Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 21:45, 5 September 2020

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

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.

Arbitration enforcement archives

1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9	10	11	12	13	14	15	16	17	18	19	20
21	22	23	24	25	26	27	28	29	30	31	32	33	34	35	36	37	38	39	40
41	42	43	44	45	46	47	48	49	50	51	52	53	54	55	56	57	58	59	60
61	62	63	64	65	66	67	68	69	70	71	72	73	74	75	76	77	78	79	80
81	82	83	84	85	86	87	88	89	90	91	92	93	94	95	96	97	98	99	100
101	102	103	104	105	106	107	108	109	110	111	112	113	114	115	116	117	118	119	120
121	122	123	124	125	126	127	128	129	130	131	132	133	134	135	136	137	138	139	140
141	142	143	144	145	146	147	148	149	150	151	152	153	154	155	156	157	158	159	160
161	162	163	164	165	166	167	168	169	170	171	172	173	174	175	176	177	178	179	180
181	182	183	184	185	186	187	188	189	190	191	192	193	194	195	196	197	198	199	200
201	202	203	204	205	206	207	208	209	210	211	212	213	214	215	216	217	218	219	220
221	222	223	224	225	226	227	228	229	230	231	232	233	234	235	236	237	238	239	240
241	242	243	244	245	246	247	248	249	250	251	252	253	254	255	256	257	258	259	260
261	262	263	264	265	266	267	268	269	270	271	272	273	274	275	276	277	278	279	280
281	282	283	284	285	286	287	288	289	290	291	292	293	294	295	296	297	298	299	300
301	302	303	304	305	306	307	308	309	310	311	312	313	314	315	316	317	318	319	320
321	322	323	324	325	326	327	328	329	330	331	332	333	334	335	336	337	338	339	340
341	342	343	344

Thomas Meng

Thomas Meng is warned that his edits are on the borderline of what would trigger a topic ban. He needs to take more note of others who view his additions as WP:UNDUE, and be more ready to accept contrary opinions. Failure to improve is likely to result in a more aggressive sanction, probably a topic ban. Guy (help! - typo?) 21:35, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

Request concerning Thomas Meng

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: Binksternet (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 21:30, 5 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested: Thomas Meng (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Search CT alerts: in user talk history • in system log

Sanction or remedy to be enforced: Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Falun_Gong#Neutral_point_of_view (2007) and Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Falun_Gong_2#Neutral_point_of_view (2012) :

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

July 21, 02:36. Thomas Meng added "truthfulness, compassion, and tolerance" to the Background section, citing scholar Benjamin Penny. This was now the third time in the Persecution of Falun Gong article that these principles were mentioned. This was not the the general topic article about the Falun Gong which should, of course, discuss the group's moral teachings.
July 21, 02:45. Binksternet removed two of the three mentions, as off topic and promotional, leaving the instance where the moral principles were criticized, because it was relevant to the persecution topic.
July 21, 18:19. Thomas Meng restored challenged text, "truthfulness, compassion, and tolerance", the three moral principles of Falun Gong, adding a partisan paid political statement as a citation.
July 21, 19:01. Binksternet started a talk page discussion about truthfulness as a moral principle.
July 21, 22:48. Thomas Meng argues that scholar Benjamin Penny affirms that Falun Gong adherents follow the moral principles, that they strive to be good people.
July 22, 23:31. Thomas Meng restored challenged text.
July 28, 20:25. Thomas Meng argues that WP:WEIGHT should determine how the Falun Gong moral principles are portrayed.
July 28, 20:34. Thomas Meng argues that scholar Heather Kavan should not be cited per WP:WEIGHT.
August 2, 00:03. Thomas Meng restored the challenged text, adding citations for support.
August 3, 03:23. Thomas Meng restored the challenged text, removed the valid Kavan cite, and cast aspersions on James R. Lewis (scholar) by linking him to Wuhan U.
August 3, 03:28. Thomas Meng restored the challenged text.
August 4, 17:26. Thomas Meng violates Wikipedia:Tendentious editing#Disputing the reliability of apparently good sources by casting aspersions on the cited scholar James R. Lewis (scholar).
August 5, 02:34. Thomas Meng says lack of further discussion affirms his POV, states his intention to restore the challenged text. Previously, Horse Eye Jack had said there was no consensus to do so.[1]
August 5, 17:30. Thomas Meng restored the challenged text, removing the Kavan citation.

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

May 18. Notice given to Thomas Meng about discretionary sanctions on Falun Gong articles.
July 23. AE block on Thomas Meng by Daniel Case (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA).

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

Thomas Meng has not been discussed in previous arbitration requests. He registered his username in April 2020. He was blocked by Daniel Case on July 23 because of a discretionary sanctions violation, tendentious editing at Li Hongzhi, an article in the Falun Gong area.

In all of his edits and arguments in the Falun Gong area, Thomas Meng has sought to promote a positive image of Falun Gong, arguing against a very well-researched NBC News report because they failed to describe enough of Falun Gong's positive attributes.[2] Thomas Meng has argued against the validity of scholars Heather Kavan and James R. Lewis who have published negative findings about the Falun Gong. Such arguments are further instances of tendentious editing, the part about disputing the reliability of apparently good sources. Thomas Meng has tried to retain or insert promotional material into the Persecution of Falun Gong, including an attractive photo of people meditating,[3] and the three moral principles which cast the group in a good light. These are completely inappropriate for an article about persecution. In this topic area, Thomas Meng is behaving exactly like an activist for Falun Gong, and as such he is clearly not here to build an encyclopedia. Binksternet (talk) 21:30, 5 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

Notification of Thomas Meng

Discussion concerning Thomas Meng

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 Thomas Meng

Below are some points in response to Binksternet's accusations:

[4]—I have pointed to the fact that Kavan's view lacks WP:WEIGHT (without dispute from other editors), since all 6 scholarship sources provided (+ [5]) contradict the content of Kavan's conference paper. Interestingly, Binksternet deleted all of this well-sourced content and replaced them with the Kavan source. More than that, he did not even present Kavan’s source with in-text attribution, and simply represented the content of that source as if they were facts.

[6] [7]—I pointed to the fact that the James R. Lewis source does not meet WP:THIRDPARTY.

However, I did not remove this source, or revert Binksternet’s edit as he did with mine. Instead, I had merely added a clarification that he works at Wuhan U. My edit was promptly deleted by Binksternet without any edit summary and without consensus. Note that none of my concerns about Lewis were addressed. Instead, Binksternet simply called my arguments baloney (without saying why) and accused me of having COI issues.

[8] There were comments to the effect that mentioning FLG's three core principles is undue. I made a serious and thorough effort at addressing these concerns by citing many reliable sources that prove the relevance of FLG's tenets to the persecution. After waiting for 1+ days without further objections, I proceeded to edit.

Binksternet claims that FLG's tenets are challenged texts, but they are widely supported by well-established scholarship. The only challenges come from 1. Lewis, a professor at Wuhan U, an institution under the persecuting party's leadership 2. Kavan's conference paper that runs counter to the WP:WEIGHT of academic opinion 3. Binksternet's anti-FLG POV as demonstrated in his edit summaries [9] and [10], which violate WP:ADVOCACY.

[11]—I presented the relevance of this photo in this diff. Instead of disputing its relevance, Binksternet turned to arguing, without evidence, that the photo is "promotional".

[12]—I proved that the photo conforms to scholarly findings and that it's not "promotional". Binksternet was unable to prove otherwise, so simply asserted no promo photos, just no.

[13][14]— I made detailed comments showing that the NBC article is not proper to cite in a BLP. Without engaging my comments, Binksternet simply dismissed my input, saying that it is not our problem, and that it's perfectly fine.

Despite Binksternet's bald assertion, I did not simply revert his edit. I left the NBC untouched, and instead, added a source from the WSJ, per WP:RSOPINION, that presented a response to NBC's accusations, [15].

Yet, [16] – Binksternet promptly removed the RS content, asserting that it is a ridiculous reply, even though WP:NPOV says that all major viewpoints should be represented, which include the target attacked by NBC.

But I did not revert back, as our discussion carried over to another related article. Please refer to my talk page for the entire context of this dispute [17]

So, I'm not the tendentious editor here. In all my edits, I have tried assiduously to abide by all WP:PG's, including WP:BLP, and have logically addressed every concern from other editors. I invite everyone to thoroughly read our conversations on these talk pages.--Thomas Meng (talk) 17:03, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@JzG:Additional comments by Thomas Meng in response to admin JzG's misunderstandings

Not promotional material

It is unclear what exactly is the information I've included that you consider "promotional". Assuming that you are referring to my addition of the central tenets of Falun Gong, "truthfulness, compassion and forbearance", I would disagree.Reliable sources overwhemingly agree that "truthfulness, compassion and forbearance" are FLG's core principles. In my statement above,I have illustrated 7 of them, and there are more.

Note that FLG's core tenets had been in the lead section since 2011 [18], and it was Binksternet who removed this RS material without consensus in July 2020 [19], and stopped me from adding it back.

I'm not the tendentious editor

It is not difficult to see that my edits consistently appeal to reason and RS content (e.g. [20][21]), while Binksternet's edits consistently appeal to his own opinion (e.g. [22][23]). My discussions are civil, while Binksternet's are dismissive. Below are a few typical comments made by Binksternet and me, and you can contrast them:

My comments concerning thedispute, moral principles relevance dispute anddispute

Binksrernet's comments concerning the image dispute,dispute (Binksternet did not comment on FLG's principles' relevance to the persecution)

If you do not disagree with my reasons and my usage of the sources (you appear to at least concede that there are "merits" to the content), then there is no room for the assertion that my edits are tendentious.

If you agree with the simple fact that civil and rational discussion is preferred over personal opinions and derision, then there is no reason why you should be ignoring Binksternet's behaviour in its entirety.

Not promotional image

The type of image of FLG practitioeners that Binksternet considered "promotional" is in fact an accurate portrayal of FLG based on scholarly findings on demographics. Please see all the RS references I made in that talk page discussion. Please also note that this kind of image had been on the page since 2015 [24], and it was Binksternet who deleted it without consensus [25] in June 2020, and stopped me from adding it back.

Ultimately, there are two questions to be asked. First, if an editor's edits are supported by reliable sources that are accurately portrayed, should the editor be sanctioned just because another editor disagrees with the content of those edits or the sources? Second, if an article has contained certain well-cited information for years, and editor B comes in to remove that information without notice or discussion. Editor A undid that removal and explained his actions, but editor B disagrees. There is certainly a lack of consensus. But is Editor A the one who edited without consensus, rather than Editor B?

Admin JzG, if your answer is no to both questions, then you would have probably concluded differently on this enforcement request.

Ni Yulan article

This article is completely backed by reliable source coverage. In fact, those RS media focus primarily, if not entirely, in reporting Ni's arrests and imprisonment. Please see a more detailed explanation here. Thomas Meng (talk) 22:59, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Ymblanter: I think it would be more meaningful if you could, after reviewing my explanations to admin JzG, state more specifically why my edits are not constructive, since I have illustrated quite well that my addition of what Binksternet considers "challenged texts" and "promotional" is supported by well-established scholarship (with 7+ reliable sources), and that such material had been in this article for years before Binksternet deleted it without consensus. Thomas Meng (talk) 18:27, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Ymblanter: Falun Gong's moral principles "truthfulness, compassion, and tolerance" had been in the lead section since 2011, and Binksternet deleted it without consensus in 2020. I tried to restore for several times this well-cited information, and along the way, demonstrated on the talk page many reliable sources that all affirm the material's importance and relevance. So saying that I introduced POV is incorrect. Furthermore, Binksternet did not respond to my discussions about the reliable sources, but simply reverted my edits and reported me here. Thomas Meng (talk) 03:04, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Guerillero:@Ymblanter: Would you please respond specifically to my points above? If you don't find it convincing, please point out specifically which argument I made is flawed. I really wish reviewing admins could thoroughly read my statements before proposing sanctions. Thomas Meng (talk) 17:14, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Horse Eye Jack

On the 30th I warned Thomas Meng for edit warring on Li Hongzhi. Their response was to immediately accuse me of talk page harassment (this was my first ever time posting on their talk page) and to claim they were only carrying over a settled consensus from another page. That consensus was apparently from the discussion in question here, I could not verify that a consensus had ever been reached and I believe their statement to be untruthful. The discussion can be found at User talk:Thomas Meng#Edit warring at Li Hongzhi and adds strong support to the case for WP:NOTHERE. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 21:50, 5 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Ian.thomson

I've been dealing with Meng at Talk:Persecution of Falun Gong over the moral principles bit. Other users and I have explained how it's simply undue for a tangent article to be going into their core teachings and how the sources don't really demonstrate that FLG is being specifically being targeted for claiming those principles (another pro-FLG editor could say they only "sort of" fit). He displays serious WP:IDHT issues whenever it comes to objections to his edits, reading any message to the contrary as affirmation of his desires (when he doesn't straight up ignore them). That doesn't work in a consensus based project. Ian.thomson (talk) 21:59, 5 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by TheBlueCanoe

I don't recall ever dealing directly with this editor, but Ian.thomson referenced a comment I made above, so I'll make a quick note.

As a content question, there is actually good reason to cite Falun Gong's moral teachings in Persecution of Falun Gong, because several scholarly journal articles and chapters draw a direct connection between these things (e.g. some academic commentators believe that the persecution was precipitated, in part, by a clash of visions between the theistic Falun Gong and the materialist Communist Party. The Communist Party itself said that Falun Gong needed to be suppressed because its moral tenets of truth, compassion, and tolerant, were incompatible with Marxist ideas). I cited some examples on the relevant talk page,[26] and there are more than that. Inclusion of relevant content on the page is fully justified. I'm frankly more concerned by the OP's repeated removal of this content and his apparent misrepresentation of sources on the same topic.[27][28][29][30][31]

Anyway, content disagreement shouldn't be solved at AE. There are behavioural issues on these pages, but they implicate editors on both sides of this dispute, and should probably be referred to ArbCom.TheBlueCanoe 01:59, 6 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Daniel Case

This is what I would have said if he had opened an appeal (which as he noted he couldn't have) when I told him I couldn't erase the block from his record:

As I had explained to him, I did not intend to get involved, when Binksternet reported him to AIV.

I really wish people would not make reports citing arbitration enforcement to AIV. It is not the place for it. But whatever one might wish, it was reported that night, and I decided I owed it a look. As I told Thomas, indeed there was something there. Two weeks after Thomas's removal of some content he considered dubiously sourced led to a contentious discussion where two other editors strongly opposed the edit (and one briefly popped in to support him), he had retutned and restored it. This to me was clearly editing against consensus.

I would have let it pass because as Thomas does point out, the warning and report came after his last edit. And vandals get to walk in that situation. But there are discretionary sanctions on that article, and even though I looked at the sanctions log, where no new enforcement has been recorded for over a decade, it is still in force. So I decided to block him.

It's not often that I have the kind of cordial discussion with someone I've blocked that I did with Thomas, and I was certainly open then to the possibility I might have overreacted.

However, seeing what has happened since, I'm not surprised it has ended up here. Since only now have I been able to read his long explanation to me, I must say that he isn't doing himself any favors. In his position, I would have tried to explain that there was consensus for his edit, regardless of how it seems otherwise. But, instead, he basically says, well, he upset me so much that I had no choice:

At that point, I realized the futility of attempting to logically discuss with Binksternet by using WP policies and RS evidence, given his unrelenting anti-FLG agenda demonstrated in both discussions. So, on that same day, I went to Binksternet's talk page and gave him a warning, at the same time, back to the BLP article and removed the NBC hitpiece despite his objection.

Even in an area not under DS, that attitude is asking for a block. I agree Binksternet's tone could have been less confrontational, that he could have entertained the idea that Thomas had a legitimate criticism of the NBC article and worked from there rather than a blanket assertion that everything NBC reports is beyond question (Not necessarily). But ... that's not something you resolve by completely disregarding the other person and going and doing what you want, especially after leaving a templated warning on their talk page. You don't do that and then wonder why you've forfeited a lot of good faith all of a sudden. Daniel Case (talk) 06:55, 6 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by PaleoNeonate

My recent involvement is noticing disruption on Falun Gong related articles and occasionally having a look. I confirm that I've seen at least one instance of editing against consensus with a moment of silence after an objection on the talk page taken to mean consensus existed. This is a running-in-circles situation as other editors would have to revert and repeat over and over the same policy and source based arguments. At a recent ANI report I expressed my intention to eventually file AE reports, but considering the limited time I can put in Wikipedia and that a 0R sanction was already applied to some editors, it didn't seem as urgent. While admins are to take the decision, I would propose trying 0R first before applying a complete topic ban in the area. I wasn't personally familiar with this type of sanction until recently (vs 1RR, topic, partial or full blocks). It might allow discussion while also hopefully preventing reinstating edits when repeated arguments are eventually ignored by other editors, possibly breaking the loop.

For context: this is a difficult topic where good and bad exists on both sides of a complex debate that also involves human rights. China has a bad record of human rights violations; Falun Gong also accumulates a bad public record in relation to propaganda and exaggerated claims. A persecution complex exists and is used to promote and validate beliefs, while at the same time the group faces true challenges. An effort is done to select reliable independent sources that report about these.

One of the comments suggests this is a content dispute that should be solved at ARBCOM, but that's not the proper venue for that, we'd still be on the talk page or at mediation if AE wasn't necessary (and ARBCOM is also to address behavioral and policy violation issues and apply technical solutions). It seems that socking of long-term-abuse editors historically occurred on both sides as demonstrated recently at ANI (SPI).

Lastly, the argument was still presented here that the reason for persecution are tenets like truth, when it is clear that it is more perceived extremism allowing members to deny authority and feel above the law. It is of course debatable where the line can be drawn under a difficult regime and I think that most editors are sympathetic to this. In this case, the mention of those religious and philosophical tenets have their place at the main article rather than presented in the persecution article as being the cause of their ills, especially when scholars point out that they can be used as justifications. Unfortunately, the situation has also been exploited by other opportunistic groups with a political intent to foment public anti-Chinese sentiment and promote various conspiracy theories.

My word count is already near 500... —Paleo Neonate – 11:50, 6 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by My very best wishes

Thomas Meng started editing in April 2020 and made less than 500 edits in the project [32], a lot of them about music and other noncontroversial topics. I do not see his case would be in any way ripe/appropriate for the Arbcom. Quickly looking at his edits in the article in question [33], one can say that his edits are sufficiently well sourced.

Speaking about diffs brought to AE by Binksternet (Persecution of Falun Gong), I think the disagreements qualify simply as content disputes. In particular, one can reasonably argue that

the image should be included to Background section [34]
that claims about moral principles can be included to Background section [35], and
that the views of James Lewis is not something to be used here [36]. I commented in the end of each section on article talk page.

Overall, after looking at the contributions by Thomas Meng in this subject area, were they "net positive"? For example, their editing of page Ni Yulan [37] was definitely a significant improvement, and I do not see current version as anything problematic in light of BLP or whatever. "Persecution of FG" and Li Hongzhi? No, because his edits were reverted by other contributors. I would say he was mostly on the wrong side of disputes on these two pages, but not sure this rises to the level of a topic ban at this point. My very best wishes (talk) 16:23, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Result concerning Thomas Meng

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

I think it is time for arbcom. There aren't enough interested admins willing to get involved in the FG topic area --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 15:10, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Justice delayed is justice denied. On the face of it, Thomas Meng should be sanctioned for repeatedly adding promotional material without consensus. In practice these are some of the lesser POV-pushes on this topic lately, and we haven't fixed it yet. So maybe it is time for a third ArbCom, or, failing that, a logged warning. Guy (help! - typo?) 15:23, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@JzG: I can't be the only AE admin working in this topic area. If other admins don't want to get involved, arbcom is the only shot --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 15:33, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Guerillero, I agree, the problem is that pretty much none of the requests are simple and obvious: behaviourally I would say this falls squarely into tendentious editing / POV-pushing / whatever, but there are complicating issue of the merits of the content that make it a tough call, otherwise I'd have chipped in before. I have been looking at this for days thinking "wtf do we do with this?". It's not just FG related. Look at Ni Yulan, largely written by Thomas Meng. There is outrage screaming from every line. This is a WP:RGW case where the wrongs are indeed great. Guy (help! - typo?) 16:16, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I would suggest a topic ban from Falun Gong, broadly construed. It looks like the editor is not capable to edit constructively in this area.--Ymblanter (talk) 11:17, 23 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I am sorry Thomas Meng, but I do not find your explanations in the least convincing. Any independent observer would see a relatively new user who introduced POV into articles on a certain topic and when challenged starts edit-warring. This is a textbook definition of disruptive editing.--Ymblanter (talk) 18:33, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I would be okay with a warning or topic ban --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 15:40, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Alexiod Palaiologos

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 Alexiod Palaiologos

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: FDW777 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 19:53, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested: Alexiod Palaiologos (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Search CT alerts: in user talk history • in system log

Sanction or remedy to be enforced: Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/American politics 2#Discretionary sanctions (1932 cutoff) :

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

13:08, 27 August 2020 Adds text that attempts to downplay the deaths of black people, despite the reference making the opposite point. Detailed explanation below in comments
17:36, 27 August 2020 Adds text that has little resemblance to what the references are talking about. Detailed explanation below in comments
12:48, 28 August 2020 Adds original research to Violence and controversies during the George Floyd protests, claiming protests relating to the shooting of Jacob Blake are part of the George Floyd protests, when obviously they are protesting a different incident entirely
13:08, 28 August 2020 Edit warring to repeat diff#3 despite being reverted

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

None.

If discretionary sanctions are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see WP:AC/DS#Awareness and alerts)

Alerted here (they have since changed username, don't know if this will affect the automatic logging)

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

The first diff adds to Black Lives Matter the text Although records are incoherent, it is estimated that 13 unarmed black Americans were shot dead by the Police in 2019, compared with an estimated 25 white Americans shot to death. The first half of the sentence is referenced by USA Today and the Wall Street Journal. I can't see the latter as I'm not a subscriber, and USA Today isn't particularly important since it's the second half of the sentence that's the problem. The News Northeastern article referencing the second half of the sentence is even titled The Research is Clear: White People Are Not More Likely Than Black People To Be Killed By Police. And before anyone says I know headlines aren't that useful as references, but the article goes on to point out things like That’s only because there are so many more white people than there are Black people in our country and Although Black people represented 12 percent of the population in the states we studied, they made up 25 percent of the deaths in police shootings and perhaps more tellingly Many other studies have shown that Black people are more likely to be killed per capita by law enforcement than are white people in the United States. In fact the thrust of the entire article is that black people are more likely to be killed by police than white people, so to use that reference to construct a sentence that attempts to portray white people as more likely to be killed by police is clearly not NPOV.

The second diff adds two sentences to Black Lives Matter. The first is At the same time, 89 Police Officers were killed while on duty (2019) referenced by an FBI press release. Obviously what the relevance of that is to Black Lives Matter is anyone's guess. The second sentence, immediately following the first is This could indicate both a racial bias in Police shootings of unarmed people, or a simple tendency for certain American cities to be extremely violent. The first reference is a USA Today article from 8 January 2019 that's titled The most dangerous jobs in the US include electricians, firefighters and police officers. There is no mention of bias, racial or otherwise, black people, Black Lives Matter or anything related. The second reference is a Forbes Contributor article, which isn't reliable per Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources#Forbes (I'll be reasonable and say that's an innocent mistake). However that article doesn't reference the sentence either, not containing any mention of bias, racial or otherwise, black people, Black Lives Matter or anything related other than Experts are unsure of what is driving the trend but some opinions cited by Vox have pointed towards the protests in the wake of George Floyd's death as one possible explanation where distrust led to police departments pulling back from communities, causing a spike in violence, which obviously doesn't reference anything about a racial bias in police shootings of unarmed people. The third reference is the New York Times, which again doesn't contain any mention of bias, racial or otherwise, black people, Black Lives Matter or anything related other than But this year has been distinct in many ways, because of the pandemic and because of the protests and civil unrest after the death of George Floyd in police custody. Thus the entire sentence This could indicate both a racial bias in Police shootings of unarmed people, or a simple tendency for certain American cities to be extremely violent is unreferenced, as is the synthesis of adding it after the sentence about 89 police officers being killed while on duty.

The overall effect of the two diffs is to attempt to downplay the deaths of black people, making them out to be statistically lower than the deaths of white people despite the reference making the exact opposite point. FDW777 (talk) 19:53, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Pudeo: You should check page histories before claiming anything is a content dispute. Since I've never edited Black Lives Matter or its talk page, how is it a content dispute? FDW777 (talk) 21:07, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

Notified

Discussion concerning Alexiod Palaiologos

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 Alexiod Palaiologos

I used citations from a neutral fact checker, a conservative article (WSJ) and a liberal article. So I'm not sure what you're claiming to say, you're claiming my citations prove me wrong when clearly they do not. They all agree on one statistic, but disagree on the implications of it. Under no circumstance is mentioning the number of people shot dead by the Police (when it is literally mentioned in the same paragraph of the article) some kind of offense. The second part of my edit again, also repeats something from the next paragraph, that more black Americans being shot and killed by the Police does not necessarily indicate racial bias. My citations referred to crime rates, since the other part (not necessarily racial bias) was already addressed in the article in the very next paragraph. The number of Police Officers being killed is very relevant, it provides context as to how violent the job of Policing can be, and large numbers of Police Officers being killed generally reflects higher crime rates, again touched on throughout the section. So it seems you looked at my edit with a confirmation bias of me somehow supporting black people being killed by the Police, and then reached a conclusion out of thin air without any evidence.User:Alexiod Palaiologos 20:16, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Pudeo

This is a content dispute. You can't really judge what's NPOV at AE. Not much else can be done except to ask everyone to stay calm in these contentious articles.

I also note that FDW777 has been a member only since September 2018 but has already filed seven AE threads[38]. I think that is close to overusing AE to weaponize it in content disputes.--Pudeo (talk) 21:03, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by (username)

Result concerning Alexiod Palaiologos

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

The first diff cited in the request shows a clear misrepresentation of a source by Alexiod: he cites a source stating that Blacks are more likely than Whites to be victims of police shootings to imply that the opposite is true. He omits key content and context from the source to imply the opposite of what it actually states. The second diff demonstrates clear inappropriate synthesis; Alexiod cites sources because they list a statistic that he deems important, but no connection to the topic is alluded to anywhere in the actual sources cited. The third diff (and fourth) show him repeatedly including material that is dubious or incorrect (attributing the deaths of two people shot by a right-wing extremist during the Kenosha protests to the death of George Floyd).
I view the first diff as the most serious, since it involves clear misrepresentation of a source. The second diff shows original synthesis, which is against policy but not inherently grounds for sanction. I don't see evidence of previous blocks, warnings, or enforcement requests against Alexiod, so I would propose to close this request with a warning to Alexiod not to misrepresent sources and to avoid original synthesis, with the understanding that further such issues will lead to a block or topic ban.
Regarding Pudeo's concern about the filer, I reviewed FDW777's previous AE filings. In each case, it seems that his requests were felt to be sound and based on valid concerns. I see no evidence of vexatious complaints or misuse of the AE mechanism. We can hardly fault someone for using existing dispute-resolution mechanisms appropriately, and it seems unfair to cast aspersions on FDW777 based solely on the number of requests s/he has filed without regard to their underlying merit. MastCell ^Talk 22:33, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Have to agree with MastCell here, a strong warning is in order and any further violations should result in a topic ban. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 01:20, 30 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I also checked through the AE requests submitted by FDW777. Of those, 3 resulted in a warning, 1 in an AE block, 1 in a topic ban, and 1 in the editor against whom the complaint was filed being determined to be a block-evading sock and blocked indefinitely. That clearly shows that there is merit in the requests filed by this editor, so simple frequency of them is not a particular cause for concern that FDW777 is filing groundless AE requests for harassment. I would agree with a logged warning that further behavior of this type will lead to sanctions. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 02:06, 30 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I will give a warning, if nobody objects --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 15:38, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Guerillero, make it so - I am involved or I would do it. Guy (help! - typo?) 22:15, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The C of E

The C of E is indefinitely topic banned from all pages relating to The Troubles, Irish nationalism, and British nationalism in relation to Ireland, broadly construed. Barkeep49 (talk) 02:33, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Request concerning The C of E

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: Serial Number 54129 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 17:03, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested: The C of E (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Search CT alerts: in user talk history • in system log

Sanction or remedy to be enforced: Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/The Troubles#Standard discretionary sanctions

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

10 July 2020 Black Kite: The C of E is simply trying to get the word "Londonderry" on the Main Page through any means necessary ([39]), Ritchie333: You can deny you have a pro-Loyalist POV, but as long as you keep trying to plug Londonderry and the Royal Ulster Constabulary on the main page, nobody will believe you ([40]) and that The C of E has a reputation now for pushing a particular POV on NI politics ([41]).
23 April 2019 putting such a politically explosive hook on Wikipedia's main page is just a really bad idea, and I can't possibly see how on earth this hook could ever be seen to be neutral ([42]), Cygnis insignis: this is already contentious, if not disruptive (it is), consider me triggered. The community is working to patch the shortcomings of an overtly pov user whose own signature disrupts discussion, and plays beautifully to a wish to repeat their messaging ([43]), *stares disbelievingly* That absolutely needs to be NOT on the main page, certainly for the forseeable future, and definitely not at the moment. And the author needs to have it made very clear to them that DYK is not here for them to push their political beliefs. WP:POINT violations are blockable, and they need to understand that very clearly ([44]), Vanamonde93: This is not the first time that C of E has attempted to put up a hook that seeks to make a point ... they are either not getting the point, or are getting it and doing this sort of thing anyway ([45]) and we have had numerous discussions here about hooks you have nominated, all of which independent editors describe as pushing the same points of view that you express support for on your userpage ([46]), Ritchie333: You have a big userbox on your page that says "This user is a Unionist", and you're trying to put a hook about the Unionist name for Northern Ireland's second city on the main page at a politically sensitive time, and you're telling me you're not trying to push any views? You can't be serious. ([47])
21 July 2020 Whether Dail Éireann was a recognised body (or more to the point, whether it should be mentioned in the hook was very much a hot topic in the DYK review (e.g. BlueMoonset Why is the Dáil Éireann described as "unrecognised"? The council certainly recognised them. Something neutral is needed here ([48]), which he then shoehorned back into the hook even after it had moved to a prep area; this is still under discussion at WT:DYK, forcing Maile66 to remove it again.

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

If discretionary sanctions are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see WP:AC/DS#Awareness and alerts)

Alerted about discretionary sanctions in the area of conflict in the last twelve months: [49]

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

Although not related to DS/The Troubles, The C of E's behavior at DYK has attracted negative commentary more broadly: see, for example this proposed hook, which insisted in Wikipedia's voice that a councillor compared herself to Jesus. Needless to say, it did not run. Then there was this, which in the words of one editor endorses the racist secessionist/segregationist viewpoint; and then this gem which would have seen the English Wikipedia call Muhammed a thief on its main page. And in this hook he attempted to get the N-word on the front page three times in the same hook.

The most egregious case above, I imagine, was probably that of the Derry City Judicial Review, which The C of E intended to hit our main page less than a month after journalist Lyra McKee had been shot dead in an IRA–police shoot out in Derr itself. But as BlueMoonset pointed out, This article could have been written at any time: the court case dates from 2007. The fact remains that The C of E wrote it on 23 April 2019, at a particularly sensitive time, and nominated it at DYK with a hook that was certain to be controversial ... The C of E has long pushed the boundaries of what is acceptable, and it's past time that the DYK community said enough is enough. ([50]) Demonstrating the persistence and consistency of The C of E's behavior wrt Irish hooks, quote Guerillero, commenting how—regardless of the substance of the hook—The first thing I noticed is that this was a hook about Northern Ireland by The C of E, which provides a flavor of the expectations of their hooks among the broader community. ([51]).

@ Arbclerks and AE admins—permission to go over word- and/or diff-length, please? I am making serious allegations which as we know require serious evidence. ——Serial 17:07, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Salvio giuliano: I get your drift. I think a Tban from all Troubles-related topics at DYK (including the talk pages) could work, although I emphasise talk pages as well, as much of the disruption is not just the hooks themselves but the subsequent massive threads that they spawn, both on the Template:DYK page and WT:DYK itself involving as they do the time and energy of multiple editors in a venue with a skeleton "staff", as it were, and perennial backlogs. I would oppose any measure, personally, that allowed others to proxy for The C of E in this area as it would just add another layer to the same issue.
All things being equal, I generally favor keeping restrictions as simple as possible; any loosening could tempt or encourage envelope-pushing, or other games which in the worst-case scenario would be unfair on them and kicking the can down the road for AE.
Incidentally, if the restriction is to be "broadly construed", then I suggest that it is clearly stated that it involves Ireland and Northern Ireland, their mutual history and relations since the latter state's inception (1922). This is sadly necessary because, as The C of E themself notes, many of these hooks are pre (1969) Troubles-era: it's the ethnopolitical POV-pushing that's the common factor. ——Serial 13:37, 30 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Ritchie333: Yeah, no: I think we're looking at something slightly more ... robust? than telling 'em "don't file any more DYKs with Londonderry in the hook". ——Serial 13:37, 30 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested: [52]

Discussion concerning The C of E

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 The C of E

I was not expecting to end up in court here but I feel that there are a lot of things that have been misinterpreted here. First of all, whenever I word any controversial topics, I word them so they are factual based upon what the sources say in the article and the majority of objections I get seem to be based upon personal feelings rather than direct interpretation of the DYK rules. Yes I edit in controversial areas but I do so with the aim of promoting topics that likely can get overlooked and working to improve the project as a while.

With regard to the allegation I am trying to push Londonderry on the main page, In 1946 Londonderry Borough Council election (which is not within The Troubles timeline as far as I am aware) the simple fact is that that was the name of the council at the time, before the 1984 renaming (something the final reviewer even stated was a historical snapshot of the world at the time). As for the Derry City Council Judicial Review one, the main arguments against it seemed to be based on the fact it was close to Lyra McKee's murder, which was a mistake on my part as I had not been thinking about that at all when I wrote it. Furthermore, I actually minimised the amount of times in that article where it said Londonderry/Derry and substituted it mostly with "the city" or "the council" as appropriate to try and keep neutrality. I really do think people were just jumping to conclusions here because I can assure you there was no malicious intent or sinister undertones.

As for the current Fermanagh Council article, the reason why I included "unrecognised" was because the fact is that the Second Dail was not recognised as a legislative body by the UK government that ran Ireland at the time. The context of the hook was pre-partition in 1921 before the Irish Free State was established. And in response to the accusation I am editing in a biased fashion, I also expanded John Brady (Sinn Féin politician) and SDLP Gerry Mullan (politician), the latter of which ran without any comment so I do find it rather interesting that a hook on a nationalist politician runs without comment whilst unionist related hooks get constant pressures on them. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 17:27, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

(Reply to Black Kite) A little bit excessive I have to say with that suggestion. It was 2 NI related hooks for the closest thing NI have to a national day. I think you might have got the wrong end of the stick, it wasn't intended to be inflamitory, it was simply the idea of having NI hooks on an NI day. No worse than having the FA Cup final on the day of the final or a hook, a national flag running on a national day on a historic actor running on their birthday. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 19:25, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

(Reply to Black Kite) Hence why I said closest, its the only day that is uniquely Northern Irish as far as I am aware of. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 20:09, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I would be prepared to submit to that one. @Ritchie333: The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 14:36, 30 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

In response to this (Vanamonde93), that is not true. I have no intent to push any POV, it just seems a lot of people jump to conclusions because I edit in controversial areas. Only a handful of my almost 500 DYKs have had any of these allegations and further, I have run articles on topics on the other side of my areas of interest Gerry Mullan (politician) for example, which proves I'm not pushing an opinion. Please believe me, I am only writing on topics I find interesting and I always try to report the facts as the sources say. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 18:50, 30 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Black Kite

SN54129 actually leaves out (or perhaps hasn't brought up yet due to word count) what is by far the most disruptive part of the issue, and one which had serious possibilities that it could bring Wikipedia into disrepute.

The C of E did not only put 1973 Londonderry City Council election forward for DYK, he specifically asked for it to be run on July 12 [53]. For those unclear about the problem here, The_Twelfth#Controversies_and_violence is probably your first port of call. I was scathing about this to begin with, however unbelievably I then found out that The C of E had done exactly the same with the really incendiary Template:Did you know nominations/Flag of the Orange Order requested for 12 July three years beforehand. Luckily, two reviewers picked it up again and suggested that the 12th was not the best time to run it. The C of E then suggested the 11th instead, which was the date it ran on. This, though to be fair to the reviewers they probably didn't know, was almost as bad. (FYI, Eleventh Night is the night on which Unionists and Orange Order members create bonfires and burn the Irish flag - from our article "The tricolours on such bonfires are often daubed with sectarian slogans such as ... "Kill All Irish" (KAI)").

I realise the level of this issue may be difficult to those outside the UK and/or unfamiliar with The Troubles to gauge, so to give you an idea, I'll suggest that both of these July 12 nominations (especially the 2017 one) were similar to, for example, someone requesting that Mohamed Atta run as a DYK on September 11.

I actually posted at the time It is painfully obvious that the nomination was suggested for July 12th in order to get the inflammatory "Londonderry" onto the Main Page for that date. Just to give you an idea how much of bad-faith nomination it was, when I found out that the hook had been deliberately requested for the 12th, I was actually inclined to block The C of E for disruption, and I'm still not convinced that I shouldn't have. Yes, I nearly blocked them.

Given some of the other issues that SN54129 has raised, my suggestions would be that at the very least The C of E be barred from submitting articles about politics, religion or Northern Ireland/Ireland to DYK. There are many other topics to write about, and indeed the C of E has submitted many articles to DYK that are uncontentious and away from these two areas. Black Kite (talk) 18:32, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@The C of E: The idea of claiming that the 12th is anything like a Northern Ireland "national day" is completely laughable, and I amazed you have the front to even claim it. It is a sectarian commemoration for some (not all) of around 50% of the NI population, and a source of antagonism towards the rest. Even Arlene Foster was comdemning some of the things that went on this year [54]. Black Kite (talk) 20:05, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Ritchie333

Just a minor point, in one of the discussions above I confused the Royal Irish Constabulary with the Royal Ulster Constabulary, though my main point was The C of E gave the impression to multiple editors that he had pro-Loyalist POV and appeared to be on a mission to put "Londonderry" on the main page as many times as possible.

However, I'm not sure exactly what action people want to take here - the only realistic thing I can think of is "don't file any more DYKs with Londonderry in the hook". Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 10:17, 30 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Vanamonde

Posting in this section because I'm narrowly involved with respect to The C of E and DYK. As I've said before, I think the issue is with the C of E misusing the structure of DYK to push a POV in a manner he'd never get away with in other places. However, the fact that he's been doing this so persistently with respect to Northern Ireland in particular means that I do not see how his other edits in that topic area can be trusted, and I would recommend a broader TBAN than just from "The Troubles at DYK". Furthermore, I think the issue is not limited to the Troubles, and as such a further discussion at AN is likely warranted. Vanamonde (Talk) 17:29, 30 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I have opened said discussion at AN; see here. Vanamonde (Talk) 20:26, 30 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Narutolovehinata5

I would also like to point out another recent nomination by The C of E not mentioned above, which managed to pass and be promoted: Template:Did you know nominations/Rosemary Barton (politician), although to be fair the promoter indicated at WT:DYK that he was unaware of the concerns about The C of E's Ireland hooks and stated that he would have not done so had he been aware of them. Having had several experiences with The C of E throughout the years, one of the more egregious attitudes shown by him is the apparent insistence on certain hook wordings despite (and in some cases, apparently even because of) how controversial they are. The Sun of Unclouded Righteousness nomination mentioned earlier is a good example. Admittedly I have little knowledge about The Troubles and things related to it, but the apparent insistence on proposing certain kinds of hooks, which some editors including myself have interpreted as trying to push certain political or religious viewpoints, is at the very least worrying behavior. Perhaps the most glaring recent example was the aforementioned 1973 election nomination, where he stated at WT:DYK that the date request occurred so that itcould match up with those who celebrate the 12th, which given the controversy behind the date, sounds tone-deaf to say the least. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 23:28, 30 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Barkeep49: The incident that lead to the current proposal (see Wikipedia talk:Did you know#Nominators should not edit their hooks in Prep or Queue) only occurred on the 28th. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 02:26, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by (username)

Result concerning The C of E

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

The_C_of_E received the relevant DS alert on 5 August 2020 from Guerillero: diff. Wikilawyers might enjoy debating whether WP:TROUBLES applies to DYK on the main page but I see discretionary sanctions as enforcable to minimize disruption regardless of the location. Accordingly I would support an indefinite topic ban regarding The Troubles broadly construed, including the main page. Johnuniq (talk) 00:59, 30 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Concur with the above, an indefinite ban on the Troubles makes sense here. Obvious attempts at provocation in a hornet's nest are plainly disruptive. And as an aside, being an American with (among other things) Irish and English-transformed-into-French-Canadian heritage (just to boot, my father he is orange and my mother she is green), I don't get what people see in taking this fight to the internet; all it does is unnecessarily sow division, which is antithetical to the purpose of a collaborative project attempting to write a neutral encyclopedia. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 03:50, 30 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It's not up to AE to decide what should or should not appear on DYK, but any reasonable person who edits in this topic area should well have known that proposing it to appear on that day was going to be needlessly inflammatory. Accordingly, I would agree with the above proposal for a topic ban. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 04:05, 30 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I partially disagree with my colleagues. In my opinion a topic ban is warranted; however, the scope should be more limited. The evidence provided shows that, either intentionally or through tone deafness, The C of E has submitted DYK hooks that are likely inflammatory; however, I am not seeing evidence of generalised disruption in the topic area. For that reason, I'd be in favour of banning him from banning him from making any edits relating to Ireland and Northern Ireland, broadly construed, but only in the context of the DYK process. Salvio 10:36, 30 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- If you insist but giving a talented person wriggle room is often a mistake (what if they polish another Troubles article with the implication that someone else might like to DYK it?). A topic ban would be due to disruption in a topic under discretionary sanctions and someone who causes disruption regarding the main page is unlikely to have the subtle hand needed for general editing in the area. Johnuniq (talk) 10:54, 30 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  - But – and I ask Serial Number 54129 – is there evidence of disruption or tendentious editing in the topic area, outside of DYK? From what I can see, the only problems seem to be due to the timing or wording of the hooks, which might be solved by, hypothetically, having other people submit them, if they deem it appropriate, as long as there is no gaming on The C of E's part.
    Then again, this is not a hill I intend to die on; I'm not going to stand in the way, if consensus is in favour of a "generalised" topic ban. Salvio 11:16, 30 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    - I don't know if there is such evidence, and I would assume there is not because I don't see it in this report. However, I would deal with the question of what to do about improving an article in this topic area, but unrelated to the main page, separately. For example, there could be an appeal asking for a variation to work on articles a, b and c, or articles related to x. I think that would be quickly agreed. Johnuniq (talk) 00:12, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
A more general version of the issue has been raised at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#User:The C of E and DYK. There is now a risk of stalemate with a couple of people there saying that the WP:AN discussion should wait until the WP:AE discussion here is concluded, and with the complexities of the paperwork encouraging us to put this off. Accordingly, I plan to close this as a full and indefinite topic ban from Troubles topics in around six hours if there is no further opposition in this section. If anyone wants to close this earlier, please do so. Johnuniq (talk) 00:12, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Johnuniq, I saw this at AN and was getting ready to implement a topic ban by clear consensus of UNINVOLVED administrators (which would have read "The C of E is indefinitely topic banned from all pages relating to The Troubles, Irish nationalism, and British nationalism in relation to Ireland, broadly construed" which is the wording from ArbCom). However, I can find no awareness prior to August 5th and I can find no disruption since August 5th (mainly no new DYK hooks in this topic area). If there was disruption post-awareness then I think we can go back in time and consider all the disruption when making a fair decision. However, if there has not been any disruption following them reaching awareness then I don't think AE can levy sanctions. The community, of course, could. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 02:22, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Narutolovehinata5: Thanks. That is definitely evidence of disruption. I missed it when reading through SN's evidence. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 02:32, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Dr2Rao

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 Dr2Rao

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: Vanamonde93 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 16:02, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested: Dr2Rao (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Search CT alerts: in user talk history • in system log

Sanction or remedy to be enforced: Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/India-Pakistan#Standard_discretionary_sanctions :

Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it: Persistent and egregious original research.

30 August 2020 Creates this draft, largely copied from the deleted Forced conversion to Islam in Pakistan (sorry, admins only). Full of OR, including the claim about rape in the lead that isn't substantiated by the source, and misrepresentation of the NYT source.
24 August 2020 Adds an exceptional claim with no supporting source.

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

No previous sanctions, but warnings aplenty on their talk page.

If discretionary sanctions are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see WP:AC/DS#Awareness and alerts)

Notified in May 2020.

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

@Salvio Giuliano: The obsession with conversion to Islam is certainly shared. I am not familiar enough with the master to offer any more evidence, but I could go digging, if needed. Vanamonde (Talk) 14:42, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Template:ReSalvio Giuliano Apologies for forgetting about this, but did you need me to file a formal SPI? The fact that you were suspicious before I had even considered socking suggests an immediate check would be justified, does it not? Vanamonde (Talk) 19:03, 4 September 2020 (UTC) Addendum; I see now someone else already filed an SPI, [[55]], but it's languishing for lack of attention. Vanamonde (Talk) 20:48, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested: Notified.

Discussion concerning Dr2Rao

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 Dr2Rao

After being warned, I have always cited sources for my edits (after 24th August, 2020) and I self reverted what I added on the 30th (I had copied a lot of matter from the "Forced conversion to Islam in Pakistan" article and did not construct that sentence myself but did not verify what the source said as I believed that the matter was checked by previous editors), so please do not sanction me. Please forgive me for the original research before the warnings. I promise not to repeat any original research. I believe that there is a rule that an editor is given a rope at least once to avoid a sanction, so please give me that rope now (see WP:ROPE)! I am trying to avoid the deletion of an article, the discussion of which is going on here and any sanction now will be counter productive to Wikipedia (I will be unable to defend it and the article will be deleted).—Dr2Rao (talk) 16:40, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I am not a sock puppet of anyone.—Dr2Rao (talk) 14:46, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I am still waiting for my rope as per WP:ROPE. I have been citing references for my edits if you have observed. I have even rechecked them to make sure they were made up as per the source used.—Dr2Rao (talk) 04:44, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Toddy1

Because of Salvio giuliano's comment, I started Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Souniel Yadav.-- Toddy1 (talk) 21:36, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Tayi Arajakate

Don't know anything about the user or the issue but just wanted to inform that they have created a copy draft of the mainspace article and then mass pinged a large group of editors (including me) on Draft talk:Religious conversions in Pakistan. Tayi Arajakate _Talk 07:47, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Girth Summit

Please also take into consideration Draft:Religious_conversions_in_Pakistan, which Dr2Rao has created in case Religious_conversions_in_Pakistan is deleted, and its talk page where Dr2Rao WP:CANVASSed a swathe of editors both to work on the draft, and to leave comments at the AfD discussion. GirthSummit _(blether) 16:49, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Vice regent

Consider this really bizarre comment by Dr2Rao

From what I have observed, Muslims are extremely intolerant of other religions. This man's nephew allegedly posted something about the prophet Muhammad and so, this man and the police and many non-Muslims in the riot affected areas were targeted. I therefore request you to make the edit I requested above as we could be killed just if another Muslim reads this. I am scared. Please help!—

[56].VR _talk 18:35, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by (username)

Result concerning Dr2Rao

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

I am unfamiliar with this master, so take this with a grain of salt, but doesn't Dr2Rao look like a likely sock of Jishnusavith? $Salvio$ 08:06, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
If Dr2Rao turns out to not be a sock, a topic ban from religion in the Indian subcontinent seems to be in order --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 15:37, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Definitely. $Salvio$ 07:09, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Sock or not, this is an editor on a mission, and a topic ban per Guerillero is appropriate given the extreme fatigue this style of contribution can cause. I would suggest that perhaps 3 months would be apporopriate in the first instance, to see how they get on in other areas. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JzG (talk • contribs) 22:09, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- @JzG: I have soured to time limited topic bans at AE --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 14:46, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  Guerillero, due to gaming, or because it's better to have a formal review before lifting, or what? Guy (help! - typo?) 20:31, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  @JzG: I would like to see that they won't cause disruption and lift the ban in 3 months than be back here again once they wait out the ban --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 20:43, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  Guerillero, understood - and actually I share the concern that people would simply not edit until the ban expires (we have seen that many times before), which of course negates one primary purpose, which is to encourage them to learn our ways on less contentious articles.
  
  So I revise my suggestion: indefinite TBAN, appealable after not less than 3 months, with the implicit understanding that any successful appeal would have to be based on a history of productive editing elsewhere. Guy (help! - typo?) 12:44, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Starting an RfC and then asking a user, in Hindi yet, to "go here and enter "Support"", is really very bad. For my money, there's nothing much wrong with Dr2Rao's English, or with the recipient's English either; the only reason I can see for him to write in Hindi on the English Wikipedia is to hide. Same reason as for using "hidden pings" here. Complete abuse of Wikipedia's system for creating consensus. I do notice that the user apologizes on their page a few days later (when warned) and states that they have since learned what canvassing is and will not repeat it. Girth Summit's tip above about the canvassing on Dr2Rao's Draft talk:Religious conversions in Pakistan is interesting in this context. Quite recently, on 2 September, Dr2Rao canvassed a large crowd of editors there, saying with great frankness that "I have created this draft because the article with the same name and contents is about to be deleted for being an "attack piece"", providing a link to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Religious conversions in Pakistan and suggesting people add their comments here. A very recent attempt to subvert AfD — obviously this is not what "drafts" are for. The post Vice regent refers to above, [57], is... well, basically, I think it would be enough in itself for a topic ban. Per above, Dr2Rao would like more rope, but reading through the warnings on their page, it looks like they've already received quite a lot of it. I have topic banned them indefinitely from pages connected with India and/or Pakistan, broadly construed. I agree with JzG's comment that the ban should be appealable after not less than 3 months, with the implicit understanding that any successful appeal would have to be based on a history of productive editing elsewhere. Bishonen | tålk 20:14, 5 September 2020 (UTC).[reply]

Antidiskriminator

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 Antidiskriminator

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: Peacemaker67 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 04:07, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested: Antidiskriminator (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Search CT alerts: in user talk history • in system log

Sanction or remedy to be enforced: WP:ARBEE: DS

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

Relocation of Serbian industry during the Informbiro period Created on 21 August 2018, still exists – An example of a poorly written POV/anti-Serb conspiracy theory article created by Antidiskriminator. See the talk page for detailed explanation of why that is an accurate description of the article.
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Demonization of the Serbs Created 12 May 2020, deleted after AfD on 21 May 2020 – another poorly written highly POV/anti-Serb conspiracy theory article created by Antidiskriminator, note the clear implication there has been canvassing here.
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Myth of Tito Created 8 August 2020, redirected after AfD on 16 August 2020 - another poorly written highly POV/Serb nationalist article created by Antidiskriminator, more canvassing likely involved here.
Talk:Pavle Đurišić#Issue with sourcing: Radoje Pajović which is classic Antidiskriminator, just one example of many I could include, where they politically attack/attempt to discredit sources which oppose the POV narrative he's trying to promote and at the same time the portrayal of his own heavily criticized sources in a way that tries to legitimize them. When you read on further in this report you will see that their disruption and POV-pushing on the Pavle Đurišić (a WWII Chetnik) article goes back eight years.
User:Antidiskriminator/Drafts of articles – This is included to show the tidal wave of highly POV/Serb nationalist articles, fringe sources and conspiracy theories we will face from Antidiskriminator in the future if action isn’t taken.

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

November 2012 AE TBAN on Antidiskriminator editing anything related to Pavle Đurišić by EdJohnston (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA), lifted in January 2014 by EdJohnston – This was imposed after months of tendentious editing regarding the WWII Chetniks and related subjects
July 2014 ANI TBAN on Antidiskriminator editing anything related to “Serbs and Serbia 1900-current” (broadly construed) by Drmies (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) – this was imposed six months after the narrower TBAN was lifted, during which time Antidiskriminator started over 45 new sections on the Pavle Đurišić talk page, along with 560 edits to that talk page.
Unsuccessful attempt to have the TBAN immediately overturned (five days after its imposition).
Unsuccessful attempt to have TBAN lifted in February 2015
Unsuccessful attempt to have TBAN lifted in August 2015
Successful appeal of the TBAN in August 2016

If discretionary sanctions are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see WP:AC/DS#Awareness and alerts)

Previously given a discretionary sanction for conduct in the area of conflict on 2 November 2012 by EdJohnston, also reminded recently.[58], but the idea that they are not aware of DS is risible.

Additional comments by editor filing complaint: (word limit extension approved by Barkeep49 (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) [59])

I file this report with a due sense of exhaustion and dread, and probably should have done it ages ago, but have been encouraged to so by both involved and uninvolved editors because I am one of the few admins that operate in the Balkans WWII space, probably know Antidiskriminator’s editing history better than most, and frankly this just isn’t going to get better.

Since his TBAN on “Serbs and Serbia 1900-current” was lifted four years ago, Antidiskriminator has continued their endless tendentious bickering about anything that paints Serbs in a bad light, right across en WP. They have also created (and drafted) dozens of highly POV articles in the area they were previously TBANed from, mainly using Serb historians that are identified with the Serbian nationalist and anti-communist negationist/illegitimate revisionism fostered by state policy in post-1991 Serbia, and eschewing academic sources from outside the former Yugoslavia. See [60] and [61] for examinations of Serbian historiography since 1991 that support my characterisation of it. I can expand with further scholarly examinations of recent Serbian historiography if necessary. This article creation by Antidiskriminator has included numerous fringe POVFORKs using dubious sources and promoting Serbian nationalist conspiracy theories.

Even where there is justifiable scope for an article on a given subject, Antidiskriminator has proved to be incapable of writing neutrally about anything to do with Serbs, giving undue weight and avoiding mentioning anything negative about them. In just one example, in September 2019 they created an article on a rare Chetnik attack against the Germans (obviously to try to push the POV that the Chetniks actually fought the Axis rather than extensively collaborating with them, the overwhelming academic consensus about the former is that they did very little resisting after November 1941 – rehabilitation of the Chetniks being a major stream of Serbian historiography and Serbian government policy since 1991), and managed to completely avoid mentioning that the Chetniks immediately proceeded to massacre 2,000 Muslims in the captured town. Despite this being raised on the talk page, they have done nothing to address this issue (or even respond), and that is the pattern with every article they create. They create a terrible POV article, often with a highly POV title as well, and it is left to fester or eventually be AfD’d (which is usually fought tooth and nail by a bunch of fellow travellers), in what is an obvious gaming of our systems. This has meant that many of their articles need to be subjected to TNT for a fresh start, as has happened twice recently. I have provided several recent examples above, and if not for limited space I could provide dozens of examples, and the list of drafts I linked above is just breathtaking in its POV and scope. Antidiskriminator has been [blocked from Serbian WP] since May 2012 for precisely the sort of behaviour they have been demonstrating here for years. This occurred after a series of blocks of increasing duration from 2010 onwards.

EdJohnston, who, along with Drmies, is the admin who, in my experience have had most interaction with Antidiskriminator, characterised his rule of thumb as ”Any discussion about Yugoslavia in WWII in which Antidiskriminator participates will never reach a conclusion”. I work mainly in the “Yugoslavia in WWII” space and have found this to be true hundreds if not thousands of times in the last eight years. The need for AE action has been suggested by several uninvolved editors during the two recent AfDs that resulted in deletion/redirect, which has prompted this report. The years of disruption, tendentious bickering on talk pages, lack of clue/competence, extreme bias and inability to edit neutrally, and promotion of conspiracy theories and fringe sources have demonstrated that Antidiskriminator is far from a net positive for the project, and also causes considerable disruption and stress to other editors. Enough is enough, we need to take action against this behaviour. To protect the project from any more of this egregious POV-pushing, it is time to impose an indefinite TBAN on Antidiskriminator editing anything to do with “Serbs and Serbia” (broadly construed), and stick to it. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 04:07, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Antidiskriminator says "Almost all five good articles I wrote are related to Serbs or Serbia. That refutes the accusation that I am incapable of writing neutrally about anything to do with Serbs". I can only assume the ones listed at User:Antidiskriminator/Articles I created, which include Ba Congress (a Chetnik political meeting late in WWII). That article, created by Antidiskriminator on 30 June 2019, was yet another complete POV mess [62] (which included the completely ridiculous claim that a lowly US OSS lieutenant was a personal representative of the US president, along with a bunch of pro-Chetnik nonsense that is refuted in the current article) until I became aware of it the following day, took a grip of it, rewrote it neutrally using non-partisan academic quality sources, then successfully nominated it for GAN and Milhist ACR. It will shortly go to FAC. A cursory look at the article history and talk page makes it clear that Antidiskriminator's claim that they in any way contributed significantly to the current state of the article, or even to its state when it was promoted to GA is completely mendacious. The initial state of Ba Congress is another example of the terrible POV-pushing Antidiskriminator engages in. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 01:22, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I don't want to bludgeon this process, but Antidiskriminator has linked to the five claimed GAs, all of which are ancient history, the most recent promotion being seven years ago. For example, Autonomous Albanian Republic of Korçë was created by them in 2011 and promoted in the same year and it is questionable if it was really a GA then[63], with several uncited sentences and some pretty dodgy sourcing. It also only mentions Serbs once, and that is in passing. Another, International Gendarmerie, is of the same vintage and had similar quality issues at the time of its promotion [64], including the use of nationalistic Serbian historian Dušan T. Bataković and uncited material. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 04:00, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Just a note that another Antidiskriminator creation has been TNT deleted for reasons of POV. As mentioned by OyMosby below, it is Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Destruction of books in post-independence Croatia. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:57, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested: [65]

Discussion concerning Antidiskriminator

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 Antidiskriminator

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

Relocation of Serbian industry during the Informbiro period is not a poorly written POV/anti-Serb conspiracy theory article because anybody can see that it presents all different POVs regarding this topics.
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Demonization of the Serbs presented all different POVs regarding the topic and included many exceptional sources. The weak consensus to delete this article was reached mostly by editors who share similar POV and who are often involved in numerous disputes with me.
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Myth of Tito also presented all different POVs regarding the topic. The weak consensus to delete this article was reached mostly by editors who share similar POV and who are often involved in numerous disputes with me, although the conclusion of the discussion was that the topic is notable.
Talk:Pavle Đurišić#Issue with sourcing: Radoje Pajović - There is nothing actionable here. Every sentence I wrote in a comment at the beginning of this discussion was sourced by the sources I presented. I did not edit war nor I insisted on my position when editor who filed complaint against me here disagreed with me.
User:Antidiskriminator/Drafts of articles - There is nothing actionable here. I created 523 articles on Wikipedia, most of them related to Serbs or Serbia and many about Yugoslavia in WWII, first as a draft on my userspace. Many of them of TOP importance. Almost all five good articles I wrote are related to Serbs or Serbia. That refutes the accusation that I am incapable of writing neutrally about anything to do with Serbs.

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

”Any discussion about Yugoslavia in WWII in which Antidiskriminator participates will never reach a conclusion” - The best evidence that this is wrong is exactly Peacemaker67, we agreed dozens of times about topics of Yugoslavia in WWII. I will present here a very long list of our agreements as soon as I catch some more time.
Accusation that I avoid mentioning massacres of Muslims committed by Serbs: The best evidence that this claim is wrong is that I even created multiple neutral articles about massacres of Muslims committed by Serbs in Yugoslavia, such as: Šahovići massacre and Kulen Vakuf massacre.

There is no doubt that edits of Peacemaker67 (and small group of editors who often contradict my edits) promote POV which is different from POV of my edits (and other editors). Wikipedia is based on collaboration. No editor/article - no problem is not and should not be the way Wikipedia works. All the best. --Antidiskriminator (talk) 07:33, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Here is the list I announced:

The small sample of multiple agreements and conclusions I reached with Peacemaker67 to improve Pavle Đurišić article:

Some earlier agreements and conclusions:
- I agree that we need to amend the text and info box... - link
- I don't mind. I believe I understand your position. - link
- I think it would be good to present his initial position which was in favor of Greece instead of Slovenia.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 11:51, 24 August 2012 (UTC) .... Added. Peacemaker67 (talk) 07:56, 25 August 2012 (UTC) link
- Solved:All three major grievances against the Italians explained as per source. link
- I propose this information to be doublechecked.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 00:01, 18 March 2014 (UTC) ...... Done. It was 20 December 1941, not October. Thanks, Peacemaker67 (send... over) 01:35, 18 March 2014 (UTC) - link
- I have re-structured the sections and subsections... (per your 1. above),...Thanks. The timeline issue of the section titles is finally resolved. - link
- Ah, I see your point now. I agree to some extent, particularly about the context issue. link
- I think moving would be better than renaming. Thoughts? --Antidiskriminator (talk) 15:01, 21 March 2014 (UTC) ... Move it. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 19:18, 21 March 2014 (UTC) Done link
Some recent agreements and conclusions:
- Resolved family details - link

I think this is evidence of my constructive contributions which resulted in the substantial improvement of the article in question, which proves that the above-mentioned accusation against me is incorrect. --Antidiskriminator (talk) 21:25, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- After I proved that I do not avoid to mention massacres of Muslims by Serbs by pointing to two articles I created precisely with this topic, I see that I was accused to avoid to mention massacres of Muslims committed by Chetniks. Here is proof that this accusation is incorrect:
  - I created an article about massacre of Muslims committed by Chetniks - Bukovica massacre and wrote After short battle with Muslim militia, Chetniks captured Bukovica and massacred more than 500 civilians. - diff
  - In February 1943 Chetnik units commanded by Kalaitović, together with those commanded by Ostojić, Baćović, Đurišić and Lukačević killed about 1,200 Muslim men and about 8,000 women, children and old people. (diff)
- I am particularly proud on article I created Resolution of Sarajevo Muslims in which I presented a relatively less known event when most notable Muslims issued a resolution (one of many) at the beginning of WWII and condemned the persecutions of the Serbs by Ustaše. This proves that accusations for anti-Muslim bias of my editing are incorrect because this article I wrote presents Muslims very positively. --Antidiskriminator (talk) 21:33, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There is basically not a single diff to prove any policy violations or to prove accusations against me. On the other hand I am probably the only wikipedia editor whose neutral editing regarding massacres of Muslims by Serbs can be supported with some secondary source per WP:SECONDARY wikipedia policy. The work authored by professor Richard Rogers and published by MIT Press (Richard Rogers (2013). Digital Methods. MIT Press. p. 187. ISBN 978-0-262-01883-8. ... and AntiDiskriminator would like to replace the current military info-box with the massacre one. ...civilian attack box reinserted by Antidiskriminator .....) which explains how I struggled against attempts to present the massacre of Muslims in Srebrenica as simple military conflict and removed military conflict infobox to insert massacre of civilians infobox. --Antidiskriminator (talk) 22:11, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

- - In response to the latest false accusation regarding Ba congress. Here is a list of five GA articles I referred to. It does not include Ba Congress. There is nothing I did at that article that would warrant any sanctions against me. Did I edit war? No. Did I violate any wikipedia policy? No. I wrote three comments (link) why I disagree with removal diff of text cited by recently published source. If there was some content dispute regarding that article it is irrelevant for this discussion.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 08:03, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Maleschreiber

This is a particularly significant report because it addresses the issue in a very direct manner: POV-pushing is bound to exist, but in Antidiskriminator's there's a wide-ranging editing pattern which 1)blatantly abuses bibliographical consensus, 2)constantly promotes WP:FRINGE theories of Serbian nationalism and then 3)attempts to discredit respectable authors - who criticize Serbian nationalist tropes - by selective inclusion of criticism by few Serb authors in order to further legitimize WP:FRINGE theories. Whenever they are confronted with bibliography, they never reply, they keep a WP:STONEWALL attitude and reply to strawman arguments that nobody has put forward.
The report itself is an example of Antidiskriminator's attitude. PM wrote that Antidiskriminator avoided mentioning that the Chetniks immediately proceeded to massacre 2,000 Muslims in the captured town as an example of his attempts to relativize Chetnik collaborationism. Antidiskriminator replies that PM accused him of avoiding to mention massacres of Muslims committed by Serbs in general. It's a strawman argument that deflects PM's actual argument. But the examples cited by Antidiskriminator highlight that almost all articles which he has written are related to what PM highlights. The Šahovići massacre which Antidiskriminator mentioned in its original form put forward a conspiracy theory in Serbian nationalism that the Serbian Orthodox mob killed 600 hundred Muslim Slavs because they didn't know that the group responsible for the killing which prompted the mob to assemble were in fact Albanians. The Kulen Vakuf massacre concerns a mass killing of Muslims by Partisans - but the function of the article is to relativize the massive scale of Chetnik massacres via the counterposition of a massacre committed by another faction. Relocation of Serbian industry during the Informbiro period is a conspiracy theory, but for the purpose of the report we should also check the talkpage Talk:Relocation_of_Serbian industry during the Informbiro period#Serious POV and referencing issues. Timbouctou (linked userpage for transparency reasons) tried to explain the problems, but he never even got a reply which at least tried to address some them.
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Demonization of the Serbs was closed as delete (16 to 9) amid many concerns about canvassing in support of !keep about an article whose lead sentence started with "the demonization or satanization of Serbs". Under normal circumstances, this would be deleted immediately in every environment which claims for itself to generate encyclopedic knowledge. So, the AfD highlights the enviroment which the toleration of POV-pushing, conspiracy theories and stonewalling has created in the Balkan topic area. It signals to many editors that if that sort of editing is acceptable, then it's a threshold which allows for many other mid or high intensity cases of POV-pushing to occur without admin oversight. A topic ban of Antidiskriminator from anything related to “Serbs and Serbia” (broadly construed) is a significant first step towards the restoration of wikipedia's policies in the Balkan topic area. I really hope that the result of the report will set a new threshold for every active editor in a very difficult editing environment.--Maleschreiber (talk) 11:50, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by (OyMosby)

Another article of issue by the editor is up for possible deletion Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Destruction of books in post-independence Croatia of which pertains to an article Destruction of books in post-independence Croatia that is written in POV style. Really this is just a tip of an iceberg of recent anti-Croat pro-Serbian occurrences on Wikipedia via multiple POV pusher accounts acting as a traveling block, going article to article. Even when an article is brand new and couldn’t possibly be on their radar. Has been going on for over a year now from what I see, older users will know more. OyMosby (talk) 17:13, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Fut.Perf.

@Guerillero: I doubt a topic ban just on "post-1900 Serbian history" will be enough. A's long-term activity on pre-1900 history topics has been just as bad. There's been continuous low-level POV warfare over topics such as Skanderbeg, Skanderbeg's rebellion and other pre-modern topics touching on Serb/Albanian history, all motivated by the same ethnic agendas. A narrow topic ban would probably just push his activity back into these domains, where he's been somewhat less active recently but where he's been just as disruptive in the past. I'd strongly recommend a more comprehensive topic ban from all Balkan history. Fut.Perf. ☼ 21:44, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Joy

It should go without saying that if we see a user persistently gaming the system over a period of many many years in order to write apparent claptrap, that we would be fools not to impose the harshest appropriate sanctions. I haven't had much interaction with Antidiskriminator for a few years now, but I'm posting this in this section because I've had numerous mind-numbing interactions with them in the past (which in itself is cause enough for concern because I don't believe it's in the best interest of the encyclopedia to have its editors and admins persistently worn down by stuff like this). --Joy [shallot] (talk) 09:04, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by (username)

Result concerning Antidiskriminator

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

I would bring back the Serbs and Serbia 1900-current topic ban --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 15:45, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I could go for a topic ban from the Balkans based on further comments --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 23:32, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Reinstate the TBAN immediately, and I would be open to removing the time limit and perhaps extending it to the Balkans broadly construed. As far as I am aware I am not involved here at all, so am happy to do this. Guy (help! - typo?) 22:11, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Concur with JzG. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 23:56, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I also concur with Guy. I appreciate Peacemaker trying to find nuance here but I think we'd be pushing the disruption into the historical realm even more than has happened already if we passed a more limited TBAN. Barkeep49 (talk) 14:54, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I-82-I

I-82-I has been blocked for sockpuppetry due to logged-out editing while under scrutiny. Based on this and the discussion below, I-82-I is further subject to an indefinite topic ban from the subject of infoboxes. This applies to the person using the I-82-I account, and precludes WP:CLEANSTART. Guy (help! - typo?) 21:45, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

Request concerning I-82-I

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: Ritchie333 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 11:32, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested: I-82-I (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Search CT alerts: in user talk history • in system log

Sanction or remedy to be enforced: Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Civility in infobox discussions#Standard discretionary sanctions : "Standard discretionary sanctions are authorized for all discussions about infoboxes and to edits adding, deleting, collapsing, or removing verifiable information from infoboxes."

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

31 August 2020 Uncollapsing a discussion that had been collapsed to prevent a heated debate escalating
1 September 2020 Templating an editor the user was in a heated debate with

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

8 May 2018 Infobox probation - latest update

If discretionary sanctions are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see WP:AC/DS#Awareness and alerts)

Alerted about discretionary sanctions in the area of conflict in the last twelve months, see the system log linked to above.
Gave an alert about discretionary sanctions in the area of conflict in the last twelve months, on 27 August 2020

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

I have participated in the RfC on Talk:Frank Sinatra, requesting the status quo is preserved and summarising both sides of the debate fairly without taking sides, which makes me too WP:INVOLVED to take any action directly. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 11:51, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

About SchroCat; I had previously left this message on their talk, saying I couldn't take any admin action against anyone unless it was equal and fair, which would undoubtedly result in sanctions against a bunch of people, including SchroCat for telling another editor to "bugger off", which I was not impressed about. AFAIK, SchroCat has now stepped away from the project for a bit, as a self-imposed restriction; however I won't stand in the way of any other admin who feels differently about this. Like Guerillero, I'm not sure what to do (except recognise I'm not the best-placed admin to do it), but this is why we have arbitration - to break the back of intractable disputes. And this is certainly one of them. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 16:44, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@I-82-I: Other editors may disagree on this, but for me the revert + template on an editor well known for being on the other side of the debate to you seemed to me to be "the straw that broke the camel's back", and significantly that editor did not respond (otherwise I would be justified bringing them here). I appreciate this does sound draconian, but this is such an entrenched argument. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 17:09, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Levivich: Can you remind me which discussion that was? From a search I can see I closed Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive871#SchroCat, but I don't think that's the one you're thinking of. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 15:51, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Levivich: Ah right, in that case the primary reason for the hatting was a follow-on from El C's comment : "No need for heads to roll, but the heated rhetoric has to go, or it's likely that eventually it might lead to sanctions. Which would be a shame.". In your specific case, I think SchroCat has picked completely the wrong target to pick on and have said so as much (hopefully you can see the humour in not wishing to sanction Levivich "because he's Levivich" but the suggestion that if SchroCat gets annoyed by you he should just ignore it is serious). Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 17:15, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Ikjbagl: I think there's been a mix-up in communication. I generally don't favour action when multiple editors start yelling at each other and calling names, beyond hatting a discussion in the hope they'd give it a rest unless it is accompanied by disruption to articles, such as edit warring. I blocked Cassianto once; I got called names and the block was reversed a few hours later - can you really blame me for not wanting to do that sort of thing again? The actual reason I don't want to take administrative action is because I consider myself WP:INVOLVED. The reference to "closing as no consensus" was rather a cynical and jaded view of this sort of discussion; people yell at each other for a bit, neither side has the upper hand, everyone drops out of exhaustion ... ergo, "no consensus". In the case of the message to SchroCat, I was simply reminding him "if you can't take it, don't dish it out", and even if I wasn't involved (as you have pointed out yourself) I could not in good conscience sanction another editor without doing it fairly and evenly across the board. I hope that clarifies things. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 09:54, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

[66]

Discussion concerning I-82-I

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 Cassianto

What's this, another AE request surrounding infoboxes? Surely not. And there was me thinking the previous committee had solved this last time by sticking me on "infobox probation". Clearly not. Clearly, the last committee got it monumentally wrong. Clearly, something now needs to be sorted once and for all regarding the real disrupters in this very boring argument, one of whom is the subject of this request. Cassianto^Talk 12:45, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
As you'll see over at the Sinatra talk page, ladies and gentlemen, Lepricavark, HAL333 and someone who calls themselves Mclay1 are also part of the infobox problem. Badgering, bludgeoning, harassment, lies and slurs are all evident from the pro-infobox side of the argument towards those on the opposing side of the argument. But it is tolerated from various administrators, including Bishonen, Johnuniq and El_C to name but three, as they've all been alerted to the problems caused by the pro-side, and all have chosen to ignore it. It appears the biased sanctions, authorised by the failed, previous committee who thought I was the problem, are only suitable for those who oppose the uniform approach of applying these boxes across the website. Shameful. Cassianto^Talk 17:22, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Ealdgyth, yes, there are plenty of other editors. Gerda is associated with infobox discussions almost on a daily basis, (but of course, she'll tell you she has nothing to do with them). With Gerda, it's all the back room stuff, like welcoming random IP accounts whose only contribution is to miraculously know the coding for an infobox template (not bad for a "new user"); relentless "thanking" via the thank button to those openly causing trouble in IB discussions; the constant linking to previous IB discussions in order to discreetly push the word that there is "a cabal in operation at an IB discussion and, if you wouldn't mind, could you pop along to support the pro-IB side?" The fact you want to penalise SchroCat (and let's be honest, there is history between you and him with regards to Fowler&fowler) says everything we need to know about how you want to deal with this. When will ARBCOM realise that this pathetic "infobox probation", is just a sticking plaster and not a cure? Cassianto^Talk 06:14, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Guerillero, would you care to explain why chief agitator Lepricavark is exempt from your list and SchroCat is included? Or maybe you're taking the typical slovenly attitude that all arbitrators take when they can't be arsed to solve an issue, by making an example of everyone. It smacks of being at school and the whole class being made to stay behind because no one will own up to smearing Copydex on the door handle. Cassianto^Talk 07:25, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Guerillero: "In response to your accusations about Lepricavark, provide diffs or remove your comments." -- ask nicely, and I'll think about it. How dare you be so downright rude. Cassianto^Talk 14:53, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
This is the type of shit stirring that goes on. This is why people get so pissed off and is why these discussions spiral into incivility cesspits. But it's me who's the problem. Cassianto^Talk 16:26, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
~~Levivich, hilarious that you're so offended with the use of "noise reduction", yet were only too happy to restore it. Cassianto^Talk 17:18, 2 September 2020 (UTC)~~ Good faith assumed. Cassianto^Talk 18:19, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
A further note to the arbs: I've taken the time to research Guerillero's comment "OK boomer". Sadly, I've discovered that it is a personal attack, it being an ageist slur. Can someone tell me if this acceptable for an admin to be using this kind of ageist language? I do intend to report it should I not get an apology. We would not be tolerating sexism or racism, and I see no difference in ageism. Oh, I'll add this one to the ever increasing list, too. Cassianto^Talk 18:09, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
HAL333, yes, you're so right. He was such a good, productive editor with 50+ featured articles to his name, chased off by the likes of you, your mates and incompetence in high places. Cassianto^Talk 18:31, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, Lepricavark, thank you. So that's how NPA works. Unfortunately, nowhere there does it say "meet perceived incivility with incivility." And administrators are supposed to be above the average editor. Sadly, with this ageist comment, it's very much in the gutter. Cassianto^Talk 18:53, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Another note to the arbs: Sro23 (another admin) should also be added. No-one should write the following, let alone someone who purports to be an admin: a tiny, but very vocal and toxic minority. The second comment was left on 26 August; he had been left an ArbCom notification five days previously. Cassianto^Talk 19:03, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Mclay1, whilst we're on the subject of incivility, care to explain this? Cassianto^Talk 19:09, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Barkeep49, be in no doubt, SchroCat is aware of this lazy witch hunt against him. He won't be returning to this cesspit of a place, there are far better online encyclopaedias out there where people are treated far, far better in receipt of their contributions and not hounded or bullied out by a lot of trouble makers and incompetent administrators. I don't know what you hope to gain from leaving your crass little notice on his talk page, but if you like to see your name up in lights, pontificating over someone who you deem to be behind such troubles, go ahead, restore my comment if it makes you feel better. Cassianto^Talk 06:38, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Is anyone going to address the use of "ok boomer" by one admin, and another editor who cries when people are uncivil to them? This kind of bullshit bigotry has no place on the encyclopaedia. I'm damned sure if I'd have called Guerillio a name based upon their age, I'd have been blocked. Cassianto^Talk 20:25, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Imagine my surprise. Ohhh, I do wonder what messrs Guerillero, HAL333, Lepreviark, Barkeep, and the rest of you think about this? Probably nothing, I should wonder. Cassianto^Talk 13:11, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
My most sincere thanks to you, Ealdgyth, for your acknowledgment re the infobox problem caused by the pro-side of the debate, in your most recent comment. Incidentally, and talking of "toxic" behaviour, I've just reported HAL333 for harassment. They were warned to stop pinging me, but they went into "thank" me and abuse the barnstar feature in a passive aggressive manner. Cassianto^Talk 17:56, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Lepricavark

This filing is one-sided and incomplete. For instance, it ignores that the collapsed section in dispute, which involves several editors questioning SchroCat's rationale, was originally collapsed by SchroCat, who subsequently edit-warred to enforce their actions [67], [68], [69] and also reverted a more neutral description for the collapsed section [70]. Any admins reviewing this filing need to consider the full context. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 14:59, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Addendum: while there have been many discussions throughout the history of Wikipedia in which bludgeoning was a serious problem, I encourage any admins reviewing this filing to consider that not all expressions of disagreement with a particular !vote should be considered bludgeoning. It is quite clear that many of the editors who are opposed to uncollapsing the infobox do not want the conversation to take place at all, but that does not mean that other editors may not treat the discussion as a discussion. In observing this thread, I have seen that some editors who are opposed to the uncollapsed infobox seem to be more interested in vilifying editors with the opposite viewpoint for daring to even participate in the discussion. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 15:58, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

In response to Cassianto's statement, which singles me out by name as being part of the problem, I'll simply note that the following diffs constitute the sum total of my participation in the Sinatra thread: a vote, a civil reply, and a civil reply. Perhaps Cassianto should be required to justify his accusations against me by providing evidence. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 21:48, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Guerillero: can you please explain where I've done anything to warrant being sanctioned? Participating in a contentious discussion is not in and of itself grounds for punishment. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 23:20, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

More accusations from Cassianto, but I'm still waiting for evidence. As far as I know, this page is not exempt from WP:NPA. I have not engaged in bludgeoning or other forms of agitation and I am tired of being targeted with bad faith aspersions. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 14:10, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Guerillero: WP:NPA lists "some types of comments [that] are never acceptable." One of them is: Accusations about personal behavior that lack evidence. Serious accusations require serious evidence, usually in the form of diffs and links. Maybe Cassianto thinks it is "downright rude" for you to require him to follow a bright-line policy, but I consider it a matter of necessity. Meanwhile, Cassianto's failure to provide evidence should be taken as an indication that he knows he has no case against me. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 15:45, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Based on the diffs provided by Levi, it seems that SchroCat should be place on infobox probation at a minimum. Meanwhile, I see that Cassianto has completely ignored his obligation to abide by NPA even as he demands an apology for 'ok boomer'. The lack of self-awareness would be amusing if it wasn't so disruptive. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 18:32, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Cassianto, the chronology betrays you. Your unsupported accusation against me came well in advance of the 'ok boomer' remark, so it can hardly be explained away like that. You have pointed fingers at a great many editors, myself included, but when do you intend to take responsibility for your own actions? Are we to believe that the fault lies exclusively with everyone who clashes with you? LEPRICAVARK (talk) 19:19, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like Cassianto has no intention of complying with NPA by substantiating his slurs against me, even as he continues to overreact to 'ok boomer'. @Black Kite: do you believe that the purported bludgeoning by HAL333 and Mclay1 is equivalent to SchroCat's ownership and incivility as laid out in Levi's extremely detailed presentation of diffs? If no, it seems strange to say that they should receive equivalent penalties. If yes, I could not disagree with your interpretation more strongly. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 14:09, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Barkeep49:, @Vanamonde93: an interesting development for you to consider: after I-82-I is CU-blocked, Cassianto posts a taunting message that singles out several editors, including myself and HAL333, by name (without pings). HAL333 objects and pings Cassianto in his reply [71], prompting Cassianto to show up at HAL333's talk page and again accuse him of harassment because of the ping [72]. In other words, it's okay for Cassianto to name-and-shame HAL as if he was responsible for another editor's socking, but if HAL pings him in response, that's harassment. Now, I ask you, which one is engaging in actual harassment? If Cassianto didn't want us pinging him, he should have kept our names out of his mouth (especially while he's gravedancing). But now it's too late for that and he needs to be heavily sanctioned as it is clear that he has no intention of stopping this bullying on his own. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 17:10, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Ealdgyth: Levivich is right. There's nothing wrong or inappropriate about opening an occasional talk page discussion about an infobox. Furthermore, if you disregard oppose !votes that don't contain a meaningful rationale beyond 'we already discussed this and I don't like it', there's a clear consensus in favor of the infobox at the Sinatra talk page. The problem is that editors who oppose the infobox have attempted to suppress discussion and demonize those who favor an infobox. See my post immediately above for a demonstration of the blatant bad faith dispensed by Cassianto toward HAL333. This isn't a situation where fault can be evenly distributed among both sides of the dispute. This is a situation where overtly disruptive behavior has been permitted for far too long and now the conversation has become so complicated that it seems easier to give everyone a slap on the wrist and hope the problem goes away rather than actually dealing with the root problem of toxic incivility. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 17:39, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Ealdgyth: To me, that would indicate that there is a certain level of popular demand for infoboxes. Not sure why we need to do anything to stop or suppress that. The incivility problem, on the other hand, is readily apparent and could easily be stopped. There's no good reason to require myself and HAL to put up with being baited, taunted, and accused of harassment. How were we supposed to know that I-82-I was socking? Also, why is it okay for Cassianto to bait us like that and then threaten HAL over a ping? Why is this behavior tolerated? What am I missing here? LEPRICAVARK (talk) 17:54, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by I-82-I

@Lepricavark:, your statement is an excellent summary of mine. I will add some more views on this topic here. Please do not view SchroCat as completely innocent in this situation. Honestly, he might have violated the discretionary sanctions himself. SchroCat did not "merely collapse a conversation to save space", this is a gross oversimplification to the point where it loses all meaning. SchroCat named it "Noise reduction" (which was recently changed to Further conversation), and it is clear that the only reason he collapsed it is a disagreement with the editor who commented.

Read his reply: "Please do not WP:BLUDGEON other editors: I see you commenting multiple times just because you don’t like the arguments put down. My comments here stand as they are, and quoting out of context from previous threads which pose different questions is misleading. Please don’t do it again, and please don’t bludgeon everyone who happens to disagree with you. - SchroCat (talk) 06:06, 22 August 2020 (UTC)" In this replay, SchroCat accuses M.Clay1 of "bludgeoning".

Read his statement. M.Clay1 is not bludgeoning. He is merely quoting SchroCat and asking to explain strongly-worded, profane and meaningless arguments "The arguments against collapsing are not IDONTLIKEIT. However, you are calling infoboxes "nonsense" and previously said "If school readers are interested in finding something out about a subject then they actually need to read something. They will learn next to fuck all looking at the idiot box." As you said to me, "Why is it that people who can’t deal with a consensus against their own preferred position always go to the IDONTLIKEIT argument"? Do you have any actual retorts to the arguments presented? M.Clay1 (talk) 03:32, 22 August 2020 (UTC)"

If you actually read this statement, it is clear that M.Clay1 isn't bludgeoning. He was making a valid argument, which SchroCat immediately collapses as "Noise reduction".

Honestly, I feel like this AE was made because I disagreed with Cassianto once for typing "yawn" as an "argument" here (to which he promptly accused me of bludgeoning.

In short, I don't believe that discretionary sanctions are necessary, due to the fact that my edits have been twisted and taken out of context. Also, SchroCat is not an innocent editor who tried to collapse a discussion to save space. Rather, he collapsed a valid discussion as "Noise reduction", and this discussion sharply opposed him. M.Clay1 is not an editor who bludgeoned SchroCat. Rather, he quoted SchroCat's stronngly-worded and profane, (yet meaningless) and refuted them. SchroCat called this bludgeoning and labeled it as noise reduction. For this reason, I ask that you please to do not apply discretionary sanctions to me.

Thanks, I-82-I | TALK 15:43, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

EDIT: About the templating, which I forgot to mention. I templated SchroCat for improperly collapsing the discussion as noise reduction, and repeatedly edit-warring for it. I politely gave him a notice, and gave him a L1 template. I don't see how that is not appropriate.

Statement by HAL333

No matter what I, or others, do, Cassianto will assume bad faith and take offense. I recently defended him and other editors (from an admittedly suspect editor) on my talk page, and Cass still found my response lacking. (It's important to note that I have never given a civility warning to anyone in my entire time on Wikipedia.) When I requested that Cassianto strike personal attacks directed towards me, my request was reverted. I could have brought them to ANI, which Cass has already done multiple times, however, I didn't see much good coming from that and I just sat back. All I know, is that I haven't reverted any edits or made any personal attacks towards Cass in this process, however, Cass has said that I am a "troublemaker" who is "the very worst of Wikipedia" and "no good to anyone". Compare that to how I spoke about Cass and other editors. I haven't seen I-82 saying anything like that. Who's really the agitator here? The Sinatra IB discussion doesn't involve any more incivility or responses to votes than other IB discussions that I've witnessed. Ultimately, what we have here, is someone who is upset that the discussion isn't going their way: around two-thirds of editors support the IB being uncollapsed. I really haven't seen any particularly uncivil edits from I-82 - at least not any worse the SchroCat. ~ HAL333 22:40, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I should note that per WP:BLUDGEON, that bludeoning is "contradicting every viewpoint that is different from their own." I only made 5 comments (at most - that's being rather liberal) in which I was disagreeing with other editors. Other editors in the discussion made similiar numbers of disagreeing edits. GoodDay, for example, made 6 edits in which he expressed his contrary viewpoint to a vote. This is ridiculous. I didn't revert anyone. I didn't edit-war. I wasn't involved with the editors removing and adding the "Further conversation/noise" template. Enforcement wasn't even requested against me. ~ HAL333 23:44, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Also, why does this fall under infobox probation? We weren't discussing the inclusion or removal of an infobox. ~ HAL333 00:11, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Cassianto If you assume bad faith and make wild accusations against people, don't act surprised when someone points out how ridiculous your claims are. ~ HAL333 16:32, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note Now you've chased away a constructive editor. I hope everyone is satisfied with themselves now. ~ HAL333 17:41, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Cassianto Considering his fitting namesake, he'll be back real soon. ~ HAL333 19:22, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

My takeaway To prevent future situations like this, I'll refrain from commenting several times in a discussion. Going forward, I'll just say what I want to say and step away. I realize that I talk too much sometimes (which may be true beyond Wikipedia as well). I'll make my first trip to ArbCom my last. Thanks! ~ HAL333 15:45, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Since being warned of the sanctions, I have not responded to a single opposing editor on that thread. I only asked an editor who supported the proposal to clarify his statement. Beyond that, I reverted edits by 73.193.59.165, who was repeatedly closing the RFC and claiming that there was a consensus to uncollapse the infobox (which they did and I reverted). I reported them for vandalism, and they were banned. A diehard pro-infoboxer (Which I'm not - I've gotten several of my works up to featured status without an IB) would have sat back and watched gleefully. ~ HAL333 16:27, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Upon the request of Barkeep49, here is an extensive history of my interactions with these editors. These are all of the articles where our edits occured within the span of a day or less

Schrocat

[73] I voice my opinion to a publicly posted rfc 16 days after Schrocat, who edits a day later. This issue later went to Dispute Resolution, where I sided with Cassianto and SchroCat.
[74] SchroCat responds to an RFC one day after I did
[75] I make a nomination to Recent Death at In the News, where SchroCat is apprently rather active. My edit happens to be 16 hours after SchroCat's - I was nominating the great Ken Osmond (i.e. Eddie Haskell). We have no interaction with one another.
[76] I make over a dozen edits to Barry Lyndon, one of my favorite films. Within 7 hours, Schrocat reverts some of my edits. He had never previously edited that page.
[77] I happen to edit a user's talkpage 85 days after SchroCat. I was asking the editor about the criteria of a potential FLC. SchroCat gives him a Brownie seven hours later.
[78] I edit the talk page for A Christmas Carol 6 hours after Schrocat. I partly agree with Schrocat on an image selection. If I was being purely antagonistic I would have disagreed with both images.
[79] Following a public posted rfc, I think opened by Guy, I comment in several Reliable Sources rfcs 5 hours after SchroCat did. However, none of the discussions overlap.
[80] We are both active at Kubrick's article. SchroCat often reverts me.
[81] I comment over at Cass's talk page, which SchroCat is almost always active at.
[82] After I edit Disney World, SchroCat shows up for the first time. However, he is not antagonistic and reverts an IP edit to my last edit.
[83][84] There is some overlap at Death of Jeffrey Epstein, a page which I created.
[85] I appear at a biographical article 3 hours after SchroCat did. However, I agree with SchroCat and oppose the addition of an infobox.
[86] I edit this page after it is linked to at an ANI discussion.
[87][88] Schrocat becomes heavily involved in Jeffrey Epstein articles, often opposes me.
[89] SchroCat edits a page he had never edited before just 35 minutes after my most recent edit.
[90] We are involved in unfortunte ANi discussions, mostly brought against me.
[91] We both edit Frank Sinatra, sometimes agree, sometimes don't
[92] I agree with Schrocat and Cass at Dispute resolution
[93] We both edit Endgame, no disagreements
[94] We disagree over grammar. SchroCat is quite active there. I edit 16 days after his most recent and am reverted within 2 minutes
[95] He reverts me within two minutes. He had never edited this page before.
[96] Common discussions at ANI
[97] I edit this 26 days after he did and am reverted within 36 minutes
[98] Heavily involved in disucssion at Mozart
[99] You're already familiar with that...

Cassianto

I don't have the willpower or time to do this part yet.

Conclusion

Please note that I did not want to bring this up. I like to let sleeping dogs lie. It has already been resolved by a sysop. I apoligzied if it resembled wikihounding and promised not to do similiar things again. Cass and SchoCat issued no such apology, but I'm cool with it. Our interests seemingly overlap, and, consequently, we edit similar articles. I believe most of these were coincidences. We sometimes even agree! I have an awful headache after going through all this... ~ HAL333 18:28, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Cassianto "Messer" is a personal attack. Could you please strike it. ~ HAL333 16:20, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by AlmostFrancis

That probation looks like not a great idea for anybody. It restricts users to one comment on any specific inclusion discussion but allows unlimited comments on general info-box policy everywhere else. That is basically an inducement to spread and expand the scope an argument as opposed to contain and de-escalate. Has it ever been succesful? AlmostFrancis (talk) 23:47, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Mclay1

There has been a lot of uncivil discussion in that RFC; I can't say that I-82-I is one of the main offenders (or even an offender at all). I made a few good faith attempts at furthering the discussion (I wouldn't at all call it bludgeoning), but once I was alerted to the sanctions, I stopped trying to participate in the discussion. SchroCat hid my replies to his comments, which was clearly a passive-aggressive move, not an attempt at defusing the situation. The fact that numerous editors disagreed with his move but he insisted on ignoring the objections and telling me to "piss off" justify I-82-I's actions. Maybe I-82-I took a step too far. This Arb discussion feels a bit extreme though. The conversation got a bit out of hand, but it seems like it's cooled off now. I don't see that any action is needed. M.Clay1 (talk) 07:03, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Cassianto: Not particularly. It's fairly self-explanatory. Both you and SchroCat have persisted in constant hounding of those who wish to discuss the infobox over the years, and I have no interest in this constant bickering any more. M.Clay1 (talk) 02:07, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Genuine question: Can Black Kite, Vanamonde93, Guerillero, Barkeep49 or another admin please explain how my replying to a few comments (about 4 out of 16 at the time) on an RFC is bludgeoning? With the exception of the one small conversation with SchroCat (whose behaviour I found warranting response), I did not press my point of view or attempt to draw out a response if someone chose to not respond to me. I was not aware there were any strange sanctions on infobox discussions. As I already said, after a few comments, I was alerted to the sanctions and stopped. If there is something I should do differently, I'm happy to listen, but I find the idea of imposing restrictions simply for being an active member of a discussion fairly ridiculous. Also, I'd like to point out that Frank Sinatra is the only page I've been involved in infobox discussions on (as far as I can remember); it's not like I'm some serial offender. I'm perfectly happy to chill out without needing a warning. MClay1 (talk) 15:08, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Vanamonde93, Barkeep49: It seems unfair to label my actions edit warring. When there was clear disagreement from multiple people over the edit, what were we supposed to do? Just allow it? If I continually altered your comments in this discussion, would you just let me or would you revert me? After SchroCat reverted three editors, I didn't continue the edit war; I made a compromise, which he also reverted. I then made a different compromise, even more in his favour, which he again reverted, until finally another editor reverted him and he left it. So clearly he was in the wrong. My edits were an attempt at dispute resolution. It's not like I could talk to him about it – him not wanting to talk was the issue to begin with and he told people not to ping him. And I didn't need to ask other another editor for assistance in the dispute, because other editors were already involved. If there was another course of action, I'm open to hearing it for next time. MClay1 (talk) 09:05, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Levivich

This is a ridiculously one sided report. SchroCat not only edit warred over this cot, they also edit warred previously over another thread about which image to have in the infobox. That was taken to ANI and Ritchie ~~closed~~ collapsed it as non actionable. In addition, SchroCat has posted uncivil statements, calling other editors "IB warriors" and so forth. This has been going on all summer long. There is one editor who is the most disruptive editor on that page and it's SchroCat, not I-82. And before we go and do a group sanction against three or four or five editors, why don't we just try sanctioning one? Sanction the editor who is doing the most edit warring and who has posted the most uncivil comments. Let me know if anyone wants diffs to help figure out who that is, but the history of the page makes it pretty clear to me. Le v!v ich 15:35, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I guess everyone should diff:

Round 1:

15:09 June 20 - Ikjbagl starts a thread entiteld "Why is the infobox hidden?"
20:16 June 20 - SchroCat one click archives the thread after responding to it. Total abuse of the one click archiver tool.

Round 2:

22:37 July 23 - HAL333 starts a thread
22:38 July 23 - one minute later, SchroCat one click archives it
22:47 July 23 - I restore it assuming it's a misclick
22:49 July 23 - two minutes later, SchroCat removes it again with the edit summary saying HAL333 is "someone determine to create disruption"
01:12 July 24 - HAL333 restores it with edit summary "This is really ridiculous and an absolute abuse of OneClickArchiver" (which is true)
05:48 July 24 - SchroCat removes the thread from the archives with the edit summary "As the troll has edit warred it back in, someone had better clear up after him"
The above was discussed at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1042#User:HAL333 PA at Frank Sinatra. Ritchie, my apologies I had remembered it as you closing the entire thread, but actually you just collapsed the section that addressed SchroCat's behavior, with the notation "That's enough, folks". (In that collapsed thread, SchroCat told me to "fuck off" twice, which some people still think is acceptable, so whatever.)

Round 3: (I'm not timestamping these, it takes too long, these are Aug 23 - 31)

[100] {{cot}} added by SchroCat with the reason Noise reduction
[101] removed by I-82
[102] reinstated by SchroCat (first time) with the edit summary ... Leave this pointless noise capped)
[103] removed by me
[104] reinstated by SchroCat (second time)
[105] removed by Mclay1
[106] reinstated by SchroCat (third time, against three different editors for those following along at home)
[107] moved (not removed) by Mclay1 so Mclay1's reply isn't collapsed
[108] moved back by SchroCat with the edit summary Just piss off. 1. I am entitled to collapse this; 2. The noise I’d not from me, but the bludgeoners and badgerers ... I have no idea why SchroCat thinks he is "entitled" to collapse other people's comments, but the sense of entitlement is clear
[109] Mclay1 changed the header from "Noise reduction" to "Further conversation"
[110] SchroCat puts it back to "Noise reduction" (!!!)
[111] Johnuniq (nb: who !voted oppose in the RFC) puts it back to "Further conversation"
[112] I-82 removes the {{cot}} (second time)
[113] Johnuniq restores it with the "Further conversation" header

Now, why the heck is this report against I-82 (who did not edit war or do anything disruptive) and not SchroCat (who is edit warring and showing extreme WP:OWNership of the page, going so far as to claim that he is "entitled" to collapse others' comments, and even edit war over blatantly-rude headers like "Noise reduction"? Le v!v ich 16:34, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Also, some admin should address Cassianto's section above, which is filled with personal attacks, aspersions, a refusal to diff those aspersions when asked, and followed by the amazingly un-self-aware "How dare you be so downright rude". I miss Sandstein's participation on this board; at least he'd address things like this not just ignore them as if they're normal. Le v!v ich 16:59, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Ritchie333: I can see the humor in it but I'm not sure about the humour ;-) Also, the kafkaesque insanity of a dispute about collapsing a section of a discussion about collapsing an infoxbox. Mostly I'm just embarrassed that this is what my life has become. Le v!v ich 17:27, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Cassianto: that was a misclick that I fixed in the next edit. Le v!v ich 17:27, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This is a report brought against I-82 based on a diff in which he reverted SchroCat. It seems everyone agrees that I-82's behavior is not sanctionable; also, I-82 has posted the retired template on his user page. Meanwhile, SchroCat scrambling their password renders all SchroCat behavioral questions moot. We've apparently lost both editors, which is a really unfortunate outcome. But it makes closing this report as no action easy. As to anyone else's conduct: no one has filed a complaint against anyone else, though anyone could have at any point, and still can if any disruption continues. But as of today there is no ongoing disruption relating to Frank Sinantra's infobox and no reason to think it's going to resume given the current circumstances. (Old Blue Eyes can now rest easy.) Le v!v ich 17:56, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Ealdgyth: Got any diffs to back up the constant pushing of boxes on pages where it's clear that there isn't consensus for them? Because I think that's a myth. I started the RfC and it was my first time ever suggesting adding an infobox to any article. I am tired of this constant phony accusation that there are people pushing info boxes. It may have been true years ago, but not today, and most importantly, not on this article. Le v!v ich 17:32, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Ikjbagl

I wanted to comment to corroborate the statement that Cassianto is fast to assume bad faith and bias in this area and to summarize my interactions with SchroCat regarding this subject.

After only two comments (really two questions), Cassianto accused me of being "obsessive" over the Sinatra infobox. ([114]) I have never participated in an infobox discussion (that I can remember) before I discovered by chance that the Sinatra infobox was collapsed, so I held up the mirror and it revealed how obsessed with the subject Cassianto is; ([115]) SchroCat then quickly deleted my comment, replacing it with a warning that something uncivil had been in its place. (archive as it shows now, with insinuation that I was uncivil or impolite: [116]) That action was inappropriate and ridiculous; it is ridiculous to think that linking ArbCom pages for context (when someone else wrongfully accuses you of being obsessive) is a personal attack, and it is inappropriate to delete my comment and leave a message that insinuates I was uncivil or impolite. I really can't think of a reason to delete the comment other than to hide exposure of a bias or involvement. SchroCat proceeded to come annoy me on my talk page. ([117])

Schrocat then prematurely archived the entire discussion I had started. ([118]) I wanted to leave a notice that a discussion had been prematurely archived from the location, and both SchroCat and Cassianto came by to leave comments. ([119])

Now in this newer Sinatra episode, SchroCat thought it was appropriate to say in an edit summary on my talk page that I was "on thin ice" for casting "slurs" at people. ([120]) This is after SchroCat threw a (not-so-)underhanded insult in my direction when they told me that I was "struggl[ing] to deal with things [I] can't understand" (referring to a silly infobox discussion). ([121]) When I again held up the mirror and pointed out that Schrocat was actually the one casting "slurs" (at me) and personalizing the discussion ("IB warriors", etc.), I was simply told to "bugger off" (and the edit summary accused ME of "tedious baiting/trolling"). ([122])

While this behavior might not quite rise to Wikipedia's standard for incivility, it is certainly not civil. Ikjbagl (talk) 23:36, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I just learned that SchroCat was complaining about me pinging them. ([123]) To put it out there for the record, I DID NOT know that SchroCat had put out a request not to be pinged. I now see that SchroCat requested not to be pinged by SOMEBODY ELSE. ([124]) It's a little unfair to expect me to know (by telepathy?) that SchroCat made a request of somebody else, and to know that I wasn't allowed to reply to SchroCat (particularly when SchroCat had JUST promised to give me "the last word" ([125])). Ikjbagl (talk) 04:46, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

And Ritchie333, I mean you no disrespect, but I would be remiss not to address your participation in that discussion. You explicitly said that you weren't going to take action because of a result you wanted to achieve in an RFC. ("I'm not going to take any action on that because I'd like somebody to close the RfC with the inevitable "no consensus"") That does not seem appropriate AT ALL; I'm not familiar with Wikipedia rules on administrators, but basing your determination of whether to use administrative privileges on your preferred outcome for an RFC seems like an incredibly serious abuse of those privileges.

You also basically said that the reason you weren't going to take action on the page is that you didn't want to take action against SchroCat, meaning that the limit of behavior you were willing to accept was effectively determined by what you were willing to let SchroCat get away with (and that you might otherwise sanction "any other editor on that thread [SchroCat] might want [you] to"). ("it pretty much makes it impossible for me to sanction any other editor on that thread that you might want me to, because all they've got to do is say "aha, but why didn't you sanction SchroCat for telling another editor to bugger off?" and I'd have to do it, if nothing else to be fair.") Again, this seems like an incredibly serious abuse of administrative privileges.

You made these statements on SchroCat's talk page AFTER you had taken a side on the issue by voting in the RFC (well, if "neutral" is a side), which makes this seem even worse. I'll repeat that I don't know the Wikipedia rules about administrators, and that this behavior could be completely innocuous, but I don't see how that could be the case. It seems like a serious conflict of interest to even muse about using administrative privileges in an RFC where you had already voted, let alone to say that your determination of whether to exercise those privileges was based on the outcome you wanted. Ikjbagl (talk) 04:46, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by GoodDay

IP 73.193.59.165 was the only individual who attempted to uncollapse (via edit-warring) the infobox-in-question, during the ongoing Rfc. So, let's get back to concentrating on the Rfc-in-question, which still has about 2.5 weeks to go. Even the South Korean Parliament eventually passes or rejects bills, despite any individual disputes :) GoodDay (talk) 00:13, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

BTW: Why are some of you describing your posts in your edit summaries here, as replying to yourselves? It's rather confusing. GoodDay (talk) 14:57, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

May we shut this report down, seeing as I-28-I has been blocked? GoodDay (talk) 22:42, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Moxy

Same people now fighting the next generation of new editors.--Moxy 🍁 11:23, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Result concerning I-82-I

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

I have no idea what to do here and in am interested to hear ideas --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 15:32, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- To be honest? I agree with you that I have no ideas. The two I can come up with are punting it back to ArbCom or banning the whole lot of the disputants from infoboxes.. both pro and anti box folks. But neither of those probably are very GOOD solutions. --Ealdgyth (talk) 17:30, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  @Ealdgyth: My current thought is something along the lines of "I-82-I, SchroCat, HAL333, Lepricavark, and Mclay1 are under infobox probation" but I really just want to restrict them all to a single comment in these sorts of RfCs. I'm seeing a ton of bludgeoning going on. --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 23:14, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  - I could live with that. Is there anyone else that keeps cropping up that needs some probation also? --Ealdgyth (talk) 23:17, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    - The whole area is just plain toxic. Cass has a point that folks keep pushing for infoboxes, but some of the folks opposed to infoboxes (whether in all cases or in some cases) often react ... badly... to even the mildest suggestion of an infobox. We need to stop both extremes - the constant pushing of boxes on pages where it's clear that there isn't consensus for them, while also stopping the incivility in the whole area. I'm not sure that the infobox probation will solve either situation. But ... to be frank, the incivility present and the behavior exhibited here are certainly not making me want to deal with anyone involved. --Ealdgyth (talk) 16:30, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      - I did not say that anyone mentioned here was constantly pushing infoboxes. Across many pages lacking infoboxes, there are indeed a steady trickle of "why doesn't this article have an infobox" discussions. That doesn't mean that anyone mentioned here is going article to article starting those discussions. They just happen, usually from folks not involved in them at other articles. --Ealdgyth (talk) 17:47, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Apologies, Lepricavark I accidentally included you --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 23:25, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Cassianto: I'm not an arb, I am a random administrator and I am trying to find a way forward in this situation using the tools that I have available to me. In response to your accusations about Lepricavark, provide diffs or remove your comments. --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 14:42, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Cassianto: Ok boomer --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 16:05, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
My feelings about editing while logged out to avoid scrutiny can be found in quite a few block logs --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 15:22, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I made an error, Vanamonde93. I included Lepricavark incorrectly. FWIF, I agree with the rest of your thoughts and proposals --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 14:38, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Black Kite: That sounds correct to me and is in line with the evidence --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 14:42, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I can't really see anything actionable against I-82-I here based on the full talk page discussion. All three contributions to it are easily civil, and unhatting a section that was being editwar collapsed by SchroCat seems far. A trout at worst. I'm more worried about the actions of SchroCat which are decidedly not civil in edit summaries (per the decision), but even then, that's hard to find something actionable. The only matter and this goes to the first stated by Guerillero is that maybe that a needed addition to the case is an anti-bludgeon statement, in that when there are RFCs that are properly opened about when an article should have an infobox or not or collapse or uncollapse an existing one, that editors are strongly cautioned from responding to other !votes repeatedly, and even if there's a discussion section on the RFC, from flooding that with comments. The arguments pro and con on infoboxes have been long laid out, and so the discussions should focus on what's changed since any prior RFC, and should not require rehashing "why this does/doesn't need an infobox" in the RFC !votes. If editors bludgeons others with that type of repeated comments that might be something that action could be taken on, but that would have to go through ArbCom to affirm, I'd guess, not here. This incident, I can't see an immediate action beyond trouts. --Masem (t) 14:33, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- And a wholly separate note, many things have changed since the last site-wide discussions of infoboxes in general (Wikidata, how Google and other search engines present info, etc.) I am not saying we need to reconsider the position (presently, per-article determination) now, but this is something we may need to re-address sooner than later, but that's well beyond the scope here. --Masem (t) 14:40, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  Masem, oh $DEITY please no. The problem is that then we either get inappropriate infoboxes crowbarred into articles (casting batshit insane YouTube videos as "films" for example) or we end up with a totally unmanageable sprawl of infoboxes for every conceivable compromise of what something is. Guy (help! - typo?) 12:52, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  That would be issues to work out in the re-evaluation (what topic families are unsuited for infoboxes, what type of infoboxes are actually needed rather than forcing existing ones into working for niche areas, etc.) but again, well beyond this discussion and not a simple yes-no question. --Masem (t) 13:32, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Placeholder to say I intend to comment here, but would like to read through the page history since June when this thing blew up, and that will take me a little while since I'm also at work. Vanamonde (Talk) 20:06, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I have now read through the entire talk page history since June, and that's a few hours of my life I'm never going to get back. There's a number of editors whose behavior has been consistently below par. SchroCat has been consistently uncivil. HAL333 and Mclay1 have bludgeoned the discussion at Talk:Frank Sinatra. I-82-I has also not behaved very well, but unless there's more history that I'm not seeing, I don't think their two bad edits are sanctionable. A logged warning is what I would recommend.
I don't see evidence that sanctions are necessary against Lepricavark either; is there evidence I am missing? @Guerillero:, I agree that the other three users need infobox probation, or at the very least a 1-comment-per-infobox-thread restriction. For his entirely unnecessary edit-warring over the collapse tag and abuse of the one-click archiver, I would additionally restrict Schrocat from modifying, removing, or hiding other users' contributions to discussions about infoboxes (which should be allowed by the infobox DS regime).
Also, though the incivility has largely been on the part of those arguing for a collapsed infobox, they do have a point about endless discussion and bludgeoning on that talk page, and this is something we can address; the DS regime gives us enough leeway to limit discussions intended to change the consensus on the infobox to once every so often (two years? three?).
Finally, Cassianto has been quite uncivil with very little provocation, both on the talk page and in this discussion. He's already on infobox probation, and it seems not to have made one whit of difference. I'm struggling to think of an effective solution less draconian than an infobox TBAN.
JzG, I don't see how you're coming to the conclusion that there's no sanctionable behavior here; just the edit-warring over the collapse template is bad enough, IMO. Barkeep49, I really don't think this is ripe for arbitration. There's no complex history here that requires weeks of perusing the evidence; just intemperate and/or pushy behavior. Vanamonde (Talk) 05:51, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Barkeep49: re: HAL333; I read once again through the diffs I compiled yesterday, and I still feel a warning is insufficient. While most of their comments were fine, there were enough instances of incivility, bludgeoning, pot-stirring, and other behavior exhibiting a battleground attitude. I made a list of diffs, and will supply it if requested, but don't want to let this become a prolonged argument over specific diffs; the behavior is patently obvious when you read the page history at one sitting. While I appreciate that both HAL333 and Mclay1 have now committed to recalibrating somewhat, the fact that this came after sanctions were being considered diminishes greatly the weight it carries with me. I would warn I-82-I for needlessly inflaming the situation.
@Guerillero: re: Lepricavark, thanks. re: I-81-I: does this mean you agree with me about a warning vs a sanction? @Black Kite: I do not see where anyone besides SchroCat has unnecessarily modified or removed other editors' comments. Mclay1 edit-warred over the collapse tag, but that behavior is covered by infobox probation. I'd also be interested to hear Ealdgyth's take on all of this, since she commented earlier. Vanamonde (Talk) 16:15, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Barkeep49: The utterly pointless edit-warring over the collapse tag happened after Mclay1 had been alerted. Vanamonde (Talk) 16:42, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Honestly, I think this is one of those cases where everyone should just have a nice cup of tea and a sit down. The trajectory of the dispute is towards sanctionable behaviour but it's not there yet and the best result for all concerned would be to calm down. Guy (help! - typo?) 12:49, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure comprehensively reading this, the discussion on Sinatra, and assorted diffs was the best use of my Wikipedia time but it's time I've now spent. As this discussion has turned towards looking at SchroCat I have notified them of this discussion. That said I think this discussion is too sprawling for this forum and think it is better served at ArbCom Appeals or as a new case request. FWIW, I don't find any issue with I-82's conduct here and would be opposed to sanctions against them. Barkeep49 (talk) 20:44, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Cassianto, please restore the notification I left Schrocat. Schrocat has certainly left right now. But we both know many who leave return after some time away. That time can be short (a cool down day) or long (weeks, months, years). There is clearly discussion above about sanctioning Schocat and out of fairness they should know that. Thanks, Barkeep49 (talk) 21:53, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough Vanamonde but I'm just not seeing what we would warn I-82 for or maybe I do see it and just have have a hard time seeing that it rises to the level of a formal warning. What are you seeing as the warning encompassing?
In terms of Mclay and HAL (both of whom I've alerted specifically in regards to sanctions being proposed for them), while reading the thread initially I didn't find either's comments particularly BLUDGEONy. However, in rereading it with that mindset, I will admit that I find Mclay's participation could qualify as disruptive in a way that infobox probation would be warranted. Despite HAL having more overall comments, I find their edits less disruptive; they don't tend to engage in repeated discussion with those who disagree, for instance, their comments were cited approvingly by at least one editor as helpful, and I see efforts (outside their interaction with SN) at lowering the temperature of the discussion. So I could support infobox probation for Mclay and a warning for HAL about bludgeoning discussions.
I like Vanamonde's proposal for Schrocat. As for Cassianto, I really think his vision of incivility is at odds with the community as a whole. This is why so many people accuse him of it and why he is so mystified when nothing happens when he sees it in others. I wish he could magically align better given all the value he adds and the obvious frustration it causes him, when he sees it in others, and others, when they see it in him. As for what it means here, I dunno. Barkeep49 (talk) 14:52, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@M.clay1: I really dislike labeling editor's participation as BLUDGEONing and intentionally labeled what I saw from you in that discussion as disruptive editing. The five replies I saw from you (not counting the reply to your own participation) did not, in my reading, help further the discussion and at times raised the temperature whether you meant to or not. That said your comment about not having been involved in infobox made me think. Vanamonde (or others) I see M.clay was given a DS aware at 07:00, 23 August 2020. As far as I can tell he only made 1 subsequent contribution to the conversation, a reply to himself. That feels like very weak evidence upon which to impose infobox probation. Given the spirit behind DS Awareness is for situations where an editor might not realize just how fraught or contentious a topic is - like Guy said on his talk page the infobox wars are massive festival of lameness - or how at risk of sanction they are. Barkeep49 (talk) 16:34, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Vanamonde93: so it was. There's another reason, Mclay1 (sorry for the bad ping above) why we're ending up where we are. Barkeep49 (talk) 16:48, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

So having read the links by HAL, I've come to the conclusion that he's a fine editor. But so so many of the infobox people are fine editors and infobox probation was designed to be a way for them to participate in infobox discussions without causing other issues. I have seen enough to support that for HAL. Cassianto is also a fine editor but I would support Vanamonde's remedy (someone should let him know that this is being discussed because, despite his latest post here, he has indicated to me that he's not paying close attention while also asking me to ping him about this discussion). SchroCat has scrambled their password, but that wouldn't prevent a new account so I, reluctantly, support Vanamonde's remedy for him too. I-82 has been CU blocked. I think that's everyone who has been seriously discussed here and per Black Kite, takes a look at the totality. I am planning, outside of anything directed at me, for this to be my last comment here given how many bytes I've already used. Barkeep49 (talk) 22:51, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Mclay1: you discuss or go to a conduct forum. Barkeep49 (talk) 12:54, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I would be opposed to any action against SchroCat here without equivalent action against some of the editors (Hal333 and Mclay1 at least) mentioned above on the "other" side, as pointed out by Vanamonde above. One-sided action is almost always unproductive in cases like these. Black Kite (talk) 07:44, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Cassianto, this infobox dispute is just not something I want to engage at this time. As a volunteer, I don't think that (inaction) discredits me in any way. El_C 20:00, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Guerillero, I think it was inappropriate of you to respond with "Ok boomer" — I think it is important for admins to maintain decorum, especially when responding to AE requests. El_C 22:21, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
El C, I disagree. I see that as, at very most, the most harmless of harmless jabs. Moneytrees🏝️^{Talk🌴Help out at CCI!} 23:44, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I dunno, it seems like an identity-based non sequitur — how does it help? El_C 23:46, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It just doesn't cross into npa I think. Moneytrees🏝️^{Talk🌴Help out at CCI!} 02:36, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I think greater sensitivity and decorum is called for, Moneytrees, regardless of how you define it. El_C 02:42, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

El C, I guess I understand that, for me it feels like there's more egregious things going on here to label as uncivil. But whatever, you can have your opinion. I'm sure we agree on much more important issues. (You know that sounded friendlier in my head but now that I'm reading I kind of sound like a dick head)Moneytrees🏝️^{Talk🌴Help out at CCI!} 02:45, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Moneytrees, no, not at all. And you may well be right. I have not yet had a chance to review this request closely. El_C 02:49, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Noting that I’ve CU blocked I-82-I for vandalism and abuse. No comment on the rest of the situation (also work is crazy, so unlikely to be responsive to pings.) TonyBallioni (talk) 22:17, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Worth a ping though - @TonyBallioni: - is I-82-I a sock of a known banned editor, and if so who? This might be relevant. Black Kite (talk) 00:52, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Black Kite, there was inappropriate logged out editing on multiple IP addresses within the 90 day CU window. No accounts identified, but it was enough to block when taken as a whole. I wouldn’t necessarily oppose an unblock if there was a good appeal, but there’s also not much use of a 1 week block when someone claims to have retired and there’s evidence of logged out disruption. Indefinite in this case does not necessarily mean infinite. I can’t link to any particular IP because of the privacy policy. TonyBallioni (talk) 01:24, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

[1] The administrator may indicate consent at any time before, during, or after imposition of the restriction.

[2] 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.

[a]

[b]

@@ Line 518: / Line 518: @@
 ==I-82-I==
+{{hat|{{u|I-82-I}} has been blocked for sockpuppetry due to logged-out editing while under scrutiny. Based on this and the discussion below, I-82-I is further subject to an indefinite topic ban from the subject of infoboxes. This applies to the person using the I-82-I account, and precludes [[WP:CLEANSTART]]. '''[[user:JzG|Guy]]''' <small>([[user talk:JzG|help!]] - [[User:JzG/Typos|typo?]])</small> 21:45, 5 September 2020 (UTC)}}
-<small>''This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below. <br />Requests may not exceed 500 [[Word count#Software|words]] and 20 diffs (not counting required information), except by permission of a reviewing administrator.''</small>
 ===Request concerning I-82-I===
@@ Line 790: / Line 790: @@
 :* Worth a ping though - {{reply to|TonyBallioni}} - is I-82-I a sock of a known banned editor, and if so who?  This might be relevant. [[User_talk:Black Kite|Black Kite (talk)]] 00:52, 5 September 2020 (UTC)
 ::*{{u|Black Kite}}, there was inappropriate logged out editing on multiple IP addresses within the 90 day CU window. No accounts identified, but it was enough to block when taken as a whole. I wouldn’t necessarily oppose an unblock if there was a good appeal, but there’s also not much use of a 1 week block when someone claims to have retired and there’s evidence of logged out disruption. Indefinite in this case does not necessarily mean infinite. I can’t link to any particular IP because of the privacy policy. [[User:TonyBallioni|TonyBallioni]] ([[User talk:TonyBallioni|talk]]) 01:24, 5 September 2020 (UTC)
+{{hab}}

v t e Noticeboards
Wikipedia's centralized discussion, request, and help venues. For a listing of ongoing discussions and current requests, see the dashboard. For a related set of forums which do not function as noticeboards see formal review processes.
General	Administrators Main Incidents Bots Bureaucrats Centralized discussion Closure requests Education Interface admins Main Page errors Open proxies VRT Oversight User permissions
Articles and content	Biographies of living persons Copyrights Questions on media Problems Dispute resolution External links Fringe theories Neutral point of view Original research Pending changes Reliable sources Resource requests Scalable vector graphics Spam Blacklist Whitelist Style Titleblacklist Translation
Page handling	History merges Mergers Splits Moves Protection Importation XfD Articles Redirects Categories Templates Files Miscellany Undeletion
User conduct	Conflict of interest Contributor copyright Edit warring and 3RR Sanctions Personal restrictions General sanctions Contentious topics Sockpuppets Usernames (Requests for comment) Vandalism
Other	Arbitration Committee noticeboard Requests Enforcement Edit filters Requested False positives Questions Help desk Teahouse Reference desk New articles Requests for comment Village pump Policy Technical Proposals Idea lab WMF Miscellaneous WikiProject proposals Discussions for discussion
Category:Wikipedia noticeboards