests filed by IPs or accounts less than four days old or with less than 10 edits will be removed. All users are welcome to comment on requests except where doing so would violate an active restriction (such as an extended-confirmed restriction). If you make an enforcement request or comment on a request, your own conduct may be examined as well, and you may be sanctioned for it. Enforcement requests and statements in response to them may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. (Word Count Tool) Statements must be made in separate sections. Non-compliant contributions may be removed or shortened by administrators. Disruptive contributions such as personal attacks, or groundless or vexatious complaints, may result in blocks or other sanctions. To make an enforcement request, click on the link above this box and supply all required information. Incomplete requests may be ignored. Requests reporting diffs older than one week may be declined as stale. To appeal a contentious topic restriction or other enforcement decision, please create a new section and use the template {{Arbitration enforcement appeal}}. Appeals and administrator modifications of contentious topics restrictions The Arbitration Committee procedures relating to modifications of contentious topic restrictions state the following: All contentious topic restrictions (and logged warnings) may be appealed. Only the restricted editor may appeal an editor restriction. Any editor may appeal a page restriction. The appeal process has three possible stages. An editor appealing a restriction may: ask the administrator who first made the contentious topic restrictions (the "enforcing administrator") to reconsider their original decision; request review at the arbitration enforcement noticeboard ("AE") or at the administrators' noticeboard ("AN"); and submit a request for amendment ("ARCA"). If the editor is blocked, the appeal may be made by email. Appeals submitted at AE or AN must be submitted using the applicable template. A rough consensus of administrators at AE or editors at AN may specify a period of up to one year during which no appeals (other than an appeal to ARCA) may be submitted. Changing or revoking a contentious topic restriction An administrator may only modify or revoke a contentious topic restriction if a formal appeal is successful or if one of the following exceptions applies: The administrator who originally imposed the contentious topic restriction (the "enforcing administrator") affirmatively consents to the change,[a] or is no longer an administrator;[b] or The contentious topic restriction was imposed (or last renewed) more than a year ago and: the restriction was imposed by a single administrator, or the restriction was an indefinite block. A formal appeal is successful only if one of the following agrees with revoking or changing the contentious topic restriction: a clear consensus of uninvolved administrators at AE, a clear consensus of uninvolved editors at AN, a majority of the Arbitration Committee, acting through a motion at ARCA. Any administrator who revokes or changes a contentious topic restriction out of process (i.e. without the above conditions being met) may, at the discretion of the Arbitration Committee, be desysopped. Standard of review On community review Uninvolved administrators at the arbitration enforcement noticeboard ("AE") and uninvolved editors at the administrators' noticeboard ("AN") should revoke or modify a contentious topic restriction on appeal if: the action was inconsistent with the contentious topics procedure or applicable policy (i.e. the action was out of process), the action was not reasonably necessary to prevent damage or disruption when first imposed, or the action is no longer reasonably necessary to prevent damage or disruption. On Arbitration Committee review Arbitrators hearing an appeal at a request for amendment ("ARCA") will generally overturn a contentious topic restriction only if: the action was inconsistent with the contentious topics procedure or applicable policy (i.e. the action was out of process), the action represents an unreasonable exercise of administrative enforcement discretion, or compelling circumstances warrant the full Committee's action. ^ The administrator may indicate consent at any time before, during, or after imposition of the restriction. ^ This criterion does not apply if the original action was imposed as a result of rough consensus at the arbitration enforcement noticeboard, as there would be no single enforcing administrator. Appeals and administrator modifications of non-contentious topics sanctions The Arbitration Committee procedures relating to modifications and appeals state: Appeals by sanctioned editors Appeals may be made only by the editor under sanction and only for a currently active sanction. Requests for modification of page restrictions may be made by any editor. The process has three possible stages (see "Important notes" below). The editor may: ask the enforcing administrator to reconsider their original decision; request review at the arbitration enforcement noticeboard ("AE") or at the administrators’ noticeboard ("AN"); and submit a request for amendment at the amendment requests page ("ARCA"). If the editor is blocked, the appeal may be made by email through Special:EmailUser/Arbitration Committee (or, if email access is revoked, to arbcom-enwikimedia.org). Modifications by administrators No administrator may modify or remove a sanction placed by another administrator without: the explicit prior affirmative consent of the enforcing administrator; or prior affirmative agreement for the modification at (a) AE or (b) AN or (c) ARCA (see "Important notes" below). Administrators modifying sanctions out of process may at the discretion of the committee be desysopped. Nothing in this section prevents an administrator from replacing an existing sanction issued by another administrator with a new sanction if fresh misconduct has taken place after the existing sanction was applied. Administrators are free to modify sanctions placed by former administrators – that is, editors who do not have the administrator permission enabled (due to a temporary or permanent relinquishment or desysop) – without regard to the requirements of this section. If an administrator modifies a sanction placed by a former administrator, the administrator who made the modification becomes the "enforcing administrator". If a former administrator regains the tools, the provisions of this section again apply to their unmodified enforcement actions. Important notes: For a request to succeed, either (i) the clear and substantial consensus of (a) uninvolved administrators at AE or (b) uninvolved editors at AN or (ii) a passing motion of arbitrators at ARCA is required. If consensus at AE or AN is unclear, the status quo prevails. While asking the enforcing administrator and seeking reviews at AN or AE are not mandatory prior to seeking a decision from the committee, once the committee has reviewed a request, further substantive review at any forum is barred. The sole exception is editors under an active sanction who may still request an easing or removal of the sanction on the grounds that said sanction is no longer needed, but such requests may only be made once every six months, or whatever longer period the committee may specify. These provisions apply only to contentious topic restrictions placed by administrators and to blocks placed by administrators to enforce arbitration case decisions. They do not apply to sanctions directly authorized by the committee, and enacted either by arbitrators or by arbitration clerks, or to special functionary blocks of whatever nature. All actions designated as arbitration enforcement actions, including those alleged to be out of process or against existing policy, must first be appealed following arbitration enforcement procedures to establish if such enforcement is inappropriate before the action may be reversed or formally discussed at another venue. Information for administrators processing requests Thank you for participating in this area. AE works best if there are a variety of admins bringing their expertise to each case. There is no expectation to comment on every case, and the Arbitration Committee (ArbCom) thanks all admins for whatever time they can give. A couple of reminders: Before commenting, please familiarise yourself with the referenced ArbCom case. Please also read all the evidence (including diffs) presented in the AE request. When a request widens to include editors beyond the initial request, these editors must be notified and the notifications recorded in the same way as for the initial editor against whom sanctions were requested. Where some part of the outcome is clear, a partial close may be implemented and noted as "Result concerning X". Enforcement measures in arbitration cases should be construed liberally to protect Wikipedia and keep it running efficiently. Some of the behaviour described in an enforcement request might not be restricted by ArbCom. However, it may violate other Wikipedia policies and guidelines; you may use administrative discretion to resolve it. More than one side in a dispute may have ArbCom conduct rulings applicable to them. Please ensure these are investigated. Closing a thread: Once an issue is resolved, enclose it between {{hat}} and {{hab}} tags. A bot should archive it in 7 days. Please consider referring the case to ARCA if the outcome is a recommendation to do so or the issue regards administrator conduct. You can use the templates {{uw-aeblock}} (for blocks) or {{AE sanction}} (for other contentious topic restrictions) to give notice of sanctions on user talk pages. Please log sanctions in the Arbitration enforcement log. Thanks again for helping. If you have any questions, please post on the talk page.

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

Request concerning Tumbleman

User who is submitting this request for enforcement

IRWolfie- (talk) 14:42, 16 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested

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

Sanction or remedy to be enforced

Wikipedia:ARB/PS#Discretionary_sanctions

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

Editor is an internet troll with a past record of being blocked from other sites:[7]. They describe their trolling here: [8], link to wikipedia here: Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/OS_0_1_2.

Their talk page originally contained a message [9] about how he is performing a "a case study in online wiki mediation".

They have continued this subtle trolling here and been caught recently for sock puppets: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Tumbleman, where he claimed this was because he was working with a PR company and she created accounts and (presumably by chance agreed with him, and was also presumably a long time watcher of the Sheldrake page by coincidence[10] as well as another account which geolocates to the same place: [11] with approximately the same user page content, see the SPI for more details). [[12]] 14th October.

The editor also refuses to stop highlighting my name on his userpage (which is, quite frankly, bloody annoying) seems part of this same trolling. My request for him to stop: [13], his highlight again: [14] (today), my request again: [15], his highlight again [16]. I presume he is doing all the highlighting here: [17] to try and increase the disruption by highlighting multiple individuals continuously.

I request that their current block be extended to indefinitely blocked for trolling the talk page of Rupert Sheldrake (covered by WP:ARB/PS discretionary sanctions), and preferably with talk page access removed so he stops highlighting people, IRWolfie- (talk) 14:42, 16 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

Note that a reading of Rupert Sheldrake also shows the subtle trolling, deliberate cluelessness and belligerence, but I think there is enough here to demonstrate the issue without trawling through ~500,000 bytes of material at Talk:Rupert Sheldrake. IRWolfie- (talk) 14:50, 16 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@Liz, "... I don't think you will actually see this Tumbleman participating in these diffs...". You clearly have not looked at the links I presented to the off wiki trolling and the link to on-wiki. IRWolfie- (talk) 22:37, 16 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

• [18]

Discussion concerning Tumbleman

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

Statement by Tumbleman

Note that Tumbleman (talk · contribs) cannot edit this page because he was blocked for one week for socking. I suggest as a compromise, Tumbleman (talk · contribs) posts any comment to his talk page at user talk: Tumbleman and it can be copied here. Barney the barney barney (talk) 14:52, 16 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Barney the barney barney, can you inform him of this opportunity on his Talk Page?

I suggest that no action be taken until this questionable block is over and Tumbleman can fully participate here. I fully believe that Editors involved here will work to push this action forward and rush this through before the block is lifted. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 16:16, 16 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have any grounds for that belief in bad faith on the part of other editors? JamesBWatson (talk) 17:03, 16 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

JamesBWatson, the actions involving Tumbleman (launching a SPI, setting up this complaint), happened within the past three days. There is a hurried aspect to this all. The heated discussion on the Sheldrake Talk Page has been going on for weeks now but after Tumbleman was reported, another Editor who disagreed with IRWolfie- got a threat diff that he/she might be taken to Arbitration. AC/DS shouldn't be a mallet.

I am less worried about this rush as the Sheldrake page is fully protected now until the 19th. This break in editing and reverting might allow Editors on all sides of this BLP to catch their breath, calm down and talk to each other. Hopefully, the Editors (including Tumbleman) can collaborate and come up with a version of Sheldrake's page they can live with. But it shouldn't be that the winning viewpoint goes to the last person standing. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:47, 16 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Barney the barney barney

Copy and paste this empty section below the most recent statement and replace Barney the barney barney (talk) 15:04, 16 October 2013 (UTC) with your username.[reply]

I have no idea what Tumbleman (talk · contribs) is doing. At first he started on talk:Rupert Sheldrake telling everyone watching that he was going to form a "new consensus" and ignoring the already formed consensus regarding the applicability of WP:FRINGE. This went on for quite some time, in which he tried to argue that the article Rupert Sheldrake shouldn't be subject to WP:FRINGE because Sheldrake's writings fall under "alternative scientific theories". Despite the fact that numerous sources were provided to describe Sheldrake's work as pseudoscience by various well qualified scientists - and their reasons why they think it's pseudoscience, Tumbleman had selective eyesight when it came to such sources and decided to ignore them seemingly because they didn't fit in with his preconceived ideas. At this point, discussing the actual content of the page became difficult simply because any reasonable discussion wandered off topic with various ramblings by Tumbleman (talk · contribs). I think a topic ban would be helpful, or at least a request that he makes one statement and let that be that. I actually think he is a troll, trying to wind people up because he has remained largely calm throughout.

While we're here, I am also concerned about other users including but not limited to Craig Weiler (talk · contribs) as well who has some information on his user page [his website] which reveal his biases and difficulty in understanding science or for that matter the basic nature of reality. Barney the barney barney (talk) 15:04, 16 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Craig Weiler

I have been following Tumbleman's statements as well. He has been unfailingly polite and courteous despite poor behavior from other editors. Barney's accusations are patently false and anyone who reads the Sheldrake talk page can see this. Accusing Tumbleman of rambling is simply ludicrous. Down below I see that Vzaak is piling on with cherry picked statements taken out of context.

I'm new here. Is this how articles are edited on Wikipedia? First get on a page and use whatever sources you can find to support your point of view and ignore or dismiss everything you oppose as "biased." Then harass and try to ban editors you disagree with using trumped up charges and out of context quotes, never engage in meaningful dialog and avoid even the pretense of consensus all the while acting like you own the page by continuing to edit? Because from where I stand this is starting to look like a mighty successful strategy.

Seriously, it has been repeatedly pointed out to Barney and other skeptical editors that many of their sources are shallow, almost entirely opinion and generally devoid of meaningful content. They ignore this and have instead decided to get together to stage an all out attack on the evil Tumbleman.

Now Barney accuses me of bias and difficulty in understanding science based on . . . what exactly? My blog? That he hasn't read? Also, if Barney understands the basic nature of reality he should be rewarded for it. He has accomplished something that has eluded the rest of Mankind.Craig Weiler (talk) 16:14, 16 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Liz

I am a bystander, reading over the dispute at Rupert Sheldrake. The discussion on the Talk Page is polarized into the two familiar camps that any topic identified as "pseudoscience" draws out. Tumbleman is being labeled an "internet troll" based on some discussion board conversations involving a user with the same name from years ago. In fact, I don't think you will actually see this Tumbleman participating in these diffs, they are conversations about the user and I don't think these old off-wiki forum discussions are relevant evidence to the Sheldrake discussion.

Since this discussion is clearly divided between those who are skeptical of and those who are sympathetic to Rupert Sheldrake and his work, it seems unfair to apply discretionary sanctions to just one party of this heated dispute (which also has a range of instant IP accounts jumping in at opportune moments).

• "Discretionary sanctions should be used with caution where the community is already dealing with the specific issue through dispute resolution processes." Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Procedures#Discretionary sanctions

Rather than penalizing one side for not being sophisticated enough to be aware of wikiways, the previous ARBCOM case on pseudoscience and DS, I'd like to suggest that all parties head to Dispute Resolution. I'm believe that Tumbleman would be open to mediation and I don't think he/she should be penalized for his/her inexperience and stepping right into a long-standing conflict on Wikipedia. While Tumbleman registered his account in 2005, prior to his work on Sheldrake, he hadn't edited on WP since 2009 and has a total of 477 edits for the past 8 years.

I can predict that I will be attacked for not providing "diffs" but I'd prefer to just link to the Sheldrake Talk Page and the Arbitrators reviewing this request can look over the conversation in toto rather than isolated statements from just one participant in the debate. Look over the Talk Page edit history and see how many different Editors have been a part of this dispute...is it really fair to pluck out one Editor from the dozens who have recently posted to this page and hold him/her responsible for a "disruption" which is actually a part of long-running conflict on Wikipedia? Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 16:56, 16 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by LuckyLouie

Looks like the disturbance at Talk:Rupert Sheldrake has been ongoing for about a month and a half. I first learned of it from comments posted at WP:FTN. Tumbleman appears to be at the center of it, making a lot of noise about working "for the good of Wikipedia" to protect Wikipedia from "skeptics" and something he calls "GSM". His first direct Talk page comment to me claimed I was advancing a "GSM editors" agenda [19]. This prompted my further attention, and I noted a number of his Talk page arguments have included rants against the "groupthink ideological agenda of skeptics" [20], the dangers of a "skeptical POV agenda" [21] and the agenda of "GSM editors" [22], [23], [24], [25]. Ironically, he professes his own neutrality and lack of bias while accusing other editors of bias and organized "GSM" conspiracy [26]. Given his apparent commitment to righting a perceived great wrong, I wasn't surprised when his name showed up at SPI since I'd already noticed that User:Oh boy chicken again shared a bit too many behavioral traits with Tumbleman. Others have noted the relevance of Tumbleman's past efforts to develop and promote something he calls "OS 0 1 2" which seems to be some sort of Zen joke or performance art involving "studying" and participating in conflict. Someone who refers to themselves in the third person [27] strongly indicates their desire to be at "center stage" playing a character ("The Tumbleman" ) they admittedly invented for purposes of furthering "OS 0 1 2". So, is he here to protect Wikipedia from a conspiracy of "skeptics"? Or is he here to conduct more "OS 0 1 2" conflict experiments? I say it doesn't matter. He's clearly WP:NOTHERE, a potential new drama account, and a net zero for Wikipedia. - LuckyLouie (talk) 17:09, 16 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Littleolive oil

I have been watching this discussion from the sidelines and I'd concur with Liz's suggestion and excellent analysis of the situation, and would suggest that the best and possibly the only way to understand this complex situation, and to be able to arrive at a fair judgement is to read the threads on the article talk page. I hope admins will have the time and take the time to do so. I am concerned that standards are being set by sub groups editing Wikipedia, and that users especially new users who don't know the "rules" are being criticized and sometimes attacked for not knowing or understanding, and for not following these standards. (olive (talk) 18:21, 16 October 2013 (UTC))[reply]

Statement by vzaak

I was the first person to make contact with Tumbleman. It began with this edit in which he removed a quote because he thought it was "an interpretation from a negative science writer". (Verify IP is him: [28].) Had Tumbleman taken a few seconds to look at the source, he would have found that it is a quote from Sheldrake himself. After ignoring my explanation of the quote [29], he came on the talk page to complain.

What followed next was very bizarre behavior. The remainder of this paragraph will reference this snapshot: [30]. Strangely, he acknowledged the veracity of the quote while continuing to defend his removal of it. (There are technical reasons why the quote is necessary; it connects morphic resonance to telepathy while avoiding the word "paranormal" which Sheldrake eschews.) His writing was garbled and I had much difficulty trying to understand it. He ferociously argued that the TED blog http://blog.ted.com was a reliable secondary source and a reliable news organization! I was astonished. He repeatedly split my comments -- about 4 times -- after I repeatedly asked him to stop. In one place I said "don't split other people's comments" and his reply was to split the comment in which I said that. Throughout, he had been accusing me of "bias" despite my repeated requests for him to focus on content, not editors.

Then came the revelation.

I discovered his previous trolling activity under the name Tumbleman and Bubblefish, as noted above by others. At this point I was absolutely convinced this was a prank by someone that "employed a personality" that was "a bit obnoxious and over the top and playful. Tricks."[31]. I informed him that I figured it out, conceding that it took me longer than it should have. I expected him to say something like "lol gotcha". However he maintained that, contrary to his past and present behavior on the Internet, he was not just shaking things up for fun. Figuring there was nothing I could do about the situation, I haven't said a word to him since. He has contined sending me notifications and has left harrassing messages on my talk page which are really unhinged (backstory of that is here).

Here is Tumbleman deleting people's comments: [32] [33] [34] [35] [36] [37] and saying that he is being hacked [38].

Tumbleman does not seem to possess enough basic knowledge about how science works, which is not so bad in itself, but he floods the talk page with comments stemming from this lack of competence. For instance here he is going on about falsifiability (copied from sockpuppet investigation): [39][40][41][42][43][44][45][46][47][48][49][50][51][52][53].

Tumbleman has never understood that editing Wikipedia is about focusing on content, not editors. I tried explaining this to him early on, but it wouldn't take. He doesn't understand that writing good NPOV articles is done by collaboration among biased people. He is obsessed with calling people biased (copied from sockpuppet report):

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

In focusing on editors instead of content, every one of those comments is basically trolling, or at best unconstructive. And that is just a sample (not all) from Talk:Rupert Sheldrake alone. You'll find these complaints on admin boards ("editors with a clear bias"[63]) and on talk pages as well. He does all this while priding himself on using Wikipedia as "a little field study into online resolution disputes" and as "a wonderful opportunity to show the value of pure unbiased, neutral, or objectivity"[64]. Whether this is trolling, delusion, weirdness, or whatever, it doesn't belong on WP.

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

Statement by Oh Boy chicken again

When I said I was dropping out, I meant it, so forgive my reappearance. I left in part because I had very quickly become disgusted by this “process,” and in part because I felt somewhat responsible for some of the heat being heaped on Tumbleman. I simply wanted to wash my hands of it all and quietly go back to Citizendium.

But it occurred to me that I was mainly dropping out because an irrational faction was using false accusations as a weapon to drive me away. As far as I can tell, its reason for doing so was because I supported a proponent of a position that they found themselves opposed to (and, in my opinion, irrationally so).

So I'm going to hang around and see how this plays out. I will chime in in support of Tumbleman when necessary, because nobody should suffer this kind of harassment without some sort of voice (particularly in the event he loses his own), and because I (nor anybody) should back away from a just cause because a small band internet jackals gets a little testy.

Tumbleman has been accused of being a troll, and a gigantic deal has now been made over it. From where I sit and having checked the links and read the content, there is precisely zero evidence in support of this claim. But no matter, the damage has been done (as was the only point, I’m sure): Just like accusing an elementary school teacher of “inappropriate behavior” with a child, harassing Tumbleman with this “troll” stuff means “trolling” will always now be associated with Tumbleman. That is, unless we as a sane, rational community take a step back with cool heads and do what’s right: fix it for Tumbleman.

I’m going to stick around until it’s fixed.

Oh boy chicken again (talk) 07:05, 17 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by iantresman

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

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

But I am concerned that this request

1. states that the "Editor is an internet troll", the kind of personal attack that leads to a toxic editing environment, per WP:NPA. Diffs of poor behaviour are self-evident.
2. refers to "this subtle trolling", suggesting it is imperceptible, and probably not worth mentioning
3. states that "The editor also refuses to stop highlighting my name". Doesn't come across as a hanging offence
4. states "deliberate cluelessness". ? !!!

In conclusion, I see no diffs suggesting disruptive editing or substandard behaviour, suggesting that there is no case to answer. Reading through Talk:Rupert Sheldrake, posts from Tumbleman appear to be civil, measured and reasoned. There is no requirement for one editor to agree with another.

To quote The Cap'n: "That's not a banning offense, that's just persistence. He hasn't tried to vandalize the page, get users banned spuriously or otherwise behaved unethically. Unpopularity shouldn't get you banned from Wikipedia."[66]

To quote Tom Butler (commenting on a specific post): "Tumbleman's suggestions and observations are well-reasoned. I suggest we use them as the standard for neutrality and test for edits"[67]

--Iantresman (talk) 09:57, 17 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by TheRedPenOfDoom

• WP:BURO, but as pointed out by iantresman above, I am not aware that Tumbleman (talk · contribs) actually received a specific warning about Discretionary Sanctions. Did I miss it? -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 11:50, 17 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

@Barney, it may be best not to side track the discussion and instead focus on the specific case in hand. WP:AE set up to handle single cases and primarily relies on diff based evidence (adding diffs of problematic behaviour would be extremely helpful). Thanks, IRWolfie- (talk) 15:19, 16 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Tumbleman is still continuing to highlight me despite my insistence that he doesn't [68]. IRWolfie- (talk) 07:24, 17 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Result concerning Tumbleman

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

• It's important to understand that technical findings from the checkuser tool need to be interpreted in the context of behavioral evidence, not in isolation. In this case, the combination of technical data from checkuser with behavioral evidence is more than sufficient to view this as a case of abusive sockpuppetry, and I agree with User:Mark Arsten's handling of the sockpuppet investigation.

  In my view, there is more than enough evidence here to impose discretionary sanctions on Tumbleman (talk · contribs). Leaving aside the abuse of multiple accounts (which is probably sufficient in and of itself), there's an issue here which could be described as WP:COMPETENCE (charitably) or intentional trolling (less charitably). The overall impact of Tumbleman and associated accounts on the topic area has clearly been disruptive. I would favor an indefinite topic ban from topics connected with pseudoscience/fringe science, broadly construed, to be reviewed at Tumbleman's request should he develop evidence of constructive editing in other topic areas.

  I would propose to hold off on imposing any sanction until Tumbleman's current sockpuppetry block expires and he is able to participate here. I'd also like to hear the views of other uninvolved admins, as a sanity check, before proceeding with any sort of sanction. MastCell ^Talk 18:46, 16 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Sweet Jesus, what a time sink. The only reason I'm not blocking indef right now is because I'm only online for a little while tonight, and I can't guarantee being available to reply to people who disagree (I'm disappointed to see there isn't unanimity for blocking). But I'm all for pulling the plug on this now; This user is pure WP:SOUP, and I don't see any reason to wait a week and let them play silly buggers here on this page too, or find some other topic area to do the exact same thing on. I can't solve all the problems with that article talk page - I simply don't have the time - but I can spot low hanging fruit when I see it. This is low hanging fruit. --Floquenbeam (talk) 23:13, 16 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• I personally think this is likely just a troll. The email he sent me did nothing to help me decide whether this is socking or account sharing. The CU data is consistent with account sharing. However, it is also consistent with somebody knowingly evading IP blocks, and messing up once. I'd also consider blocking the other, though technically  Unlikely, sock if he is indefinitely blocked, since it is from a similar location and the behavior is a perfect match. Reaper Eternal (talk) 02:34, 17 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• I'd support an indefinite block of Tumbleman per WP:SOUP, as argued by User:Floquenbeam. The editor seems not to be here to help the encyclopedia. Even when a person holds non-mainstream views you would expect to see some flashes of sincerity and a genuine point that they are trying to express. But Tumbleman seems happy to keep the discussion going in circles. EdJohnston (talk) 04:34, 17 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• This is a thoroughly disruptive editor, and either a troll or else someone with serious WP:COMPETENCE issues, as well as a WP:BATTLEGROUND approach to other editors, and god knows how many other problems. I personally think that TROLL is more likely than COMPETENCE, but it really doesn't matter which it is, as the end result is the same: an editor who gives no benefit to the project, and wastes a lot of people's time that could be spent more constructively. The question is when, not whether, he eventually gets indefinitely blocked, and the longer we delay the more time is wasted. The only reason given in this section for not indef-blocking immediately is MastCell's suggestion of waiting for the present block to expire, to give him a chance to respond here. However, I invited him to post responses on his talk page, together with a request for them to be copied here, and he has chosen not to do so. (He has posted stuff on his talk page relating to this case, but not asked for it to be copied here. If I though that this was a misunderstanding i would copy it here anyway, but I don't think it is. I think it is all part of the SOUP stuff, and to a large extent a ploy to enable him to say "I can't defend myself at WP:AE because I'm blocked, so please unblock me," which he has said. In any case, anyone assessing this case is perfectly free to read it on his talk page, and take it into account.) With that reason for delay out of the way, it seems to me that there is a clear admin consensus here for an immediate indef-block. The only reason I am not doing that myself is that I already have some involvement with him in relation to blocks, having both declined an unblock request and removed talk page access, and I would prefer another admin to make the final decision. JamesBWatson (talk) 13:12, 17 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Result is indef block per WP:NOTHERE. Block applied, will close. Zad68 13:24, 17 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I apologize for my own mistake here. I had erroneously closed this as an WP:AE action, and that was not correct. I have applied an indef WP:NOTHERE block to Tumbleman as an individual administrator action, based on my assessment of the consensus above. I have re-opened this AE request to allow any further discussion, and will leave it to another to close. Zad68 19:10, 17 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]