User talk:Tumbleman/Archive

Previous talk archived
I've archived the rest of the talk section here if anyone needs to access previous discussions. As my account has come under question and I take this matter very seriously, I am leaving the timely and current issue to the top as that is all that is relevant at this time. The Tumbleman (talk) 02:16, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

WP:Sockpuppet_investigations/Tumbleman
Regarding this investigation, it does seem odd that you mentioned you'd be taking 2 days away from editing the Rupert Sheldrake page, then a suspected sock with a Palm Springs IP address appears using similar turns of phrase. I could be mistaken. However one thing that might help establish the two accounts are not connected would be if you would comment here at the same time the suspected sockpuppet is active. Regards. LuckyLouie (talk) 17:01, 13 October 2013 (UTC) My apologies for suggesting that two accounts being active at the same time would help establish that they weren't connected. This was an error on my part due to my unfamiliarity with Checkuser functions. LuckyLouie (talk) 17:18, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Please read the above carefully. I have not "retracted" my suspicions that you may have sockpuppeted using multiple accounts. I have only retracted my advice that you try posting while the other account was active. Please do not misrepresent my comments, thanks. LuckyLouie (talk) 18:04, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I've just blocked you for one week for inappropriately using multiple accounts per the findings of Sockpuppet investigations/Tumbleman. Mark Arsten (talk) 20:24, 13 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Really? LuckyLouie (talk), it's strange is it? I decide to take a day or two off from editing, completely self imposed, so I decide to create a sockpuppet so I can post while I take a break from my other account? For what purpose would I even need to do this? If I wanted to make an argument, I would as tumbleman. as you can see I also do not need any help or need any sockpuppets because I already have support on the talk page. You and your group of skeptic pals have harassed me enough and should be ashamed of what you are doing to Wikipedia. We are not a soapbox for your ideological agenda. The Tumbleman (talk) 00:16, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

LuckyLouie (talk) thank you for stating that, I appreciate it. Can you also state this on the Sockpuppet investigations/Tumbleman as well? The Tumbleman (talk) 17:34, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

LuckyLouie (talk), Mark Arsten (talk) - This is completely inappropriate. This is the FOURTH time these skeptical agenda editors have tried to remove me from the page for fabricated reasons. Every single time they have failed and this will be no different. I am NOT any of those two accounts, I do NOT live in Palm Springs. I am NOT a troll or have been trolling. I am NOT disruptive to the page. I am requesting these be IMMEDIATELY removed and I have no choice but to report this hounding to an administrator. Since I have arrived, they have exposed my identity, tried to scrutinize my account and claim I am running WP NOT, and then they try to get me banned for pushing 'conspiracy' theories and being a 'fringe' believer - all of which are completely ridiculous and not in the spirit of why I am here. Then they edit war and put a notice on my page for edit warring! Anyone can view the talk section of sheldrake to see what kind of an editor I am. The Tumbleman (talk) 23:02, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

Tumbleman is not user: KateGombert. User KateGombert also has no activity on the sheldrake page, I can't find anything she has even done in talk or any edit. Suggestion: (talk) Mark Arsten, Reaper Eternal, JamesBWatson Why not unblock that account, reach out to her, and ask her to post something the same time I am online? The Tumbleman (talk) 13:57, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Because doing so would prove nothing. If I wanted to, I could very easily set up a new account and edit from both accounts within seconds of one another. I could even do it with different computers, working on different IP addresses, using different operating systems, and different web browsers if I took a little trouble. If I took a little more trouble, by using a proxy I could make the two IP addresses geolocate to different continents. If anything, if she responded to a request to edit while you were online, it would look rather suspicious: has she been sitting at a computer for hours, repeatedly checking to see when you are online? Or is she in close contact with you, so that she knows when you are online? JamesBWatson (talk) 17:25, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
 * JamesBWatson (talk) Well I am just trying to come up with a rational way to prove I am not KateGombert because I am not Kate Gombert. Under the conditions you set above, I guess everyone here can be a sockpuppet too. Although all of this evidence is circumstantial, and Reaper Eternal already says that WP's server logs support my story, and I am willing to be completely transparent in this 'investigation', I guess I'm just a victim of WP's process,  I just have to be guilty because a few editors were suspicious I was. I accept if this is the best WP can do. But it has damaged my credibility on the page where i was incredibly active and had a strong and influential voice. I also was in the middle of an RfC process which I now cannot assist in. I've been working on that page for a month so it's hard when good work goes to waste, I hope you understand my position, I don't see how this decision has helped Wikipedia or helped make the page I was working on better. Thanks for giving this your attention.The Tumbleman (talk) 18:25, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes, I do understand your position, and I am now much more willing to believe that you may be an unfortunate victim of the ways that Wikipedia works than I was when I declined an unblock request from you. In fact, I would carefully consider whether to give you the benefit of the doubt and unblock you anyway, if it were not for the fact that Reaper Eternal is dealing with the case, and having access to checkuser information that I can't see, is in a better position than I am to make an appropriate decision. My comment above was not meant to be a dismissal of your case, it was just meant to explain why the suggested method would not be helpful. It is a very unfortunate fact that there is absolutely no certain way of telling whether an account is a sockpuppet or not. We have to rely on making judgements as to what seems most likely in view of the available evidence, and sometimes what seems most likely is in fact false. If "KateGombert" is the "professional" that you allowed to use your account, then you may have unfortunately been trapped by the consequences of an action which you did with innocent intention, not knowing that it (a) was contrary to Wikipedia policy, and (b) might lead to the situation that now exists. However, even if that is the case, and you are innocent of sockpuppetry, there is still a large question of tendentious editing, so if you are eventually unblocked then you would be well advised to think very carefully about how you edit in the future. JamesBWatson (talk) 18:56, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
 * JamesBWatson (talk)James thank you for your reasoned response. I would much rather defend any charge of TE, at least the case is clear. Thanks for your service to WP, at the end of the day, we all want to make this a better place. The Tumbleman (talk) 21:44, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

Reaper Eternal (talk) Mark Arsten (talk) asked me to contact you directly. I am sorry but you, Mark, and I are being WP GAMED right now by a group of co-ordinating ideological skeptics on the Rupert Sheldrake TALK page. This is the fourth time they have attempted to have me removed from the page, every one has failed so far. The last case I won and now the admins from that case have requested that I submit a detailed summary of their disruptive behaviors on the board, of which I can assure you this will be one of them. I am NOT a sock puppet, and do not know those accounts nor do I even live in Palm Springs. I am willing to share with you my IP address I post from one computer and you can see from my IP I only have one account. I want this removed immediately. I am shocked I was not even allowed to defend myself and even more shocked that I have been banned from all of WP. The Tumbleman (talk) 00:09, 14 October 2013 (UTC)


 * I'm sorry I ever got involved in this. I am not Tumbleman. I'm outski.Oh boy chicken again (talk) 00:19, 16 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Thanks for clearing this up Oh boy chicken again, but I don't think they assume you are me anymore, right now the confusion is because of a user KateGombert, who also is not me. I'm letting  Reaper Eternal know you posted this however. Thanks again. dont be too turned off, that's the problem, agenda based editors are running good editors off the page and a NPOV needs all the help it can get. The Tumbleman (talk) 00:33, 16 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Actually, this explanation, as surprising as it sounds, does fit with the checkuser data available, and it is on that IP that he is ✅ from and several other clearly unrelated (by behaviour) users. I can also say that were it not for those sandbox edits, I would have said ❌; the computers are completely different. Recent edits technically match what Tumbleman used to be, so he does appear to still have control of his account. Please change your password immediately to prevent this account from being compromised. Please let us know when you have done so, so this account can be unblocked. Thanks, and please don't share your password with anybody, even a Wikipedia administrator. Reaper Eternal (talk) 17:49, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
 * That does however raise an entirely different can of worms of a sock farm of editors from a PR firm! -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  17:56, 14 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Thank you Reaper Eternal (talk), confirming the PW has just been changed. I am also on standby to provide any other independent confirmation you need. Thank you for giving this your attention. The Tumbleman (talk) 18:04, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
 * If you don't mind, could you email me which Wikipedia user / professional group to whom you submitted your password? For security purposes, please do not email me any private information. Thanks! Reaper Eternal (talk) 18:30, 14 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Reaper Eternal (talk) I don't have your email address nor do I know how to contact you privately that way, can you advise? The Tumbleman (talk) 18:55, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
 * you can use any of the free services like g-mail or hotmail to create a temporary account for this purpose. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  18:58, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
 * That wouldn't give him my email. Just use Special:EmailUser/Reaper Eternal. Reaper Eternal (talk) 18:59, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Okay Reaper Eternal (talk), I emailed you and you can respond there regarding how you would like to proceed. The Tumbleman (talk) 20:34, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom I request that you do not comment on this issue as I do not believe you are a neutral party. I never requested this person to 'create an account', they simply wanted to use my account and not theirs because they were afraid that the editors on the page with poor behavior would come after their account for helping tumbleman, and I agree with that decision. However, I do work in media and technology, and many companies do have to manage or create accounts, usually for the purposes of compliancy, and they all do so transparently or within what ever TOS a platform has. There is nothing alarming happening with that, it's standard practice and occurs on any large platform online. The Tumbleman (talk) 18:04, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
 * "they all do so transparently or within what ever TOS" LOLZ!
 * Oh, thats a good one! You have shown right here that they don't. The have violated Wikipedia's TOS by using someone elses account so that their own actions would not be noticed. --  TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  18:16, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

Kate Gompert's only edit was to support a comment by Tumbleman? . I think WP:DUCK indicates socking, or in the least, WP:MEAT. LuckyLouie (talk) 18:19, 14 October 2013 (UTC)


 * KateGompert has nothing to do with my request to a professional to help me with references and compliancy. There is a reasonable concern that people have regarding privacy on Wikipedia, including creating more than one account, and this is covered in WP:ANONYMOUS especially when editors behaviors on the page clearly show WP:OUTING, Hounding and harassment. I accept that will happen to Tumbleman because Tumbleman is vocal on the page regarding these editors behaviors. My friend's concerns were justified, and, as evidence shows, was correct.  The Tumbleman (talk) 19:21, 14 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Actually, you outed yourself. The diff still exists I believe.  Some of us know who you are anyway.  --Roxy the dog (quack quack) 19:43, 14 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Well I suppose it's possible that someone who works in the same office that you do shares exactly the same opinions and "concerns" that you do and posts just one post to support something you said on a Talk page that she just happened to find on her own. In my opinion, it's more likely WP:SOCK or WP:MEAT. LuckyLouie (talk) 19:29, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

I am requesting that LuckyLouie (talk), Roxy the dog (quack quack), TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  and any other editor I have crossed paths with on the Sheldrake page to  please stop commenting on my talk page, it just feels like you are harassing me and it's made me quite uncomfortable. This issue is now between myself and Wikipedia. I understand you want me removed from the Sheldrake page, that has been clear since I got there, but I believe you are WP Gaming WP to harass me and we can address this when I make my proper case to ANI regarding your behaviors. Until then, I ask for respect to my privacy and that you stop harassing me on this issue on my talk page. The Tumbleman (talk) 19:53, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom Again, please do not message me, ping me,  post on my talk page, or engage with me in any other way unless it's to build a rational consensus on the Sheldrake talk page and any attempt to do so will just be considered further harassment. The Tumbleman (talk) 20:19, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

Hello, I'm TheRedPenOfDoom. I noticed that you made a comment on the page User talk:Tumbleman that didn't seem very civil, so you have been asked to remove it or provide evidence to support your claims. Wikipedia needs people like you and me to collaborate, so it's one of our core principles to interact with one another in a polite and respectful manner. If you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  20:22, 14 October 2013 (UTC)


 * TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom This is clearly in violation of my request. Regarding your request, to provide evidence of my claims, I am happily preparing that now and will address directly in ANI, where you will be able to respond. Again, I request that you do not harass or message me further regarding this issue. The Tumbleman (talk) 20:28, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

WP Guidelines interesting to Tumbleman case
WP:HUSH

Placing numerous false or questionable "warnings" on a user's talk page, restoring such comments after a user has removed them, placing "suspected sockpuppet" and similar tags on the user page of active contributors, and otherwise trying to display material the user may find annoying or embarrassing in their user space is a common form of harassment.

User pages are provided so that editors can provide some general information about themselves and user talk pages are to facilitate communication. Neither is intended as a 'wall of shame' and should not be used to display supposed problems with the user unless the account has been blocked as a result of those issues. Any sort of content which truly needs to be displayed, or removed, should be immediately brought to the attention of admins rather than edit warring to enforce your views on the content of someone else's user space.

WP:WRW

Wikipedia is highly visible in the Internet; any Google or other search engine search on a subject for which Wikipedia has an article is likely to display that article on the first page of results, and quite likely as the first or second result returned. If you edit that article, then anyone who is interested in the subject is going to be able to see what you wrote. They will also be able to track your activity across the site, in project and user pages as well as in articles. So anything you say here and anything you do here can have real world consequences. Consider carefully what you write; keep in mind that you (and other people) can get hurt.

WP:ANONYMOUS

As an editor on Wikipedia, you have a choice: You can let everyone know who you are. Or you can make your edits while hiding your true identity and keeping to yourself.

Remaining anonymous is your right. But there are ways in which your identity can be revealed, even if you do not wish.

For example, if you are so proud of an article you created that you tell people you know in person, they may read the article, and from looking at your contributions, they can then learn what else you did on Wikipedia. It is very possible that you do not wish for these people (who could be your relatives, friends, or even your boss) to know about other edits you have previously made or that you plan to make in the future. So before you go and brag, you may wish to be aware of this.

You may also get to "know" other editors on Wikipedia (without knowing their true identities) if you work on a project or on many articles within a common area. These are people you may end up in deep discussions with. You may not want them to know about your other areas of interest.

Hiding such edits from your edit history is a legitimate use for having a second account.

WP:HOUND

Wikihounding is the singling out of one or more editors, and joining discussions on multiple pages or topics they may edit or multiple debates where they contribute, in order to repeatedly confront or inhibit their work. This is with an apparent aim of creating irritation, annoyance or distress to the other editor. Wikihounding usually involves following the target from place to place on Wikipedia.

Many users track other users' edits, although usually for collegial or administrative purposes. This should always be done carefully, and with good cause, to avoid raising the suspicion that an editor's contributions are being followed to cause them distress, or out of revenge for a perceived slight. Correct use of an editor's history includes (but is not limited to) fixing unambiguous errors or violations of Wikipedia policy, or correcting related problems on multiple articles. In fact, such practices are recommended both for Recent changes patrol and WikiProject Spam. The contribution logs can be used in the dispute resolution process to gather evidence to be presented in requests for comment, mediation, WP:ANI, and arbitration cases. Using dispute resolution can itself constitute hounding if it involves persistently making frivolous or poorly-based complaints about another editor.

The important component of wikihounding is disruption to another user's own enjoyment of editing, or to the project generally, for no overriding reason. If "following another user around" is accompanied by tendentiousness, personal attacks, or other disruptive behavior, it may become a very serious matter and could result in blocks and other editing restrictions.

The Tumbleman (talk) 20:49, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

Tumbleman is being accused, and I wont use the 'L' word, in a manner which he cannot defend himself
Liz Read! Talk!, Reaper Eternal (talk) , Mark Arsten (talk), I would truly like to thank all of the attention you have given me on this issue but to be honest, I am embarrassed anyone should even have to waste their good time on this. It's very uncomfortable to me and I am sorry if this is not the appropriate way to address - but as you can know, my account is banned, and there is a 'investigation' happening about Tumbleman and there are lists of accusations, many of which extend beyond even the scope of this issue, claiming I am some sort of global sock puppeting mastermind. (oddly enough the previous hearing to get me banned was because I was talking about 'conspiracy' theories on the talk page, irony never stops) here

I am blocked, and find myself in a position where I cannot even defend myself against these claims. Truly that is frustrating, abusive even. Specifically, when i saw this I felt something had to be said because these people LuckyLouie (talk), Roxy the dog (quack quack), TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom , Barney the barney barney (talk), vzaak (talk), IRWolfie- (talk) appear very set on damaging my reputation for the sake of their editing decisions and that's not how I understand the spirit of wikipedia to be.

Specifically, vzaak (talk) says, and I quote As that long list of links in the previous point may already indicate, Tumbleman is an antisocial individual on the Internet. This I find personally slanderous, and contrary of course to not only those links, but who I am at all. Is it common for editors to offer their own psychological evaluations of other editors as proof of their removal? Additionally, I am also perplexed as to links from a *personal* project I did in 2005 has absolutely anything to do with the Sheldrake page?

I don't mind being transparent, it's a big part of who I am - and not that I should even have to defend a personal project of mine from 7 or 8 years ago, I don't mind sharing the details if it clears up any confusion. The project vzaak is linking to is


 * 1.) A personal project, both highly creative in nature, tongue in cheek, and also entirely non offensive, funny even. Haven't done anything with that since 2006 I believe. It evolved from a bunch of people discussing going to war, or not - in Iraq in 2003 and we all began to notice a pattern with certain types of individuals online when they would engage with discussion and the os 012 meme started organically. I became intrigued and adopted the mantel and carried the torch, but many others were involved. I just found myself in the middle of it and went with it. Sort of a spontaneous nutty project. I work in media/tech now but my background then was primarily creative and artistic.
 * 2.) Although very creative in nature, I was testing and developing a process for consensus building, and did need to test the principle in live discussion, hence the reference.
 * 3.) So I would start a discussion on a few chosen forums to test the principles and would encourage users to falsify the principles in the debate. The discussions actually were extraordinarily popular on every forum I did them, one of them lasting over 9 months 3 years.
 * 4.) I was never trolling, or sock puppeting, however was accused of that often, much like i am here, when certain online users became frustrated in debate. I do admit to being funny and over the top with my personality, that was part of the fun, especially when people finally got the joke.
 * 5.) When I joined WP back then, I did try to start a page around this project, but didnt know how WP worked and it was deleted for not being notable, which of course I see and accept. That was 7 years ago.
 * 6.) Who cares?

Should I have to defend this? No, I shouldn't. Do I care if people know about this? No, but I assume who would even care. I am a professional in my field, and even gave one of the most popular TEDx talks in the world on the evolution of collective editing and collective intelligence, using WP as an example - so when I see disgruntled editors be more concerned confused about what I did 8 years ago and use that to ban me from a page where it is very clear they are punishing me for them being frustrated by my arguments, it makes me personally upset and violated.

These users will never be satisfied with whatever decision is made about me. It does appear that I do have some gentle admin support even, and they will even attack the admin if the admin defends me, just like they do editors on the page who do. Today one of the users who was accused of being my sockpuppet came back to clear things up. It didn't matter, first response to that from  TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  was more suspicion because I responded to him 15 minutes after he posted. Funny thing is I was actually going to respond the very second after he posted because I was on WP at the time. I told myself when i saw the message light come that i should probably wait to respond a bit because if I responded right away, they would claim that was evidence of sockpuppeting. Truly, the irony never ends.

They have completely destroyed my credibility on the Sheldrake page, have prevented me from moving forward with the RfC hearing request where I was to make a case against their behaviors, and I believe will never stop hounding me, even if I leave so I need to take steps to protect myself here but at least need to defend myself and this is the only way. Irony has it that the person who has been trying to build consensus, stick to a NPOV and provide transparency is the one who is banned for what now appears to be nothing more harmless than have someone help me build stronger references in my sandbox while numerous editors with bad behaviors are having a field day stamping on my reputation and turning off other editors to the page as well. Well that just really makes me want to make the page better MORE.

WP can do better than this, and who cares who Tumbleman is? The Tumbleman (talk) 03:38, 16 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I don't know what their angle is beyond trying to silence you on this particular article. The detail some Editors have devoted to this sock investigation is definitely over-kill and I am a bit stunned at the apparent time and energy spent on compiling "evidence" and the minute dissection of how you phrase things and spell words.
 * Truthfully, I think most people would let themselves be driven off by this barrage of negativity. But I hope you don't go. I didn't agree with you on some issues but Wikipedia needs all types of voices and perspectives to balance out their coverage. Liz  Read! Talk! 04:51, 16 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Liz Read! Talk! thank you for the supportive words, truly.  I waited more than 30 minutes to respond to you here just in case it would have been used as evidence of more sock puppetry :)  I do plan on staying!  The Tumbleman (talk) 05:40, 16 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Please don't highlight me again, thanks, IRWolfie- (talk) 08:46, 16 October 2013 (UTC)


 * IRWolfie- (talk)Unlikely as you are quite active in silencing my voice on the page and are still in the process of making bizarre claims that i am some sockpuppet mastermind. I would imagine your name will be coming up quite a bit so don't be shocked when I post it again in relationship to my case or anything on the Sheldrake page. The Tumbleman (talk) 14:02, 16 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I don't wish to be notified about the Panto going on here. If you notify me again I will request that your talk page access be removed, IRWolfie- (talk)
 * Do as you will, IRWolfie- (talk) - you're being notified because I am discussing your actions in the only forum I am allowed to defend myself against steps you're taking regarding tumbleman. If you don't want to be notified, it's probably better then to remove yourself from anything to do with Tumbleman. My policy is to always notify an editor when they are being discussed and I see no reason to suspend that. I actually would appreciate if you did the same in return. Apparently you're quite vocal about Tumbleman, I appreciate the notification when editors discuss my account. The Tumbleman (talk) 14:30, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

Liz <b style="color:#006400;">Read!</b> <b style="color:#006400;">Talk!</b>, Reaper Eternal (talk) , Mark Arsten (talk) - In consideration of Liz's comment, I request admins to consider if this action is actually making the page any better. Admin Tom Morris has wisely placed a 3 day edit ban on the page and has invited consensus arguments in TALK. I believe that my participation in those talks are valuable in making the page better. However, my ban is scheduled to be removed on Sunday, and this technicality is preventing my participation. Other than naively getting help from an experienced WP editor in my sandbox, my case appears to be held up on a technicality. I am hoping that WP admins can be 'bold' here and allow a highly motivated, well reasoned and neutral editor to participate. If a technicality is preventing from making the page better, let's remove that technicality! The Tumbleman (talk) 14:25, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for for your action on the Sheldrake page. I support it. I was a very strong voice on that page and I do want to continue to participate. I am requesting however you extend the days. As you may gather from just reading a little bit above, a number of editors on the page have fabricated a case against me and I have been banned for one week for sockpuppetry, which I am innocent. Although I appear to have admin support, and admins involved say they are likely to believe me, and Reaper Eternal (talk) has even said he will remove the ban (not sure why he hasn't yet) - my voice is still silenced on the page and I will not be able to participate in the consensus edit you have wisely enforced. I believe my presence in that process will be valuable to the page. This editor appreciates any advice you can give. How can I help? The Tumbleman (talk) 13:53, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

Good morning. You mentioned you would remove the ban and requested I email you with certain information. I have not heard back from you on this. Tom Morris (talk) has placed an edit ban on the Sheldrake page for three days and admins are going to compile consensus arguments. I believe it is necessary I participate in that process and I believe I am a valued voice in making the page better. Can we expedite this process so I can participate? The Tumbleman (talk) 13:57, 16 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately, the information wasn't helpful in determining whether this was account sharing (unacceptable, but understandable) or sockpuppetry (simply unacceptable). The actions of the suspected sockpuppet look like a sockpuppet. However, Tumbleman might be telling the truth. I can confirm that his account is not compromised now, and he claims to have changed his password, so I'm inclined to give him the benefit of the doubt and unblock him, on the condition that there be no more account sharing and no more sockpuppetry, with the understanding that if I find either again, I will block you indefinitely. The former violates Wikipedia's copyright and is bad for your account's security (the person could change your password and take control of your account), and the latter is deceptive. Obviously, that is if and only if the arbitration enforcement decides you aren't merely trolling, something I am strongly suspecting is the case. Reaper Eternal (talk) 02:23, 17 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Reaper Eternal (talk)Of course I will not share my PW again, that was naive and I was unaware of any policy against doing so. Naturally that will not happen again. Sockpuppetry is not nor has been on my agenda, I don't believe practicing deception is productive, and you have my assurance and integrity that will not be occurring from this editor.


 * I'm not worried about the arbitration case regarding me as a troll, I have my own contributions to the page in TALK to defend that and the integrity of my arguments, as long as I can defend myself. Can I at least be unblocked from that hearing? I assume if we are talking about banning someone for life from a platform they have been a supporter of, we would at least want it to be fair, yes? So how about this as a compromise. If you unblock me now, I promise only to defend myself in the hearing, participate in the consensus arguments on the Sheldrake page in my normal consensus building tone that is displayed consistently throughout the page, and if the hearing finds me a troll in a fair hearing, or you see me doing anything other than what i suggest here I accept that you will ban me indefinitely from WP. Does that sound fair? The Tumbleman (talk) 02:38, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

Arbitration Enforcement
There is a thread at WP:AE which concerns you. IRWolfie- (talk) 14:43, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

Statement from Tumbleman
IRWolfie- (talk), Barney the barney barney (talk). Touche' - this is quite a rich strategy, surely a result of an experienced and co-ordinated team. I now find myself being investigated in not one, but two arbitration hearings, neither of which I am even able to defend myself in. As much as I do not appreciate the negativity as I believe it clearly violates the spirit and guidelines of WP and contrary to what I would expect, I do compliment an online strategy that games the system. As a professional in my field, which includes viral and social media, I'm always intrigued by the 'black hat' players. Even though their ethics usually suck - they can be clever at revealing flaws in a platform and can be quite helpful in discovery of new applications that can be used for more ethical purposes.

Admittedly I am still puzzled how the fabrication of the sockpuppeting charge to ban me was helping to make the Sheldrake page a better one, but entirely perplexed how banning me from defending myself against defamatory attacks contributes to making the Sheldrake page better either. It appears the only thing these behaviors has accomplished is silencing my reasoned arguments written in the spirit of consensus and neutrality and denying WP a quality voice.

Furthermore - it's even more odd that IRWolfie- (talk) would notify me on my talk page while trying to get me banned from defending myself on my talk page. I'm also perplexed how this behavior is in any way related to the spirit of WP. None of these behaviors address a number of my reasoned arguments on the Sheldake talk page, of which received considerable support from the community.

Amazingly - IRWolfie- (talk)complaint seems to stem from the fact that the editor does not want to be notified when I am defending myself against factually incorrect and defamatory claims he is making in cases against me.

I've already covered why disclosing a personal project I did in 2006 should be put in a category called 'Who Cares?' and 'This has to do with the Sheldrake page because?'

All I ask is any interested investigator in Wikipedia simply look at the Rupert Sheldrake Talk Page, view my behaviors and commentary, look at the very small number of edits I did to the page, look at my sandbox, and judge Tumbleman on his contributions, not the 'tumbleman' in the minds of what appear to be very biased editors operating with an ideological agenda. One may even add to note - if they can view Tumbleman this way, imagine the bias they are applying to a BLP, where the actual person is now publically talking about defamation and many bloggers are now covering this issue. Perhaps you will understand my motivations - I believe I am protecting WP and this sort of activity is bad for the public perception of collective editing at large. As a professional in my field, of which includes being a thought leader in collective editing platforms, I believe I am highly qualified to make this statement. The Tumbleman (talk) 16:45, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

Response to James Watson inquiry in ARB
JamesBWatson (talk) asks in the current arb case:


 * 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)

You addressed this in the current arb case with Liz. Liz has familiarity with the actual TALK page but I am actually in the process of actually building a concise case so I request you look at that when I am finished. I was preparing that for the other arb case in which it was requested of me but I have been so busy with defending myself from these charges. When I provide them, can you assure me you will review them with impartiality? The Tumbleman (talk) 18:52, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

Response to MastCell
MastCell Talk thank you for giving this your attention. I was told I could respond and defend myself here. I would like to clear up each and everything you claim here and please let me know if you have any further questions.'''

'''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.'''


 * Actually User:Mark Arsten was very helpful and considerate, and we exchanged a few emails. He even said he was sorry if there was any misunderstanding. He asked me to inquire with User: Reaper Eternal who did the checkuser. User Reaper Eternal said that as unlikely as my story sounded (not sure why it was so unlikely) the IP logs actually confirmed it and he said he would remove the ban once I confirmed I had changed my PW. I also had a private email exchange with him which included a note from 'KateGombert'. I have not received a response from that but I believe the record shows I am willing to be transparent to clear up this issue. The facts simply are that I am not user KateGombert, am willing to do what ever is necessary to prove this, and user Oh Boy chicken has already confirmed he is another user. So it is very unclear to me how the sock puppetry is an open and shut case. Especially since the argument is  based on 'sheldrake' in lower case. As a media and technology professional, I can point out that if any user posts from a mobile device, often those mobile devices, depending on the OS - are clumsy with capitalization, and users often have typos and no caps where appropriate. As to these 'accounts' supporting Tumbleman, well so what? So have other accounts in the TALK section. I have been a strong voice. I have created a proper argument that is well reasoned and the language I use is very clear for the sole purpose that other editors can have a contextual framework to make their own arguments.

'''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 find this claim perplexing. Yes I have a strong voice on the page. Yes many editors are frustrated with my arguments. Yes I am adept at framing arguments, it's a big part of what I do. Might I ask you to simply just review the Sheldrake TALK page, highlight specifically the behavior that you believe I violated, and address that specifically? Also, would you mind actually looking at the history of the page, you can see that disruption has been happening for quite some time. I request you review based on my actual language and behaviors on the page, not the interpretation frustrated editors have regarding it. That seems like a reasonable request, yes?

'''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.'''


 * Well I would like to propose we do this now. I want to clear my name and I take this very seriously. In addition, the page in question has a three day review for consensus building arguments, of which now I am unable to participate in. I make these requests in the interests of wikipedia and making the page better.


 * Also, I am not a defender of 'fringe' topics and I have no 'fringe' agenda. I do not promote sheldrake's theories. My interest in Sheldrake extends to the controversy he has caused over the past 30 years, and the philosophical, not scientific, debate. I love this issue because I love philosophy, I'm not promoting psychic pets. I am a philosophical agnostic, meaning I don't claim to know one way or another. I have no ideological agenda other than that. I believe it was helpful to the page to present a POV that was 'in the middle' favoring neither one side nor the other, and I argue from a place of agnosticism. That may account for why some editors are frustrated, but as my word I only have one intention here, to represent the NPOV to the best of my ability to do so. The Tumbleman (talk) 19:22, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

Misuse of talk page while blocked, and related issues
<div style="background-color: #CCCCFF; margin: 2em 0 0 0; padding: 0 10px 0 10px; border: 1px solid #0000FA;"> The main reason for leaving talk page access for an editor who is otherwise blocked from editing is to make it possible for the editor to request an unblock, and to take part in discussions relating to the block. You, however, have been using talk page access for inappropriate purposes, including continuing your attacks and accusations against other editors, and attempting to evade your block by proxy, by asking another editor to take particular action. Moreover, your persistent pinging of IRWolfie, deliberately in defiance of his/her requests for you not to do so, and in recent cases for no purpose whatever other than to announce that you intend to continue doing so, are clearly deliberate harassment and trolling. I would certainly have removed your talk page access for the duration of the block had it not been for the fact that an arbitration enforcement case concerning you has been opened, and I would prefer to allow you a chance to respond to what is said there, as long as it is open. If you have anything to say there, please post it on this page, with a request for it to be copied there. Nevertheless, if you misuse this talk page during your block again then I will remove talk page access. Also, if you continue your tendentious editing, battleground approach to other editors, attempts to use Wikipedia to promote a point of view, assumptions of bad faith, and other patterns of disruptive editing, either while the current block is in force or after it is over, you are likely to be blocked for much longer, quite possibly even indefinitely.

JamesBWatson (talk) 17:52, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

JamesBWatson (talk - I'm not seeing any evidence here of what you're suggesting - at all. I request you investigate the actual Rupert Sheldrake talk section. If you believe you have evidence of me sockpuppeting, or proxy IP, TE to the page, etc etc - let's address it. Any action i take on my talk page is in relationship to my banning directly. The Tumbleman (talk) 18:19, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

Tumbleman Response to issue
Can any admin explain how posting someone's signature in response to actual posts, which include accusations that I find defamatory which they are making in my honor is somehow evidence of me WP Hounding them or trolling? I assume that when an editor addresses the commentary of another editor with their signature to alert them they are being mentioned is in the spirit of transparency and in good form. Am I mistaken here? Is it unreasonable for me to defend my account from accusations, especially if I believe them to be misleading and a result of editors gaming the system? I want to follow the guidelines, I am just unsure which guidelines I am violating. Right now i am terrified to do anything because apparently everything I do is suspect of some master plot. Advice is appreciated. The Tumbleman (talk) 18:52, 16 October 2013 (UTC)


 * I haven't commented until now (except to advise you to abandon your "social experiment" some weeks ago) so think of me as a fresh voice. Here is my advice:
 * Stop trying to engage on why you were blocked. Justly or not you're only making things worse.
 * Spend the duration of your block studying the policies linked from WP:List of policies, specifically the first two sections, Content and Behavior policies.
 * After your block is over, (and not before -- give people a chance to cool off -- many are quite justifiably pissed at you) open a discussion here offering your best attempt to understand why you were blocked, and how you plan to avoid repeating that behavior.
 * There may also be other behaviors of yours which could have led to your block but didn't, only because once you were blocked there was no need to inquire further into that other behavior. You might want to comment on those too.
 * There's an AE discussion going on right now about you which could lead to other restrictions on you. I can only suggest that you might try asking that that discussion be suspended while you carry out the meditation I've recommended above. But I don't know whether that's procedurally possible, or whether others will accept that suggestion.
 * Good luck, and I look forward to a "new" Tumbleman who takes fewer pratfalls. EEng (talk) 20:06, 16 October 2013 (UTC)
 * P.S. One other thing. Stop referring to yourself in the third person. I adds to the impression that you think this is some kind of game. I mean it. EEng (talk)


 * EEng (talk) I believe nested in your commentary here is wisdom I should consider, and thank you for any time at all. In regards to the 'social experiment' (not my words) I understand how my intention of being transparent about 'what' I personally get out of my activity here was poorly worded and naive. My intention was for editors to see that I am neutral and believe in collective editing as a problem solving tool, and my commitment to focus on one page. I was hoping it would have the affect of 'oh tumbleman is not a woo sheldrake supporter and has no agenda'. While true -My intention was misinterpreted and I thank you for bringing that to my attention, I do admit I can be a bit over dramatic and in this instance, this editor admits to putting his foot in his mouth. Thank you for your council. The Tumbleman (talk) 20:20, 16 October 2013 (UTC)


 * I read you loud and clear EEng (talk) - if i reference third person it's mainly because I am highlighting something on the account 'tumbleman'. I was not aware that would be a questionable issue, but duly noted and I will try to continue to reference myself in first person to clear up any confusion this may have caused. The Tumbleman (talk) 22:21, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

ANI as a tactic
Liz <sup style="font-family:Times New Roman;"><b style="color:#006400;">Read!</b> <b style="color:#006400;">Talk!</b> 22:02, 16 October 2013 (UTC) I really appreciate your clarity and voice, and I don't think I would have gotten this far with it, thank you. I actually agree a lot with your summary of the problem, that certain pages, like Sheldrakes, are actually addressing a bigger issue of what defines knowledge, and neutrality even and these are based on ideologies more than actual knowledge at this point. That's what draws me to this as well that issue and why I found Sheldrake's page and the problem accompanying it so interesting. I do want WP to take this challenge on, it's a very interesting problem for any collective editing platform to resolve - it has implications beyond just a BLP on WP.

I'm doing a lot of diligence here working on this, and I noted you mentioned this on your talk page " Sometimes, to the casual observer, it seems like AN, AN/I and ARBCOM are just a means for driving Editors who one disagrees with off of Wikipedia. And the more I dig into the ARBCOM case files, well, I see the same names come up again and again and again."

I think this might be relevant to my investigation, would you mind pointing me in this direction so I can compile this? The Tumbleman (talk) 04:51, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

IRWolfie- (talk) you mention that there is "evidence that he's directly continued off-wiki disruption to on-wiki. Can you please share this evidence with me? This appears as a new charge and I want to understand what it is your referencing. Thanks. The Tumbleman (talk) 07:09, 17 October 2013 (UTC)
 * As I said, stop highlighting me. IRWolfie- (talk) 07:23, 17 October 2013 (UTC)


 * I for one think that this is extremely regrettable, but if you are unable or unwilling to play by the rules, then we have to deal with it. Actually I think it's a big problem with Wikipedia system that inevitably encourages such actions rather than preventing the incident in the first place.  Barney the barney barney (talk) 19:25, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

Response to ANI hearing admins regarding trolling
Floquenbeam (talk), Reaper Eternal (talk), MastCell Talk

I'm very sorry if anything I have done in the past or present leads anyone to suspect that I am a troll intent on disrupting consensus. That’s not who I am, that’s not the type of person I want to be perceived as. It’s true that I did have, as Luckie Louie referred to it, a 'zen like performance art project' in online conflict resolution - but that was in 2005, it was not on Wikipedia and not designed to disrupt anyone, anywhere.

My only intention on Wikipedia is to make better pages and help build a better NPOV consensus (ironic, considering what I’ve been accused of). I don't have an ideological agenda, I’m not a pseudoscience believer and I'm agnostic towards Sheldrake's theories. What I do believe in is building a rational consensus - and to that end I believe in the value of collective editing platforms. I gave a very popular TEDx talks on this subject, so I am obviously no enemy of science and reasonable discourse.

I also believe I can be a valuable editor to this community. I want you to believe that about me too. I'm sorry if my intentions were poorly communicated and apologize that my enthusiasm was seen as belligerence. I became interested in the Rupert Sheldrake page and focused on the talk pages to avoid edit warring, but I’m afraid that in my naiveté I stepped on toes and created a negative perception of myself that I deeply regret. I value my ability to help improve Wikipedia and will adjust my behavior to prevent the appearance of trolling. I strongly believe that if you take me at my word and allow me to do the work here that I believe I can do - you will not be disappointed. The Tumbleman (talk) 07:05, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

Talk page access
I am not sure whether I could possibly have made it any clearer that you were on the verge of having talk page access removed. However, not only have you continued to make posts here which come rather close to the borderline, but you have yet again pinged IRWolfie, which you cannot possibly have failed to realise would be provocative. As you had been told would be the case, your talk page access has therefore been removed for the duration of this block. As for your claims that you are prevented from taking part in the discussion on possible arbitration enforcement, that is complete nonsense, since you were invited to submit comments here, accompanied by a request to copy them to that discussion, and you have chosen not to take up that offer. JamesBWatson (talk) 12:28, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

Result of the complaint about your edits at WP:Arbitration enforcement
Tumbleman, you have been indefinitely blocked from editing Wikipedia as the consensus of the discussion regarding your edits was that your involvement here does not appear to be in line with Wikipedia's purposes. Your ability to edit this talk page has also been revoked. If you would like to be unblocked, you should read the guide to appealing blocks, then contact the Arbitration Committee at . If you believe this block is unjustified, please read the guide to appealing arbitration enforcement blocks and then appeal your block using the instructions there. 13:43, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

Reminder to administrators: In March 2010, ArbCom adopted a procedure prohibiting administrators "from reversing or overturning (explicitly or in substance) any action taken by another administrator pursuant to the terms of an active arbitration remedy, and explicitly noted as being taken to enforce said remedy, except: (a) with the written authorization of the Committee, or (b) following a clear, substantial, and active consensus of uninvolved editors at a community discussion noticeboard (such as WP:AN or WP:ANI). If consensus in such discussions is hard to judge or unclear, the parties should submit a request for clarification on the proper page." Administrators who reverse an arbitration enforcement block, such as this one, without clear authorisation will be summarily desysopped.

Tumbleman, I apologize for the above message, it was incorrect. The block is not an Arbitration Enforcement action. This block has been placed by myself as a "conventional" block from an individual admin, based on the discussion here. The updated block message is below.

<div class="notice" style="background:#ffe0e0; border:1px solid #886644; padding:0.5em; margin:0.5em auto; min-height: 40px"> You have been blocked indefinitely from editing as your involvement here does not appear to be in line with Wikipedia's purposes. Your ability to edit your talk page has also been revoked. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you should read the guide to appealing blocks, then contact administrators by submitting a request to the Unblock Ticket Request System. 18:56, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

Please Contact me
Hi Tumbleman, If you're reading this page please contact via my website. I want to talk to you.Craig Weiler (talk) 15:19, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

Tumbleman's Response to being banned
Tumbleman has posted a statement regarding his indefinite ban. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Craig Weiler (talk • contribs) 22:59, 17 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Thus removing all doubt that he really is a publicity-seeking troll. Crikey, he even registered a domain name just for the purpose of putting that out there. What a waste of editor time this was! EEng (talk) 23:15, 17 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Why do you guys hate us so much?Craig Weiler (talk) 00:56, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I have no idea who you are. Nor have I even looked at the Sheldrake talk page everyone's talking about. I don't hate Tumbleman and I certainly don't hate you. I know only what I've see of T-man's faux-naïve faux pas here and at ANI. And what I see is someone who either delights in wasting people's time or is borderline autistic. Whatever the explanation, we can't use him here at WP. EEng (talk) 02:01, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
 * It relates to your attitude to evidence, and your woolly thinking. --Roxy the dog (quack quack) 01:08, 18 October 2013 (UTC)


 * and it isn't hate. --Roxy the dog (quack quack) 01:48, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
 * wow talk about ego - its all about the . -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  01:56, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

Sure looks like hate from where I'm standing.Craig Weiler (talk) 03:54, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes. Conspiracy theorists invariably see anyone who disagrees with them as hating them, and always having motives more sinister than those they profess. JamesBWatson (talk) 10:35, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

It seems to me that Tumbleman posted a message on an external website, because he was blocked from doing so here. This followed being accused of misbehaving by a number of users, and blocked from putting his side of events.

I come from a generation where is it the worst of regimes that can acuse a person of a crime, deny them the opportunity to respond, and then summarily execute them. It seems to be rubbing salt into the wound, to then personally attack them, knowing that they are unable to respond. --Iantresman (talk) 12:01, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
 * there is nothing criminal about being a disruptive editor at Wikipedia. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  12:56, 18 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Yes, but think of it as a metaphor or an analogy. Lou Sander (talk) 13:18, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
 * but of course. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  13:33, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Tumbleman could have made five paragraphs out of that. ;-) Lou Sander (talk) 13:48, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I have mixed feelings about Tumbleman, but I share the opinion that he was a time sink. Much of what he said was positive, though he said it at great length. The admins seemed to be unduly harsh in disposing of him, but maybe they had seen his behavior elsewhere and finally decided to end it. Lou Sander (talk) 12:14, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm of the same opinion, Lou Sander. As far as hate, all ideological discussions are usually antagonistic and this one is no different. Liz  <sup style="font-family:Times New Roman;"><b style="color:#006400;">Read!</b> <b style="color:#006400;">Talk!</b> 18:18, 18 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Liz <sup style="font-family:Times New Roman;"><b style="color:#006400;">Read!</b> <b style="color:#006400;">Talk!</b>  TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  IP editors comments are being reverted on this talk page. Edit war on a talk page? Anonymous Wikepedians have a right to post commentary here as well.  67.164.137.8 (talk) 21:46, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Neither IPs nor registered accounts have the "right" to WP:SOAPBOX. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  22:26, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

Let's end this now
EEng (talk) 14:16, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

A majority of people weighing in at his arbitration supported him.Craig Weiler (talk) 20:41, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I'll take your word for it, though I wonder whether you are counting Tumbleman's SPAs in that. As you know decisions aren't made by majority but by the arguments which best align the facts to WP policy, and the result of that for Tumbleman was a determination that his presence here is a net drain on the project.
 * Every further post made here feed T-man's ego. If you want to get in the last word, by all means go ahead. I encourage all editors to go back to developing articles or other productive activity. EEng (talk) 21:35, 18 October 2013 (UTC)


 * The treatment of Tumbleman is related to why people are discussing things here rather than on the article. Because of all the attempts to ban people who disagree with the skeptics.  The problem is that he wasn't really a troll.  He was railroaded.Craig Weiler (talk) 22:22, 18 October 2013 (UTC)


 * We can't freaking stop talking about this hugely unimportant stuff. We are all Tumbleman now! May God have mercy on our souls. ;-) Lou Sander (talk) 21:47, 18 October 2013 (UTC)


 * I removed that image, which seemed like grave dancing to me, but EEng has obviously restored it. It's disrespectful. Liz  <sup style="font-family:Times New Roman;"><b style="color:#006400;">Read!</b> <b style="color:#006400;">Talk!</b> 00:29, 19 October 2013 (UTC)


 * I posted the image as a forceful call to other editors to deny Thimblebrain the gratification of further discussion of him. Unfortunately you're continuing it. As I did to Craig Weiler above, I leave the last word to you, if you wish, as I'm going back to useful work. EEng (talk) 00:57, 19 October 2013 (UTC)


 * I would like to see the image removed. I consider it disrespectful.Craig Weiler (talk) 01:56, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

Tumbleman's Talk Page: The Sheldrake Neutral Zone -Please be polite and also don't remove other's comments.-
Tumbleman's page is a good place for everyone to talk about Tumbleman's being banned. I have a blog post on this if anyone is interested: Wikipedia: The Trial of Tumbleman

At issue is a larger problem within Wikipedia. It's fairly obvious that it is easy for experienced editors working together to game the system and it appears to some of us that this seems to be leading to ideologues capturing whole sections of the encyclopedia and slanting them according to their beliefs.Craig Weiler (talk) 02:08, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

Previous talk archived
I've archived the rest of the talk section here if anyone needs to access previous discussions. As my account has come under question and I take this matter very seriously, I am leaving the timely and current issue to the top as that is all that is relevant at this time. The Tumbleman (talk) 02:16, 16 October 2013 (UTC)


 * additional archive is at User talk:Tumbleman/Archive

Talk page access
I am not sure whether I could possibly have made it any clearer that you were on the verge of having talk page access removed. However, not only have you continued to make posts here which come rather close to the borderline, but you have yet again pinged IRWolfie, which you cannot possibly have failed to realise would be provocative. As you had been told would be the case, your talk page access has therefore been removed for the duration of this block. As for your claims that you are prevented from taking part in the discussion on possible arbitration enforcement, that is complete nonsense, since you were invited to submit comments here, accompanied by a request to copy them to that discussion, and you have chosen not to take up that offer. JamesBWatson (talk) 12:28, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

Result of the complaint about your edits at WP:Arbitration enforcement
Tumbleman, you have been indefinitely blocked from editing Wikipedia as the consensus of the discussion regarding your edits was that your involvement here does not appear to be in line with Wikipedia's purposes. Your ability to edit this talk page has also been revoked. If you would like to be unblocked, you should read the guide to appealing blocks, then contact the Arbitration Committee at . If you believe this block is unjustified, please read the guide to appealing arbitration enforcement blocks and then appeal your block using the instructions there. 13:43, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

Reminder to administrators: In March 2010, ArbCom adopted a procedure prohibiting administrators "from reversing or overturning (explicitly or in substance) any action taken by another administrator pursuant to the terms of an active arbitration remedy, and explicitly noted as being taken to enforce said remedy, except: (a) with the written authorization of the Committee, or (b) following a clear, substantial, and active consensus of uninvolved editors at a community discussion noticeboard (such as WP:AN or WP:ANI). If consensus in such discussions is hard to judge or unclear, the parties should submit a request for clarification on the proper page." Administrators who reverse an arbitration enforcement block, such as this one, without clear authorisation will be summarily desysopped.

Tumbleman, I apologize for the above message, it was incorrect. The block is not an Arbitration Enforcement action. This block has been placed by myself as a "conventional" block from an individual admin, based on the discussion here. The updated block message is below.

<div class="notice" style="background:#ffe0e0; border:1px solid #886644; padding:0.5em; margin:0.5em auto; min-height: 40px"> You have been blocked indefinitely from editing as your involvement here does not appear to be in line with Wikipedia's purposes. Your ability to edit your talk page has also been revoked. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you should read the guide to appealing blocks, then contact administrators by submitting a request to the Unblock Ticket Request System. 18:56, 17 October 2013 (UTC)